Join 3,555 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


GoreWillSayAnything.com. Coming Soon, like, maybe this afternoon.

September 1, 2000 6:48 AM   Subscribe

GoreWillSayAnything.com. Coming Soon, like, maybe this afternoon.
This is the address posted at the end of the RNC's latest attack on Gore. I was hoping to see some quality negative web design.
posted by rschram (13 comments total)

 
I always love the type of pictures they pull out during negative campaigning. This thing looks like Gore's saying, "I'll kill you all!!!!!"
posted by Nyarlathotep at 9:24 AM on September 1, 2000


Way to go with that tone elevation, Dubya. "I'mauniternotadivider!"
posted by dhartung at 9:50 AM on September 1, 2000


Try iknowwhatyoudidintexas.com
posted by owillis at 9:52 AM on September 1, 2000


And the site is now up. Featuring phrases such as this one:

"While George Bush offers a positive issue agenda, more negative attacks from Al Gore."

Seems funny coming from a Republican Party site that's composed of nothing but negative attacks.
posted by mathowie at 2:03 PM on September 1, 2000


Yep, that quote right below the incoherent negative Bush ad (in opposition to Gore's calls for adult, intelligent discussion) that these Slate folks see as a potential beginning of the self-destruction of the Bush campaign.
posted by EngineBeak at 2:44 PM on September 1, 2000


Yep... Gore's "adult intelligent discussions" where he tells Bush to "put up or shut up" or Lieberman's reference to Bush as Barney Rubble. Reeeeeeal intelligent I tell ya...


Not to mention the rest of the Democratic Party such as Mrs. Clinton who has no record to run on and therefore can only try to attack her opponent's record.
posted by gyc at 3:58 PM on September 1, 2000



Gyc, it's ridiculous to equate Mrs. Clinton "who has no record to run on" with "the rest of the Democratic Party".

Both candidates are attacking each other and then claiming to be "positive" while calling their opponent "negative". It happens every year. Get used to it or vote for Nader. (Or Buchanan, I suppose.)
posted by wiremommy at 4:21 PM on September 1, 2000


Standard practice when there's little to divide the parties: assume a position of moderation, and accuse your opponents of "negative campaigning" and extremism. I've read pamphlets from the 1680s which do the same thing.

That said, the production values on the Bush site are shit. If you're going to spin, at least make it look pretty.
posted by holgate at 5:42 PM on September 1, 2000


Maybe it's a Mahir thing.

GORE IS A LIAR!!!!! I KISS YOU!!!!!
posted by dhartung at 9:51 PM on September 1, 2000


There's a really strange Mahir element to alot of political sites this cycle. First the White House... Bush-Cheney.net... Now the above. Where's all my soft money going to these days?

Even the copy on
IknowwhatyoudidinTexas.com is deliberately written to sound like it was written by teenagers. TheTruth.com, paid out of the Big Tobacco settlement, is also very faux sounding.

I think most people would find it incredulous that the RNC and DNC have hoardes of eager "activists" energized to spread the good word in any medium.

The 'Net is being used the most extensively in this race than ever, but it's also being used the most ineffectively.
posted by rschram at 12:30 PM on September 2, 2000


deliberately written to sound like it was written by teenagers.

All that and bad HTML. Man I need a vacation!
posted by rschram at 1:47 PM on September 2, 2000


rschram, I'm not sure that the assessments of sophisticated, long-term net users are valuable in determining whether this kind of thing is really effective.
posted by dhartung at 2:47 PM on September 3, 2000


And what about the votes of the Santa Cruz-San Fran club? Do they not count?
posted by rschram at 2:53 PM on September 3, 2000


« Older Clicking for consciousness...  |  spoofmail... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments