They just ran another political ad decrying the "gay agenda" exemplified by the New Jersey Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage, warning of a "shadowy billionnaire" backing gay causes in Michigan...and then showing a small boy cavorting in autumn leaves, with a gun sight aimed at his back, and a message that if you vote for Candidate X, "You lose." I saw no disclaimer on the ad, as is typical with most political ads, identifying the organization paying for the ad.
This is it. The people who create these ads, and the people who fund them, and the people who cynically tolerate them, are bastards with absolutely no shame.
When are voters going to finally say "Enough" to advertising like this? Are you? Or, because this isn't "your" issue, are you going to just shrug and move on? Do you think that hate rhetoric in the context of a campaign doesn't hurt people, literally? Do you think that it's an acceptable trade-off, a temporary sop to selected exciteable constituencies in your own political sphere, whatever that is, to get your candidates of choice into office? Then you're no better than the persons financing and filming this garbage.
Do something. Make people in and aspiring to public office, and their financeers, accountable for what they say in their campaign advertising.
8 comments:
LutheranChik, thank you for these last few impassioned posts (and for all your writing). Yes, yes. How long? Yet, we will praise the Lord... praise in advance of the good results!
You are a good result. I am a good result. We can vote our values, preach our values, live our values and show people that they are real values that can be celebrated and not feared.
Love your blog!
Blessings, Mags
I have not seen this ad -- if you post who is responsible for it -- or link to someone I can email, I sure will, even if they are not in my state. Who says hate rhetoric isn't my issue? Whenever, wherever and to whomever -- it is everyone's issue - or should be.
aha..just catching up with the blog ..I am now reading the Dobson post ...in the words of Emily LaTella -- "nevermind"..
What Mata H said -- hate speech is an issue for all of us.
I never have tolerated this. What worries me is that the Democrats seem to be tolerating seemingly softer versions of this.
When it comes to hate, not to mention human rights, there should be no middle ground.
The reason they didn't tell you who's paying for the ad is a technicality: ads are only required to na,mre their sponsors if they tell you TO vote for candidate Y, not if they just tell you NOT to vote for candiddate X. Anyone who can explain that logic is welcome to.
That said, these people are assholes. What they're doing is wrong.
One more comment. What do the sponsors of theis ad actually think would happen to the boy in the leaves if gay couples were allowed to marry? I can't think of a single thing.
Good question. We have had gay marriage in Canada for 3 years now and society hasn't fallen apart. 80% of Canadians think we've moved beyond discussing it.
I was so angered by this particular ad that I e-mailed the local TV station and asked them who exactly is financing the ads. I also expressed (very calmly, I should add) my opinion about them, and asked that my letter be forwarded to the general manager, the advertising sales department and anyone else connected with their airing. So far I have not received ANY response from the station, which is the largest station in the northern half of my state.
Post a Comment