• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Huntsman objects to ad featuring adopted kids

radcen

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Huntsman objects to ad featuring adopted kids

Huntsman objects to ad featuring adopted kids - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

The article doesn't say who sponsored this ad, but it does suggest that there was no, "I am Ron Paul and I approve this ad." tagline at the end. Makes me wonder if it was some faceless entity like "Americans for Freedom Whether You Like It or Not" group. If so, this just reinforces my believe that the whole non-person entity has political free speech rights is bogus and needs to be changed. I would be perfectly fine with changing it to being that only people could do these things. Anything could still be said (short of slander/libel), but an actual living breathing person(s) would have to put their name behind it.
 
I don't think Senator Paul is a racist, but the man needs to start doing a Hell of a lot better job keeping his bitches in check. He needs to get out in front of this.
 
The ad is probably not Paul's fault, though in this election that kind of thing will be impossible to know for sure. However, if I was in charge, the people who did make this ad would be up against the wall. That is stooping just way too low.
 
Paul Campaign Denounces 'Disgusting' Anti-Huntsman Ad

Texas Rep. Ron Paul's presidential campaign on Friday denounced a pro-Paul ad posted on YouTube as "disgusting" for using images of Jon Huntsman's adopted daughters and calling the former Utah governor a "Manchurian candidate."

"The video is disgusting. Whoever put that up should remove it immediately," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told Politico in an email.

The video was posted on YouTube by a user named NHLiberty4Paul. There is no indication it was sanctioned by the Paul campaign.​



Looks like it was designed more to hurt Paul than it was Huntsman via the bad press it would inevitably and obviously get. Not to mention the fact that smear ads almost always go to those in front of you. Not behind you. NH polls show Huntsman at 9% and Paul at 17%. Makes no sense to waste effort smearing those already losing to you.
 
Last edited:
poweRob said:
Paul Campaign Denounces 'Disgusting' Anti-Huntsman Ad

Texas Rep. Ron Paul's presidential campaign on Friday denounced a pro-Paul ad posted on YouTube as "disgusting" for using images of Jon Huntsman's adopted daughters and calling the former Utah governor a "Manchurian candidate."

"The video is disgusting. Whoever put that up should remove it immediately," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told Politico in an email.

The video was posted on YouTube by a user named NHLiberty4Paul. There is no indication it was sanctioned by the Paul campaign.​



Looks like it was designed more to hurt Paul than it was Huntsman via the bad press it would inevitably and obviously get. Not to mention the fact that smear ads almost always go to those in front of you. Not behind you. NH polls show Huntsman at 9% and Paul at 17%. Makes no sense to waste effort smearing those already losing to you.
Click to expand...

Nah, I think it's too conspiratorial to say it was done to hurt Ron Paul.

I think it likely that whoever it is is a Ron Paul supporter and did it to do an easy negative ad at one of Paul's opponents. But the guy is stupid to have done so. And, let's tell the truth, there's a lot of stupid people who get involved in political campaigns and try to "help."
 
samsmart said:
Nah, I think it's too conspiratorial to say it was done to hurt Ron Paul.

I think it likely that whoever it is is a Ron Paul supporter and did it to do an easy negative ad at one of Paul's opponents. But the guy is stupid to have done so. And, let's tell the truth, there's a lot of stupid people who get involved in political campaigns and try to "help."
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me one bit that an overly fervent Paul supporting basement nerd did this. Cutting and pasting the frames stating "I'm Ron Paul and I support this message" at the end... going all the way.
 
poweRob said:
Looks like it was designed more to hurt Paul than it was Huntsman via the bad press it would inevitably and obviously get. Not to mention the fact that smear ads almost always go to those in front of you. Not behind you. NH polls show Huntsman at 9% and Paul at 17%. Makes no sense to waste effort smearing those already losing to you.
Click to expand...

Try 18-16 lead for Paul with Huntsman closing...

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_NH_108.pdf
 
radcen said:
The article doesn't say who sponsored this ad, but it does suggest that there was no, "I am Ron Paul and I approve this ad." tagline at the end. Makes me wonder if it was some faceless entity like "Americans for Freedom Whether You Like It or Not" group. If so, this just reinforces my believe that the whole non-person entity has political free speech rights is bogus and needs to be changed. I would be perfectly fine with changing it to being that only people could do these things. Anything could still be said (short of slander/libel), but an actual living breathing person(s) would have to put their name behind it.
Click to expand...

Um, last time I checked, people created and bought ads, not machines or corporations.

They may have done so anonymously, but that's a different issue. I think they have every right to.

This is called freedom of speech. It's just the same as if someone made a comment about his daughters here on this site, and that would be anonymous too.
 
Last edited:
misterman said:
Um, last time I checked, people created and bought ads, not machines or corporations.

They may have done so anonymously, but that's a different issue. I think they have every right to.

This is called freedom of speech. It's just the same as if someone made a comment about his daughters here on this site, and that would be anonymous too.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is freedom of speech. But we have the right and the duty to express our distain for smear campaigns. I have the "right" to call you an *******; but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have consequences.
 
