Like others, my instinct, when I first saw this ad last week, was that it was brutally effective. Well now a national focus group has proved this instinct correct:
“The ad which focuses on Governor Palin’s record regarding the treatment of wildlife in Alaska seemed to strike a chord with voters,” commented Glenn Kessler, president and CEO, HCD Research. “The recent ads from both parties have had little impact among voters. This is the first ad in over a month that seems to have broken through,” he added.
The ad, from Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, has been running in Michigan and Florida, and word is that it will soon go up in other swing states as well. Want to keep this extremely powerful and effective ad on the air? Throw them some change.
What I would like to see from Obama and from Gregoire is a clear presentation of what life under McCain and Rossi would really be like: the recklessness, the craziness, the waste, the lying and weaseling, the wars and ruin without end (talk about “culture of death”).
I find these kinds of ads grating and patronizing. For example, I became pro-choice in early high school when my health teacher opened the classroom to activists. The so called pro-life lobby came in, crowed at us, and showed pictures of aborted fetuses. The pro-choice lobby came in and calmly and succinctly explained the right to choose, and what would happen if it was taken away.
Whatever helps the cause (there is ample evidence that Palin is the sort of politician that would advocate cruelty to animals and people), but this is my perspective on ads.
Pup @1,
This ad strikes an emotional chord. That’s what makes it effective with the vast majority of voters.
Wow. If you’re a hunter, you’ll probably not see anything wrong with that style of hunting. And that’s totally fair. But the vast vast majority of people in this country don’t hunt from airplanes nor do they know how to field dress a moose (or would want to even see it). That doesn’t make it right or wrong, just effective advertising in regards to “are these your values”.
@3
I’m an ex-hunter who still supports hunting. I think hunting from airplanes is barbaric. There’s nothing humane or “fair chase” about it and you’re not hunting for food. I would hope there are plenty more people like me out there.
Remember people, don’t get caught up in the individual post. What ISN’T Goldy talking about? What is he trying to direct your attention away from?
Always look at the big picture.
@5
STFU.
Goldy isn’t talking up Obama because he doesn’t have to. We’ve already gone over this.
@5
yeah, he controls the blog. Just like Obama would do if elected.
When the blog gets to be telling the truth he adds a new article to pull everyone away.
Turd@5
I’ll play. Goldy is not talking about you being a turd.
Your guys are idiots. This isn’t hunting, it is to protect other animals. This was a state of Alaska issue and you really should not care about it unless you live there. The problem is when people who don’t live there think they can make better decisions than the people who do live there. What happened to the 10th amendment.
@9
Yeah, you cut down on the number of wolves and then the deer, caribou and other prey populations sore, eat every thing in sight and then plummet as they starve to death.
What that is is a throwback to the old and totally discredited way of doing things.
It’s a good insight into what a McCain/Palin administration would do and look like.
re 3: You field-dress a moose the same way you clean a trout — pretty much. If you are physically and emotionally capable of cutting off a freshly killed mooses head with a hack-saw, you are ready to field dress a moose.
Any idiot could do it.
I have.
If I wanted to be a ‘hunter’, all I’d have to do in WA or Alaska is wait around in my back yard with a gun.
I think when a lot of people are dependent on these animals (caribou) for food you can justify having the game department engaged in the population control of the wolves. She has represented her constituents very well, which is probably why her approval rating is so high. What is remarkable is that people in California and Washington think they have a right influence how Alaska decides to govern Alaska. States are sovereign entities and the federal governments sole role is to protect that sovereignty.
re 13: Drilling in ANWR would kill more caribou than wolves could. Are you Ted Nugent? You sound stupid enough. (Yes. I’d say that to his face.)
re 13: In the year I spent in Alaska, I met many fantastic people. But I met a lot of dumbheads as well.
Alot of people are in Alaska because they are unemployable anywhere else because of their felonious records.
The only way idiots like So we won can kill a wolf is by an airplane.
These fat, over the hill Republican losers don’t have the energy or skill to track and kill a wolf in more than an inch of snow.
Ever notice how most snowmobile hunters are fat, too?
@14 – If you think our constitution and bill of rights are stupid that is your opinion.
@15 – During my time living in Seattle I meet a lot of fantastic people and a lot of dumbheads. A lot of people here are unemployable but I still get to smell them when I have to take the free bus across downtown. I really don’t know what that has to do with the rights of a state to govern itself.
I remember when the assualt rifle ban was debated in the mid-nineties, and some of these lazy hunters tried to make the case that high power military rifles could be used to hunt wildlife.
The sane hunters pointed out how shattered bone fragments don’t taste very good.
@18 – Whatever, the argument for assault rifles is that if my wife is at home alone with our kids all day, and she needs to defend herself she needs something that does not require much skill or accuracy and can definitely break some bones. Who cares what the hunters say, I want something to defend my family in that case. What percent of murders are committed by the legally registered owners of high powered assault rifles?
@13. Then please tell the Republican EPA that California, Oregon and Washington have the right to declare carbon dioxide an air pollutant and can regulate it as they see fit.
Please tell the republican DEA to leave us alone because we have the right to medical marijuana since we passed a law that says we’re okay with it.
You may be mad at people for thinking they know better. But if you care about states’ rights, you should be even more angry that the republican executive branch and the right wing supreme court in DC are actually preventing states from exercising their sovereign rights.
@19
What percent of robberies are stopped when the robber gets hit with the 19th or 20th bullet a home owner fires?
re 17: You must be some frozen sperm, ‘cuz the things you say are sure a load!
@18,19
Most assault rifles are chambered for .223, 5.45x39mm or 7.62x39mm, none of them are as powerful as a typical deer rifle.
It’s a common mistake to think the 7.62x39mm is comparable to a .308, which is a common deer round, but that’s the 7.62×51.
Bleck, I can’t believe I used to like guns. Excuse me I need to shower…
90% of women abort their down syndrome babies.
Now I think I understand where this resentment of her is coming from.
It’s all a ploy by Pelosi et al. Smart woman.
First we demonize Palin with wrong info and a add which pulls at the heart strings.
We get rid of her and Obama wins
We also protect the cute little wolves…who have gotten overhand…but who cares.
The wolves will continue to kill Caribou…sooner or later…no more Caribou…and nothing the enviro nuts can complain about…then…the democrats can claim ANWR is ok to drill in as no wild live is in danger (and yes, we have too many wolves..damn them…let’s kill them…we don’t need them anymore).
Far fetched ? Maybe…but so is Goldsteins interpretation of this silly ad.
I been workin up the corrage to git me hands in Sara’s pants. She one savage beast. And big knockers. Man. Lost a lot of life as a POV. Gotta git.
@20 – You are absolutely right on the states rights to regulate emissions and allow medical use of marijuana. The federal government has no business trying to regulate that. However, in my agreement with you I find it ironic that you blame only the republicans when this is a crisis that both parties are responsible for. If it were up to the democrats, the EPA would force all states to some ridiculous standard for emissions and make it illegal for any state to ban marijuana for medical use. The current democrat party is no friend of states rights.
The point of my response was to the ad almost criminalizing what Alaska did, in what they thought and probably the majority of them still think was in the best interest of their state. To call that an effective ad is dangerous because it was probably written by people who have never been to nor studied the current situation in Alaska. It is equivalent to declaring Palin unfit to serve because she eats meat.
note: this is not an endorsement of palin so please dont respond with every other issue you dont agree with her on. its just pointing out how absurd and desperate this ad is.
I don’t think we shold regulate emissions. They did that when I was a POV and I was wet dreamin out of my ears.
@24: The resentment at Palin is coming because she is too stupid to be president. After listening to her inability to answer a direct question and her repeated canned answers that made no sense, I realized that she would be a danger the my country if elected. Her blithe reply on Georgia in NATO was priceless (Perhaps we need to go to war with Russia – what an IDIOT!) and the fact she had no idea what the Bush doctrine was – and even disgusted the interviewer with her lack of knowledge – made me realize what a poor choice McCain made. On top of that, she is a serial liar about the bridge to nowhere, hired a lobbyist to help her get earmarks (she is NO reformer) and she is under investigation for an ethics violation – that she is now trying to stonewall.
Yup – corrupt, lying, stupid – she fits the three main republican criteria for office.
re 24: Down’s syndrome babies live longer than ever before. At a certain point, parents must give -up the adult Down’s syndrome person to society to care for — unless they are independently wealthy.
People who bring these children into the world most assuredly are going to make society pay for their actions.
They have no right to do that. Unless you think the Down’s syndrome person should take some ‘personal responsibility’ for their position.
Why should I have to pay for Sarah Palin’s life choices?
re 29: It could have been worse. She might have suggested invading Atlanta.
re 27: We are all familiar here with the Republican mantra of “democrats do it too!”
It’s a question of proportion. Lying about a blowjob is a good Republican reason to impeach a president.
Lying about WMD’s and being responsible for bankrupting the country, killing 5000 US soldiers, a million Iraqis, and creating 6 million refugees is apparently not serious enough for either party to consider impeachment.
It’s ‘off the table’.
But what REALLY disgusts me is a little miserable weasel like yourself who will go to any lengths to support the obviously criminal Republicans.
Your mother should weep in shame over you. I only wish you’d step in front of a moving truck. The world would be a better place for it.
Do you think Sarah Palin has a natural bush or a landing strip?
I’ll bet she keeps that thing smelling like a fresh glass of ginger ale.
Is that sexist? Every time that broad opens her mouth, I know what I’d like to put in it. Keep her from making a fool of herself.
@33
Funny, I think the very same thing about Darcy. Must be something about dumb chicks with glasses, eh?
headless lucy: can you even stay on a subject? there is no discussion of lies war or any other thing you talk about. you need to find your head and then use it to determine the scope of the discussion. no one has suggested they are killing the wolves in alaska because they have weapons of mass destruction. but i would like you to point to any support of the republican party that i have offered.
Frozen1: this is mostly an ad pointing out that Caribou Barbie’s “I’m just like you” facade is just that. I can’t field dress a moose, I can’t gut a fish, and I doubt I will ever be ok with hacking a moose’s head off of its body with a hacksaw. I don’t like the idea of shooting wolves from planes, but most of us will admit that we don’t know the whole story. I do have a few questions though: most carnivore meat is pretty unappetizing, so why shoot wolves? If hunters are allowed to hunt moose and caribou, the wolves can’t be putting that much of a dent in the prey population.
Lucy: I will happily help Sarah Palin with her child if she chooses to keep it. All I ask is that she show the same respect for my own choices. Oh, and about your other posts: “Friends Don’t Let Friends Do Drugs.” It’s time for an intervention, that’s all I’m saying.
Oh, and if your wife needs an assault rifle to protect the family, you really need to move. Or do some serious grassroots community work. A gun in your home is more likely to hurt a fellow family member than an assailant (mistaking a family member for a burglar, gun is found by burglar and used to keep you pacified, child plays with gun and accidentally shoots sibling, etc)
@36 – I don’t think they are “hunting”, it doesn’t make much sense to fly the plane up there try to land it in the wilderness and get the wolf meat. I think there are two parts of the story although this is a guess.
1. The airplane hunting – this is only done by government officials or some special set of people, not hunters. Do you know how much it would cost to go hunting like this? It would be crazy. If your shooting from an airplane your probably not picking them up. It is most likely because Alaska is so big there is no other way to get to them.
2. The 150 dollar price for a leg. Maybe this is so that if people can get to them on feet and kill them, the gov will pay for the leg, this way they dont have to spend so much money flying planes around to kill them. 150 is probably a bargain compared to what it costs to hunt them in planes.
In both cases neither is for sport, its for population control, and I am not from there so I really cant comment on its necessity or effectiveness. Only that it was their choice and the people who don’t live there should not have a problem with it.
@37 – probably, but let me make that choice, not you :)