• 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!

GOP Campaign ad exploits Foley's beheading

DifferentDrummr

Bald eagle
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
7,437
Reaction score
1,950
Location
Confirmation Bias Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just when you thought Republican campaign tactics couldn't sink any lower:

In the video released Monday by Allen Weh, the Republican running against Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), Weh's campaign tears into both President Barack Obama and Udall for their alleged lack of leadership in the world.

An audio clip of Obama promising to be dedicated to his job is mixed with images of violence abroad and Obama on vacation. Foley's killer appears for just a few frames in the video, which was flagged Monday afternoon by CNN.

Weh's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment...



Read more: Allen Weh Ad Features Killer Of James Foley - Business Insider


The ad in question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTG3NacV9co&list=UUZCJHdziE3NT5OdaQPefUBA
 
Is there really any question left about the ineptitude and complete lack of leadership teeing off on the 6th hole right now?
 
Is there really any question left about the ineptitude and complete lack of leadership teeing off on the 6th hole right now?

The Senator from New Mexico has WHAT to do with Foley? Maybe you can answer THAT question.
 
Which has what to do with a Senate race in New Mexico?

The Senator from New Mexico has WHAT to do with Foley? Maybe you can answer THAT question.

It seems the ad is attempting to suggest that there's a systemic lack of leadership in government as it relates to the party opposite of him and said lack of leadership is contributing to (or making us unable to help prevent, however you want to look at it) the issues of unrest abroad that have been at the forefront recently of american foreign policy.

As such, the poster seems to be pointing out that he thinks the ad is legitimate (seemingly) because he thinks the critique on the lack of leadership as legitimate.

Even if you disagree with him it's not hard in the least to understand how his post relates to the topic at hand. The ad was critiquing democratic leadership in washington, the article was critiquing the ad, the poster was agreeing with the ad's suggestion of a lack of democratic leadership in washington.
 
"Never let a good crisis go to waste"
 
It seems the ad is attempting to suggest that there's a systemic lack of leadership in government as it relates to the party opposite of him and said lack of leadership is contributing to (or making us unable to help prevent, however you want to look at it) the issues of unrest abroad that have been at the forefront recently of american foreign policy.

As such, the poster seems to be pointing out that he thinks the ad is legitimate (seemingly) because he thinks the critique on the lack of leadership as legitimate.

Even if you disagree with him it's not hard in the least to understand how his post relates to the topic at hand. The ad was critiquing democratic leadership in washington, the article was critiquing the ad, the poster was agreeing with the ad's suggestion of a lack of democratic leadership in washington.

I will agree there is a lack of leadership in Washington, however, a senator from New Mexico has very little (if anything) to do with Foley. It was in poor taste to even bring it up in that way in the ad. Also, just to be clear, there is failed leadership PERIOD in Washington D.C. and it is BOTH parties responsible. I know you are not in the one side good one side bad ideology so I'm not accusing you of this. The failure in Washington is the fact that neither side is taking responsibility for THEIR actions and instead just chooses to lay ALL blame to the other. These elementary school antics are only going to hurt the U.S. further.
 
It seems the ad is attempting to suggest that there's a systemic lack of leadership in government as it relates to the party opposite of him and said lack of leadership is contributing to (or making us unable to help prevent, however you want to look at it) the issues of unrest abroad that have been at the forefront recently of american foreign policy.

As such, the poster seems to be pointing out that he thinks the ad is legitimate (seemingly) because he thinks the critique on the lack of leadership as legitimate.

Even if you disagree with him it's not hard in the least to understand how his post relates to the topic at hand. The ad was critiquing democratic leadership in washington, the article was critiquing the ad, the poster was agreeing with the ad's suggestion of a lack of democratic leadership in washington.

There's nothing wrong with an ad suggesting a lack of leadership. There is a hell of a lot that's wrong with an ad that uses Foley and ISIS as some kind of sideshow to help convey that message.
 
There's nothing wrong with an ad suggesting a lack of leadership. There is a hell of a lot that's wrong with an ad that uses Foley and ISIS as some kind of sideshow to help convey that message.

Like using the Iraq war and dead servicemen to push Democrat campaigns?
 
Just when you thought Republican campaign tactics couldn't sink any lower:




The ad in question:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTG3NacV9co&list=UUZCJHdziE3NT5OdaQPefUBA

That is exploiting a beheading?

That is a class ad and accurate. It uses the president own self aggrandizing words and voice against a backdrop of his the leisure activities he says a president must forgo.

I see nothing in here that would even qualify as an attack.

As usual, the progressives in the US, so fond of demonizing everyone from Sarah Palin to Mitt Romney, now gets a mild rebuff that is almost complimentary in comparison and they scream "foul!"

Take it and like it, its going to get get much, much worse.
 
Like using the Iraq war and dead servicemen to push Democrat campaigns?

I don't approve of either major party using images of soldiers getting shot or coming home in flag-draped coffins as part of a campaign ad. That's pandering.

War itself, of course, is fair game because it's policy.
 
I don't approve of either major party using images of soldiers getting shot or coming home in flag-draped coffins as part of a campaign ad. That's pandering.

War itself, of course, is fair game because it's policy.

Well, politicking on dead bodies won the Democrats the White House.
 
I will agree there is a lack of leadership in Washington, however, a senator from New Mexico has very little (if anything) to do with Foley.

I agree. That's why, by the sounds of it, Foley was in very little of the video. Apparently he showed up in a few frames. Watching the video it appears that the picture in question is on the screen for a bit under 2 seconds out of the 61 second ad spot. The ad wasn't about Foley, it was about the candidates opinion of the lack of leadership in washington in the face of the foreign policy crisises facing us (of which foley is a part of).

It was in poor taste to even bring it up in that way in the ad.

Absolutely, I agree with you about the poor taste especially this soon after. That doesn't change the fact that it's completely topical, as it relates to the ad in question and the message it's imparting, to refer to that situation or to refer to ones opinion about the lack of leadership in the washington.

I wasn't making an argument that it was in good taste. I was making an argument that the seeming confusion over how Obama's leadership or actions were relevant to the ad was ridiculous. Erod's post, whether you agree with it or not, was directly topical to what the ad was referencing.

Also, just to be clear, there is failed leadership PERIOD in Washington D.C. and it is BOTH parties responsible.

Absolutely, but this ad's focus was on ONE party (as most campaign ads are) and Erod's point that you and the other poster responded to incredulously was addressing the message of the ad.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with an ad suggesting a lack of leadership. There is a hell of a lot that's wrong with an ad that uses Foley and ISIS as some kind of sideshow to help convey that message.

Which is a great response to a strawman but not to my post.

I wasn't suggesting it was wrong to criticize the ad's use of Foley and ISIS. I suggested it was ridiculous to question how Erod's comment about leadership in washington "had to do with the senate race in new mexico" in a thread talking about an ad for hte senate race in new mexico that's focus was on leadership in washington.

Erod's point made PERFECT sense as it relates to his opinion and to the ad in the OP. Disagreeing with his opinion makes sense, agreeing with his opinion and still thinking it was in bad taste makes sense, but acting like his opinion just was non-sensical and untopical to the senate race and the ad in question is just laughable. That was my issue, not whether or not the ad was in good taste. (of which I suggested it was not)
 
I wasn't making an argument that it was in good taste. I was making an argument that the seeming confusion over how Obama's leadership or actions were relevant to the ad was ridiculous. Erod's post, whether you agree with it or not, was directly tangental to what the ad was referencing.

"Directly tangential?" Is that akin to "naturally artificial?" :mrgreen:
 
Starting in 2004, and continuing until the day Obama won the WH and the Democrats won control of Congress.

True.

Remember, the DNC ran footage of war in Iraq over the comments of John McCain that we may need to stay in Iraq for 50 years.

McCain was right.
 
True.

Remember, the DNC ran footage of war in Iraq over the comments of John McCain that we may need to stay in Iraq for 50 years.

McCain was right.

Entities within both parties have little regard for any degree of mud slinging or stooping to any level in the name of exploiting emotions to push their agenda and will always find ways to rationalize it.

Now excuse me while I go create an ad showing a vice presidential nominee murdering a struggling handicapped elderly woman.
 
Its important to hang Obama and the failure of liberal policies around every democrat's neck.
 
Erod's point made PERFECT sense as it relates to his opinion and to the ad in the OP. Disagreeing with his opinion makes sense, agreeing with his opinion and still thinking it was in bad taste makes sense, but acting like his opinion just was non-sensical and untopical to the senate race and the ad in question is just laughable. That was my issue, not whether or not the ad was in good taste. (of which I suggested it was not)

The thread topic isn't leadership in Washington; it's the use of inappropriate content in the ad. Posts that don't address that issue aren't topical. Not sure why anyone would try to make that out to be a strawman.
 
True.

Remember, the DNC ran footage of war in Iraq over the comments of John McCain that we may need to stay in Iraq for 50 years.

McCain was right.

Yes he was, but don't ever expect a hard leftist to admit that.
 
Back
Top Bottom