A Kick Butt Political Ad.

August 9, 2002 10:12 AM

A Kick Butt Political Ad. "WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT TO ME, BOB?" download. I can imagine a lot of politicians with exposure on this issue. Will this hurt them? If so, who will use them more, Libertarians or Greens?
posted by kablam (25 comments total)

classy.
posted by patricking at 10:24 AM on August 9, 2002

If anything is funnier than a woman whose parents named her after Ayn Rand, it would have to be that she's a Libertarian Party candidate.

Still, if controlling your child's adult ideology is as easy as naming them after a philosopher (even a god-awful one like Rand), I'll give it a shot. Say hello to Soren "Kierkegaard" Conover. Who would you choose?
posted by tweebiscuit at 10:28 AM on August 9, 2002

I feel a little dirty after watching a MS sufferer exploited for a political ad, but I do admire Rand for having the guts to bring up the issue. Considering the popularity of medical and recreational marijuana, I think this may work against Bar.
posted by TskTsk at 10:28 AM on August 9, 2002

Last week the drug czar was on Dennis Miller, and Miller let the guy off easy. The only challenge he didn't back down on was asking why the drug czar thinks medical marijuana for elderly sufferers was bad. He went off on how JAMA and other medical pubs haven't published papers saying there were any benefits, and how it was still wrong. When Miller asked him point blank, would his office convict these sorts of people, he said something to the effect of "well, you never hear about 80 year old women being charged with possession, do you? it's up to the discretion of police officers, who do a good job with that discretion."

I know where he's coming from, but it's a little disturbing to hear "it's ok to break the silly laws as long as you are a cute harmless old lady."
posted by mathowie at 10:35 AM on August 9, 2002

It's emotionally manipulative, and possibly exploitative, but I think (and hope) it will be effective. It gives a face to one victim of our anti-drug hysteria.
posted by Doug at 10:39 AM on August 9, 2002

Oh, and I'd put my bet on the Greens. They have the best chance of any third party overall this year, and their ideology is far more compatible with American society than the Libertarians, IMHO. (N.B.: I am a Green supporter, but I'm trying to avoid bias here.) The Greens are just a logical extension of the current left (which, depending on your definition, includes over half the country) -- a few more social programs, a little more gun control -- not much more than the majority of Europe, really. The Libertarians, on the other hand, seem to pretty much scare anyone who understands their ideology. Besides, who's going to vote for a party advocating the complete deregulation of all trade right now? With this economy? With these scandals? You might as well campaign on an "anti-education" platform.
posted by tweebiscuit at 10:40 AM on August 9, 2002

OK - I don't get it. Bob gave an old woman some marijuana and it made her really poorly. That's sick. How is anybody going to vote for him now. Even if it is (as the voice-over said, several times) "magical" marijuana.
posted by seanyboy at 10:47 AM on August 9, 2002

tweebiscuit: Well, I think the Libertarian parties are ideas are a bit foolish, but I don't think I would really call them "scary". There are a lot more frightening things to worry about in American politics right now then all kinds of deregulation.

Besides, I doubt that the libs would try to push everything through without thinking... Especially since corporations are basically completely deregulated right now anyway.
posted by delmoi at 10:58 AM on August 9, 2002

tweebiscuit, I'd put my bet on the libertarians, actually.

I know a lot of conservatives in my family and extended friends, and many of them are strict conservatives, the small gov't type that want to do as they please. Bush and Co. started talking tough and wanting to cut taxes, but have gone the other way, creating one new layer of bureaucracy after another and backing steel tariffs, among other problems.

You may not know it, but there are a lot of folks on the right that don't agree with Bush's actions and would prefer to vote for someone that does.

(to me the political spectrum is a big circle, with many elements on the edges coming together a bit. I wouldn't mind having a libertarian representative, even though I usually skew left)
posted by mathowie at 11:00 AM on August 9, 2002

You may not know it, but there are a lot of folks on the right that don't agree with Bush's actions and would prefer to vote for someone that does.

I think you may have misphrased that, because I sure can't parse it. People who don't like Bush will vote for someone who does like Bush?

(to me the political spectrum is a big circle, with many elements on the edges coming together a bit. I wouldn't mind having a libertarian representative, even though I usually skew left)

I agree, actually -- I think of it as the usual left-right line, but joining on the other side. (The point of meeting is labelled "anarchist", by the way.) Still, Libertarians and Greens aren't extreme enough to consider them equivalents.

However, after reading Ms. Rand's platform again (at least, the short one she has on the front page), I have to say that it's quite compelling, and obviously aimed at grabbing the largest possible portion of the non-libertarian vote. Additionally, I consider any elected third-party politicial a step in the right direction -- and since she's focusing on just one issue (one that the Greens share), and obviously wouldn't be instituting a program of laissez faire capitalism anytime soon, I'd vote for her if I lived in her district and there weren't a Green Party candidate.
posted by tweebiscuit at 11:12 AM on August 9, 2002

You may not know it, but there are a lot of folks on the right that don't agree with Bush's actions and would prefer to vote for someone that does.

That was enough to give the Grammar Posse convulsions. I agree, tho: you ask a middle-american major-party dropout to choose between hippies and gun nuts and they'll go with the gun nuts.

And, about the whole circlular political spectrum thing: what's the difference between an Anarchist and a Libertarian? The stock portfolio. Ba dum bum.
posted by hob at 11:20 AM on August 9, 2002

More replies for matt:

I know a lot of conservatives in my family and extended friends, and many of them are strict conservatives, the small gov't type that want to do as they please. Bush and Co. started talking tough and wanting to cut taxes, but have gone the other way, creating one new layer of bureaucracy after another and backing steel tariffs, among other problems.

Ahh, but think of it this way: Again, the political issue right now for legislators is corporate corruption. (Terrorism and the war is an executive issue, remember.) It's pretty clear to everyone that corporations can't be trusted. Sure, that's been a far-left issue for years, but now the American public at large has been wounded, and its faith has been shattered. Suddenly it's not just the punk-rock activists at my college bashing corporations -- it's middle America, otherwise known as the Most Important Demographic Ever. These are the people who change their minds between elections, who vote not according to ideology but for whoever they think is going to make their lives better. These people want revenge, and they want to be protected -- and they know, just as they've always known, that Bush is a company man -- except now it means something, now it's going to affect them. THAT'S the big issue right now.

And the Democrats, hell -- though they're not identified with big business, they're at least as wrapped up in, so they're not offering any feasible alternatives, even as the corporate casualty rate goes up (is there a list of all the business meltdowns that have happened lately? I'd like to see one.) And since it's been widely reported that all of this corruption was due to businesses being allowed to dictate the terms of government oversight, it doesn't seem likely that any non-conversative-ideologist is going to move from centralist Republican to far-right-laissez-faire Libertarian. They're going to drop down to the left, towards the Democrats.

And remember, too, that the Democratic Party has been systematically alienating its more left-leaning supporters for years, and their lack of response to the corporate crime will be the last straw for quite a few. As far as defecting ideological party members, I'd say that the Greens are evenly matched with the Libertarians.

(Whew! I didn't expect that outburst. It must be all that coffee...)
posted by tweebiscuit at 11:24 AM on August 9, 2002

I saw the Dennis miller show and thought he let Asa Hutchinson off too easy as well. But it's the same story when the drug war hawks are interviewed by others such as Charlie Rose. I guess if they held their feet to the fire (like I wish they would) they would never agree to the interview on the first place.
The only politician with any real stature who has the balls to speak out against the drug war is New Mexico governor
Gary Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
posted by keithl at 11:32 AM on August 9, 2002

Politics in GA sho' gets mean...I think they should give them bowie knives, tie them together, shove them in a darkened room & let them fight it out. I'll bet the stoner loses, unless they bring guns, in which case Barr will end up shooting out the glass door.
posted by Pressed Rat at 11:39 AM on August 9, 2002

Yeah, I heard Barr and Neil Boortz have a pretty good debate about this issue. All Barr could do was not answer Boortz's questions abomut medicinal pot and keep saying somehting like he'll make America strong. Boortz kicked his ass in that debate.
posted by Hall at 11:56 AM on August 9, 2002

Neil Boortz's web page caused my browser to throw up all over my shoes.
posted by tweebiscuit at 11:59 AM on August 9, 2002

Keep in mind that, while the Libertarians do advocate deregulation, I think there's a misunderstanding of what that means amongst a lot of people. Most of the recent corporate scandals would be just as illegal under a Libertarian government as they would under a Green government--misrepresenting one's earnings to investors is, after all, an implied violation of contract, the Ultimate Libertarian Evil.

Of course, many people don't realize this and so it's probably correct to assume that the Greens will benefit more from these events.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 12:18 PM on August 9, 2002

Third-party supporters - both Libertarian and Green - who think the medical marijuana issue is going to get them on the radar are dreaming in technicolor.

Yes, the cynical exploitation of an MS sufferer is worrisome. And Barr is obviously pandering to his cynical, but (unfortunately) probably accurate view of the electorate. They don't, as a rule, want issues. They want image.

American third parties win not at the ballot box, (one exception that proves the rule) but by changing the terms of the debate. But one reason that the system continues to work is if the issue is stated in sufficiently raw terms, the major parties will eventually co-opt their platforms. So here's to political merchandising.
posted by 314/ at 12:27 PM on August 9, 2002

Um, tweebisc., if Rand is her married name, how do you get that her parents named her after Ayn?

Anyway, as long as our system constitutionally privileges one-man, one-vote and politically privileges winner-take-all, we're going to have a two-party system. It has little to do with the effectiveness of the third parties at campaigning, because if they can't win a swing caucus in the legislatures, they'll always be marginal.
posted by dhartung at 12:47 PM on August 9, 2002

what's the difference between an Anarchist and a Libertarian? The stock portfolio. Ba dum bum

Oh man, that one had me laughing out loud.

I agree with mathowies assessment that disenfranchised limited-government right wingers are drifting to the libertarian movement as a result of Bush's decidedly big government activity.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:57 PM on August 9, 2002

If you think Middle America is going Green, think again. On issues of trade they may be of similar thought (protectionism, corporate penalties) but on social issues its night and day.

and they know, just as they've always known, that Bush is a company man

Most of flyover land would still vote for Bush today because of his conservative lean and the War on Terrah.

Right now Bush is undergoing a similar problem to Clinton - the core conservatives don't like his outright protectionism and his big government (hello, Tom Ridge!) proposals, or the fact that faith-based initiatives are DOA as long as the Dems control the Senate. Much like how Clinton had to go to the middle on issues like welfare reform and upset the far-left.

But to both extremes, it's usually in their best interests to hold their nose and vote for their less-than-ideal guy because "it's better than the other guy". Exception: The Greens in 2000, and I'd bet after four years of Bush it's not going to happen again.

The problem is that "the squishy middle" (I count myself among this group) is growing faster than the more extremes. Sort of an odd mix of:

libertarian - leave my taxes alone (or preferably, lower them)
liberal - but i want social security and medicare
conservative - keep them bums in jail longer

Both parties have made this move to the middle (as far as rhetoric goes) and will continue to do so, cause its where the votes are.

Also remember that anti-corporate rhetoric only goes so far. While we all hate the Enrons and WorldComs of the world, the corporate world is still the bedrock of our (and most of the world's) economy and employs millions.

When the Dow goes back up, this will all be forgotten (and repeated again).
posted by owillis at 12:58 PM on August 9, 2002

The most wonderful thing about this ad is its connection to the Libertarians' overall Incumbent Killer Strategy. The party picked five races where they had a chance to take down rabid drug warriors (of both big parties), and focused their energy on getting them kicked out of office -- even if their own candidates didn't win.

As far as a bet on Libertarians vs. Greens goes, I'll say: the Greens will get way more votes, the Libertarians will make a much bigger impact on the issues they care about. I like the Libs' approach better.
posted by ramakrishna at 3:35 PM on August 9, 2002

Liberal? Conservative? Libertarian? This guy's got your number...umm, I mean our number.
posted by black francis at 4:36 PM on August 9, 2002

Third-party supporters - both Libertarian and Green - who think the medical marijuana issue is going to get them on the radar are dreaming in technicolor.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they aren't just going for Medical Marijuana, they want the total decriminalization of it. Much the way most of Europe has gone.

I'd just like to know why if the majority of voters in the US are for the decriminalization of Marijuana, or at very least Medicinal Marijuana, yet the government continues to disregard that. Paper after paper has been published showing that it's essentially harmless, and can benefit some Cancer/AIDS/etc patients, yet our government ignores this.

makes me crazy.
posted by lasthrsman at 4:38 PM on August 9, 2002

I support harsh mandatory minimum sentencing laws for people who don't optimize file sizes. 16MB for that??!! (QT version). This law would apply to people who send 500k JPG attachments of baby pictures.

Thank you for your support, I'm counting on you in November.
posted by planetkyoto at 6:44 PM on August 9, 2002