Last edited:
If someone thought they were scoring points against Huntsman by producing this they screwed up big time. Nothing like demonstrating the character of the candidate you support by showing yourself to be a total douche bag. There was a time when children were off limits. And just what is the point you think you are scoring attacking parents for adopting Asian children?

This also speaks a bit towards Ron Paul. The whole "gosh...I didnt know what was in my newsletters...for...10 years" excuse starts to wear thin...just as does the "well...gosh...I cant really control what my 'supporters' produce". Maybe Mr Paul CANT control what someone produces, but he can very publicly rip them a brand new asshole.
 
Last edited:
This is the "beauty" of that wonderful Citizens United decision. Negative ads have always been effective, but there was at least the chance that they could backfire if they went too far. Now the most outrageous ads can be run by a candidate's superPAC, doing the damage, while the candidate breathlessly denounces the ad and escapes the risk of possible blowback.
 
MaggieD said:
Yes, it is freedom of speech. But we have the right and the duty to express our distain for smear campaigns.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the part where he advocates overturning a fundamental Constitutional right:

If so, this just reinforces my believe that the whole non-person entity has political free speech rights is bogus and needs to be changed.
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
This is the "beauty" of that wonderful Citizens United decision. Negative ads have always been effective, but there was at least the chance that they could backfire if they went too far. Now the most outrageous ads can be run by a candidate's superPAC, doing the damage, while the candidate breathlessly denounces the ad and escapes the risk of possible blowback.
Click to expand...

So what? If he didn't run the ad, he's not responsible for it. (If he did somehow secretly coordinate running the ad with a Super-PAC, that would be illegal).
 
Ironic that such an ad attacks the GOP candidate calling for re-establishing a sense of trust/integrity in our elected leaders and government in general. Why has politics stooped so low, and what ever happened to discussing the issues facing America rather than pointing fingers at one another?!
 
im wondering if people will read post 11. Oh well..
 
radcen said:
The article doesn't say who sponsored this ad, but it does suggest that there was no, "I am Ron Paul and I approve this ad." tagline at the end. Makes me wonder if it was some faceless entity like "Americans for Freedom Whether You Like It or Not" group. If so, this just reinforces my believe that the whole non-person entity has political free speech rights is bogus and needs to be changed. I would be perfectly fine with changing it to being that only people could do these things. Anything could still be said (short of slander/libel), but an actual living breathing person(s) would have to put their name behind it.
Click to expand...
According to the constitution you have the right to free speech and you have the right to peacefully assemble.A group is an assemblage of persons. This doesn't matter if you are the NRA,ACLU, GOA,GLAAD, workers union,corporation, political group or any other group of people. The 1st amendment does not say you can only choose to do one of these things.So you can form a peaceful assembly of people and have free speech or you can go to church and endorse a candidate.
 
misterman said:
So what? If he didn't run the ad, he's not responsible for it. (If he did somehow secretly coordinate running the ad with a Super-PAC, that would be illegal).
Click to expand...

The so what is that we have no way of knowing if there was any direct coordination, and beyond that, there doesn't have to be direct coordination in order to make this thing work. The superPACs are generally run by former staffers and supporters who know how to play the game. Just because there may be plausible deniability doesn't mean that the system isn't rotten.
 
jamesrage said:
According to the constitution you have the right to free speech and you have the right to peacefully assemble.A group is an assemblage of persons. This doesn't matter if you are the NRA,ACLU, GOA,GLAAD, workers union,corporation, political group or any other group of people. The 1st amendment does not say you can only choose to do one of these things.So you can form a peaceful assembly of people and have free speech or you can go to church and endorse a candidate.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And, to heat up the irony even more, some of those groups - such as the ACLU! - are actually incorporated.
 
AdamT said:
The so what is that we have no way of knowing if there was any direct coordination,
Click to expand...

A prosecutor or the FBI or the FEC would investigate any allegations of coordination just like they do with any other crime.

and beyond that, there doesn't have to be direct coordination in order to make this thing work. The superPACs are generally run by former staffers and supporters who know how to play the game. Just because there may be plausible deniability doesn't mean that the system isn't rotten.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's rotten, but that doesn't make it constitutional to regulate it. Gee, political speech is ugly sometimes? Get used to it.
 
Last edited:
jasonxe said:
im wondering if people will read post 11. Oh well..
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if you're expecting people to act like a story from "the end run", whose first line is whining about the "Establishment Media" , and then proceeds to quote of all websites "Infowars", while making a lot of claims based on specious evidence is some sort of gospel truth.
 
AdamT said:
This is the "beauty" of that wonderful Citizens United decision. Negative ads have always been effective, but there was at least the chance that they could backfire if they went too far. Now the most outrageous ads can be run by a candidate's superPAC, doing the damage, while the candidate breathlessly denounces the ad and escapes the risk of possible blowback.
Click to expand...

This is what Scalia thought our Founders envisioned. :lol:
 
misterman said:
Maybe it's rotten, but that doesn't make it constitutional to regulate it. Gee, political speech is ugly sometimes? Get used to it.
Click to expand...

I never said that it was constitutional to regulate it, under existing precedent. That's why we need a constitutional amendment to fix this enormous problem. IMO it is the biggest problem we face. "Get used to it" isn't really an option, in my opinion. We're either going to fix it or it's going to destroy this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom