Post #3: due 10/14
September 30th was a major fundraising deadline for the presidential candidates and there was a big push by each of them to raise more money last week. Much of the funds raised will be used by the candidates on their primary campaign and especially on tv ads.
Find an ad from one of the presidential candidates (you can go to their website or search on youtube typing in presidential ad 2012). Post the link to the ad in your post and analyze it. What techniques is it using to try to persuade voters? Are the claims it is making true, partially true or false? Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not?
Labels: advertisements, campaign
posted by maby-keirstead @ 7:10 AM
28 Comments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUNIeOB0whI
This particular ad was just too much to turn down. Matt Owen, enjoy.
Moving on to the actual analysis of what it says, you have to agree that the level of drama used in this ad is meant to (and I believe does a good job at) immediately grab people's attention. This is partially due to its formatting being made to mimic that of your run of the mill epic movie trailer, and the theme music and flashing angles and portions of the same image adds to that effect. That being said, it also appears meant to scare people a little bit, using some significant seconds during its message about the state of America's financial standing to be associated with what can be taken to be 1. an abandoned alleyway or 2. the general population area of a prison complex. This is an interesting follow up to their stabs at Democrats and their pro-spending policies of times past. Immediately after a direct attack on the current administration's policies, the portrayal of Republican leaders in an angle and light that makes them look a bit like bloated frogs sends a clear message of Ron Paul's dislike of any other candidate's fiscal policies. With a strong finish of Ron Paul standing heroically at a podium, he promises to spearhead the attack on fixing America's financial situation.
Moving on to how much of this can actually be taken into account as truth is another matter. In the video a clipping of the New York Times reads that Reagan "reluctantly agreed" to sign the legislation for a debt ceiling increase in September of 87. What's interesting about this is that according to the Los Angeles Times, Reagan had been bartering with Congress for a long term increase of the debt ceiling as early as May of 87 (1). Clearly, there was more to the story other than Democrats choking legislation down Reagan's throat. Now, it is true that the 90's did bring some new tax increases, such as those found in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. It also extended some taxes on fuels. However, the same decade also yielded some very significant tax breaks, including those for children in a home, educational costs and more realistic taxes for small businesses (2). The next part I'd like to examine is the tidbit about the dollar being in decline. In the long run, that's pretty true. However, as of right now the dollar is actually fairly high compared to 2008 levels, as seen by this chart here (3). Also, the value of the dollar is actually coming back up to the approximate average of it's fluctuations since 2008, as seen by the same graph after you change the time scale a bit. Interestingly, the last part appears to be the most tried and true about Ron Paul being consistent and true to his principles. Among other things, he has refused to take part in what he sees as an unconstitutional pension system for Congressman (4), and has kept fairly close to his original principles of a highly limited government throughout his years (5). All in all, it's a rather convincing ad, and at least gives some merit to Ron Paul's claims.
(1) http://articles.latimes.com/1987-05-16/news/mn-9415_1_debt-limit
(2) http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1990.cfm#TaxExtension
(3) http://www.fxstreet.com/rates-charts/usdollar-index/
(4) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12224561
(5) http://www.npr.org/2011/05/16/135990053/ron-paul-why-the-young-flock-to-an-old-idealist
In Michele Bachman’s television ad from last July and August, she made a personal appeal for voters to go to the straw poll in Ames, Iowa. This personal appeal made several emotion-based appeals from the language used. Despite never specifically calling for voters to vote for her, the end of the thirty second appeal hints strongly at that. “Won’t you join me here in Ames for the straw poll? And let’s send a message to Washington.” Despite being substandard grammatically (to say the least), it does suggest that Bachman is attempting to rally support by personally addressing ‘you’ and asserting that together (e.g. you, Bachman and the rest of her following can make an impact on the Capitol) change can be implemented.
Going back to the beginning of the advertisement other rhetorical devices can be noted. First, language, laden with aggressively negative connotations, is liberally tossed about (it’s funny because Bachman is a conservative). “Politicians are looting the treasury” What? Are Washington lawmakers barbarians or something? “Looting” is a word associated with savagery and lack of civility, something that happens when order is lost. At best Bachman is suggesting that the formerly sane politicians have forsaken logic and reason to descend into a chaotic free-for-all of treasury spending. I personally wrote this off as a low attack on our political system and ignored it save for one chuckle (I found it a little amusing, so what?). Next she states that this looting results in bankruptcy for our nation. What this says to me is Bachman’s problem with the U.S. government is, in fact, the U.S. government. It is our elected officials’ job to make tough decisions to benefit the nation, or at the very least cause the least amount of damage. Bachman’s first comment in this ad makes her look like a Republic-hating imperialist.
Next, Bachman takes a cheap shot at Obama by stating “Barack Obama has driven our economy into a ditch”. Really? Is Obama the owner of the sole responsibility for the economic downturn? I think that there are many more factors other than the careless disregard of one man to blame for the problem. While it would be more appropriate for Bachman to attack Obama’s lack of leadership or slow progress in resolving the issue she chose to paint him as a careless screw-up that fell asleep at the wheel thus causing the car, symbolic of the economy in her analogy, to crash into the ditch of economic decline.
What I find infuriating is the fact that there are many people who take some of these ridiculous ads as fact. While I realize that many people are intelligent enough to discern poor logical appeals from fact there are at least an equal number who cannot.
Bachman’s next statement was not too out of the ordinary. It essentially paints herself as the heroic underdog fighting against evil debt-ceiling increases. Fair enough, but the motion to raise it did pass, meaning a majority of congressmen supported it and by proxy the majority of America did (they elected those congressmen, right?). It did get a fair amount (and by fair amount, I mean lots) of negative media attention that boiled down to fears of the nation’s credit being ruined and other generally bad things happening. In reality, very little happened, and the U.S. continued chugging along.
I suppose that the message behind the whole ad (at least from what I saw) is that Michele Bachman is a heroic, imperialist who is outraged by the way the U.S. governmental system fails to do what she wants it to do.
The Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bmetqshLNs&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUNIeOB0whI
Ron Paul’s ad was very well done. He used several tactics to get his message across. He utilized a movie “Preview” format that all audiences would be familiar with, and a strong narrator similar to those used for upcoming, dramatic movies. He built drama with big number and facts related to the budget deficit, unemployment, and the devalued US dollar. Then he made his case as to why we are in the economic situation we are and that is because we have had President’s and political leaders who have comprised against their convictions in order to pass legislation, resulting in higher spending, higher taxes, and deeper budget deficits. He cited past Republicans such as Ronald Reagan and George Bush. For George Bush he referred to his beliefs in low taxes and his pledge “read my lips. No new taxes”, that he would later have to compromise due to political pressure and the need to compromise with Democrats.
Ron Paul made clear that he is the only candidate that has consistently stuck to his convictions of spending cuts, balanced budgets, and no deals. Ron Paul creates a sense of urgency that he must be elected because he is the only political leader that has the enough credibility and experience to save the economy’s issues.
Is his information true?
He makes it sound as though compromises are a bad thing, but in reality the president cannot just force ideas on the country or legislatures. Compromises need to be made; in order to get things accomplished. Before the constitution was ratified the elite made compromise to ease conflicts, the Connecticut Compromise where the elite established two house of Congress to create fair representation, this method is still used today (1). Like the Connecticut Compromise some very good legislation has come through compromises. What he really should be referring to is compromise that has no relationship to the bill being passed. Ron Paul also reffered to our nation being 14 tillion dollars in debt, which is true it is currently at 14,863,312,407,851.35 (2). Lastly, is Ron Paul really a man true to his word? “He makes it clear that his principles will never be compromised, and they never are.” Another Congresswoman added that “There are few people in public life who, through thick and thin, rain or shine, stick to their principles. Ron Paul is one of those few” (3).
I found this ad to be persuasive because his add was grabbing and held my attention. It even got me thinking that in order to solve the economic issues, I must vote for him and fast. The big numbers scared me into thinking that he is what America needs to make those numbers go down. Lastly, Is message was very simple to make sure it could be understood by all viewers.
(1) http://www.ablongman.com
(2) http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
(3) http://www.ronpaul2012.com/who-is-ron-paul/
http://www.youtube.com/user/teambachmann#p/u/13/X0J1EhOKvtI
In this ad, Michele Bachmann pulls a classic politician move and emphasizes her Iowan roots. The ad is intended to help her in the upcoming Iowa caucus. She begins the ad with a sped up shot of Waterloo, Iowa, her birthplace. The cars zipping across the bridge and the flowing river might be intended to represent "things moving along" and daily hard working American life. In the background upbeat music is playing and the entire ad is brightly lit, giving her an optimistic image. The opening clip also associates Bachmann with small town America, meant to connect with the huge number of Iowans that don't live in a big city. She continues with the Iowa theme by calling herself the descendant of “generations” of Iowans and that she was “born and raised” in the state.
She then lists some of the facts about her life, like that she was a foster mother, mom of five, tax lawyer, and small business job creator. The first two listed serve to show that she is a family woman, appealing to the socially conservative and increasing her ethos. Her experience as a tax lawyer is one of her qualifications to be President and builds up her credibility. The “job creator” mention is an example of language linked to the economy. Bachmann is implying that she is supportive of small businesses, a frequent Republican maneuver, and that she would help turn around the unemployment crisis.
The next segment of the ad distances her from Obama, as she says that we must spend within our means, that she did not support the stimulus or the “wasteful bailout”, and that she will not vote to raise the debt ceiling. This appeals to conservatives that dislike the President and agree with her message of lower spending and less government. The ad finishes with the slogan “the unifying choice to beat Obama”, once again bashing him and associating herself with unity.
In my opinion, the ad is factual. She may have overplayed her relationship to Iowa just a little, but this is not deserving of criticism.
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perrys-presidential-campaign-releases-first-ad/
In this ad, Rick Perry is being portrayed as an all-America man who got to where he is through hard work and determination. The ad uses stories of Perry’s success along with blame towards the current President and his administration in an attempt to sway voters. Rick Perry was raised on a farm in a normal family, and acted as a captain in the Air Force, where he learned how to be a leader. “Rick Perry’s Texas,” is described as a tribute to his success as Governor. The things he has accomplished are appealing because they relate to the problems facing American today. For example, 40% of the new jobs in America are in Texas, and Perry is sometimes called the “jobs governor.” Also, according to this ad, Perry signed “6 balanced budgets,” and is fiscally conservative. This is an important quality to have because of the enormous debt our country is in. Another technique used in this ad is the “blame game.” This ad blames the job crisis on the government because federal regulations and the debt crisis are discouraging companies from creating new jobs and investing in the economy. Barack Obama is blamed for the first ever decrease in America’s credit rating because he could not control federal spending.
The facts used in the opening of this ad are very persuasive. They show just how poor of state the economy of our country is in, with nearly half of all money spent being borrowed from creditors, the value of homes down a significant amount in the past 5 years, and 1 out of 6 eligible workers without a job. However, the images chosen for this ad were not as persuasive as the facts. The ad opens with a normal picture of the white house, and the announcer asks “Is this the change American’s voted for in 2008?” Well, Americans didn’t vote for anything about the way President’s residence should look, so this picture is a bit irrelevant. While the footage of Rick Perry talking to workers in a factory and builders at a construction sight back up his claim of working with private enterprises, the footage of him on his family farm and in his barn are a bit too cheesy. When talking about his family, they show a clip of what is assumed to be Perry, his wife, his daughter, and his son, dressed in clothing from well before the turn of the century, gathered around for a family session of piano playing. Clearly this is meant as an appeal to pathos, to show that he a family man, but it is not very relatable to what America is like today.
First off, I picked this ad because it was different than the others I saw from other candidates. I liked the fact that he was using music and regular people to promote himself. Now this may not be a song you would want to buy on ITunes, but I think this will help Mr. Cain get the younger vote because I feel like younger people are drawn to music. This entire ad is about how he grew up a regular American and how he has achieved the American dream. The American dream is an important part in what people think of the United States. The people want to believe that they can become rich and happy, and I think Herman has done a good job of illustrating that in this advertisement. Also, Herman plays heavily on the fact that he grew up in the south. This will help him get more votes in the south because the south is all about tradition and southern pride. It was good that he addressed that the tea party isn't about race because he is a member himself. I actually thought it was funny that he said that he was speaking of tea parties before it was cool. It was also important that he addressed our economic problems and how our leadership can't say that 2 + 2 should equal 4. Another key part of this advertisement is his optimism in America and making people believe that we can improve.
All of his information he stated was correct. He didn't really focus on the figures and numbers, so there is nothing to dispute. He can't gloat that he has done things in politics, because he's never been in politics. It's true that he brought Godfather's Pizza back from bankruptcy and he truly believes that he can do the same thing for the economy. I feel like this advertisement is very persuasive because he doesn't have untrue facts, he uses real people, he uses music, and he tells it as it is.
The ad : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOFB-2yJzCY&feature=player_embedded#!
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/09/06/new-ron-paul-ad-trust/
The ad I chose was made by Ron Paul’s campaign. It makes a few key points. First, it pushes Ron Paul as a candidate based on his support of Ronald Regan. They make it clear that he is willing to stand alone when it is something he believes is worth fighting for. It specifically says « Ron Paul was one of only 4 Congressmen to endorse Ronald Regan’s campaign for president, believing in Reagan’s message of smaller government and lower taxes ». This associates Paul with Regan’s percieved past economic success (Reganomics) and also his general popularity with Republicans. This is the part of the ad that is about Ron Paul and is positive. It then shifts to being about Rick Perry. It says, « After Regan, Senator Al Gore ran for president. pledging to raise taxes and increase spending, pushing his liberal values. And Al Gore found a cheerleader in Texas named Rick Perry » This does a few things to hurt Perry’s credibility. First, it associates Perry with Al Gore. He is not only unpopular with Republicans but also seen as a «loser » when it comes to presidential alections. He is hoping to impress that image upon Rick Perry. Not only that, but he is attacking his economic plans based on the fact that he supported Gore’s libéral values. The point of this section of the ad was obviously to hurt Perry’s campaign in terms of the most important issue of the current election. He also uses a few quotes like « America must decide who to trust » and « Restore America now » to instill classic American pride to the campaign. He makes the issue about trust, saying that those who have supported successful candidates in the past are the ones we should trust with our current economic climate. There aren’t many claims in the ad that could be backed by factual evidence. I believe that in one way or another Ron Paul did support Ronald Regan and Rick Perry supported Al Gore but I think it may paint a misleading image, since their political careers are not based on the support of one candidate each. I think it is somewhat persuasive because it is dramatic and people do have strong opinions on the two figures (Gore and Regan) that are referenced and thus it is inévitable that some of those feelings would probably be transferred at least teporarily to the respective candidates.
The multiple techniques of persuasion in this advertisement are very effective, and emotionally charged. The ad starts with the quote “The Unites States of America is the most successful nation the world has ever known.” Obviously this attracts peoples’ attention because most citizens believe that we are the greatest country in the world, for many different reasons. Then the ad continues to list reasons that the United States it great, such as the fact that we are a free country, a prosperous country, and a safe and secure country. (1) These are all appealing attributes of the United States in which citizens pride themselves for. The ad also states that none of these things were easy, and that nothing that the United States has ever been through has been easy, and that we can do anything that we put our minds to. I feel that all these things combined together are very effective due to the fact that the ad talks about one thing that everyone wants: to be superior. (1) It doesn’t specifically state what people want to be superior in, but that the United States is better than most, if not all at a large range of things. While this narration is happening, many different images of struggle and success are playing through. Some of these images include Martin Luther King, Jr., the Statue of Liberty, and even two children dancing in the sunshine. Of all the images in the ad, at least one could connect on some level with everyone viewing it. (1)
Another reason that this advertisement works as well as it does it because it is shot like a movie trailer, with epic sounding music building up in the background of the narration. The music comes to a climax when the viewer first sees Pawlenty full on, making it seem like he is what this country has been waiting for, and now that he has arrived, the country can relax. The end of the ad shows the title of the book, “Courage to Stand,” which Tim Pawlenty wrote. So this ad is not only for Pawlenty, but also for his book, which in turn is another way to advertise himself for president. (1) As for whether or not the facts in this video are correct or not, there really aren’t that many facts. Almost everything stated in this advertisement is opinion, in some form. Although, looking through some articles, I found that Finland, Australia, and Japan are some of the world’s greatest countries. (2) Even that article though states that it is almost impossible to determine one best country in the world, so both view points are then opinions. Other than that, every other statement is pretty much opinions, so fact checking is somewhat difficult. All in all though, I would say that this advertisement is pretty persuasive and effective.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE
2. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/galleries/2010/08/15/best-countries-in-the-world.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYmRCXok8Dc&feature=channel_video_title
This ad was posted on the “Meet Michele” page of Michele Bachmann’s website, so it is apparently the one that her campaign has decided best represents her as a person. Perhaps because of this, the ad says very little about her policies, aside from one brief part about education, and instead focuses on her personal history. While voters definitely do consider their personal view of the candidate when making their voting decisions, I think informing the voters of the candidate’s views on current issues is better for democracy. But onto the actual ad.
The main strategy that Bachmann for President seems to have had in putting together this ad is basically to compile a slideshow of as many patriotic images as possible. This is combined with an agricultural theme, presumably to portray farmers as the backbone of America. Within the first thirty seconds, we have two separate shots of assorted buildings with flags nearby, a tractor, a church (because clearly Bachmann believes that good Americans must be devout Christians), shots of a cornfield from about five different angles, and, for some reason, a Coca-Cola ad. Obviously, Bachmann supports good American products, like Coke.
The ad then goes on to emphasize Bachmann’s descent from hardworking immigrants. Unless there is currently a Native American presidential candidate that I am unaware of, all of our presidential candidates are descended from immigrants, and it is quite likely that at least some of them were hardworking. But moving on. Bachmann appeals quite strongly to Americans’ sense of patriotism in this ad, emphasizing how her life story mirrors the idea of the American Dream. Her family didn’t have a lot of money! They came from “the wrong side of the tracks!” Yet despite this, they were content with their lives! The ad is filled with pictures from Bachmann’s childhood, showing that even if her family came from the wrong side of the tracks, they could still afford a camera. Next, the ad talks about Bachmann’s loving husband and children, displayed through even more family photos. This ties into Bachmann’s desire to promote the “traditional” family and evokes the belief that she and her target audience share that marriage should be only between a man and a woman (1).
After that, the ad goes into its brief discussion of policy: Bachmann “successfully reformed education!” What was it like before? How did she reform it? We don’t know, because the ad’s certainly not going to tell us. Next, she was elected to Congress and apparently spent a lot of time standing in front of the American flag. Finally, there are more shots of hometown patriotism, such as railroad tracks, more buildings with a flag nearby, and, of course, a cowboy.
I did not find this ad persuasive at all. It told me next to nothing about Bachmann’s policies and what she will do for me if she is elected president. It primarily just appeals to emotion and patriotism, which I don’t think is enough to run a presidential campaign on. The claims she makes about her family history are probably true, though I’m certain she’s deliberately leaving out anything unsavory. Whether they’re true or not, I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to her campaign. I also think it’s odd that she’s putting so much emphasis on her childhood when she didn’t even know her hometown well enough to realize that it was in fact the serial killer John Wayne Gacy and not the actor John Wayne who came from there (2). To me, this ad is just an attempt to distract from Bachmann’s actual policies with superficially pleasing rhetoric.
And remember, everyone, drink Coca-Cola™!
1. http://www.michelebachmann.com/issues/
2. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/06/27/6958622-wrong-john-wayne-mix-up-is-opening-day-headache-for-bachmann
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3je5uWAv-9E&feature=channel_video_title
It's official. Newt Gingrich is everyone's crazy great-uncle who thinks he really understands "what's happening with the young peoples of today" but is really fairly out of touch. To those old enough to be a member of AARP, this video probably seems like something the youth would love. It's clean, with few words, and has odd vaguely classical music in it. It's just like an Apple ad! The ad tries to first draw voters in with these elements; it is softer than most campaign ads. It contrasts "Nobama" to "New Newt," obviously portraying the latter in a positive light and the former in a negative light. It refers to all of the "failures" of Obama and the "successes" of Newt. If I hadn't been paying very close attention, this advertisement might seem rather pleasant. However, it merits a closer look. First off, the audio is cut strange around fifteen seconds into the video. I don't know if that counts as a review of his persuasion, but I know it made me think, "Wow, Newt, did you edit this yourself using your Windows 2000?" On to the actual content. Newt uses vitriolic words toward Obama, with nothing at all to back it up. Granted, it's a minute-long ad, but you could cut a word or two to put in a little bit of evidence. Then when he gets to the "evidence" in his pro-self portion, it makes ZERO sense. How is he judging his role in those things, seeing as he has never been President? If he is referring to his most powerful era in politics, Clinton's presidency, then Clinton deserves most of that credit. Otherwise, maybe he is referring to his hypothetical presidency that happened in his mind. He was elected president there, and also everyone forgot about his scandals and general old-man craziness. All in all, I found this an amusing bit of Newt-y goodness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY
I found this video actually kind of ridiculous. It portrays Paul as a complete hero, in a mimic of a movie trailer, as a savior. I do give the ad credit for its attention grabbing aspect. The drama and movie aspect of it is certainly very unlike the typical campaign ad, and not easily forgettable. Besides the initial appeal of the way the video is presented, I do not think some aspects of the video are that appealing. When the video starts, the voice quotes “the story of a lost city, lost opportunity, and lost hope.” I think these statements come across as a bit scary, which is basically the intent, as it makes Paul seem like so much more as a superior savior that can save the country from the turmoil it claims to be in.
As for the techniques it uses, the most significant would definitely be the layout of the campaign, as that is what clearly leaves the most lasting impact. It sheds a bad light on the other candidates and then uses the climatic and intense statement. “One man has stood apart.” I find it interesting that a word to describe all the other candidates was “division.” This tries to put Paul in the position as the only clear choice to end this division. When listing his policies, I find it effective, as they state that he has voted against all tax increases, which sets him up as stable in what he does, especially to the conservatives who will agree the way he has voted. Adding to the heroic theme of the ad, the way Paul votes is portrayed as him struggling to defeat the “Washington Machine.” This also adds to the other theme that he stands alone as the candidate to win. The campaign promises that Paul will “stop the spending, save the dollar, create jobs, bring peace.” It sounds like a stable and impressive campaign, yet it doesn’t really wish ways in which this will be achieved, besides his current voter status. I think the truth in the campaign is neutral, as nothing is technically false, yet Paul is blown up as a more of a hero than typical of a campaign. Overall, I think the campaign achieved the effect of being memorable and adding interest to Paul, yet I found it much too over the top to be taken seriously. As an aside, I read through the comments and despite ones in emotional support for Paul, the best one I found was one that stated plainly that what Paul needs to do to get elected president is to win the primary vote.
My ad: " Rick Perry: Time To Get America Working Again"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0n3NLgSsAg
The first thing I noticed whilst watching this ad was the sweet background music. An important part of setting the tone of any add is playing the right background music at a level where most people aren't quite paying attention to it. This ad features some nice anxiety-inducing piano playing that ratchets up tension while the speaker is addressing current conditions, and when Rick Perry bursts on to the scene to save the day, these fade out. They are replaced by a nice medley of drums and other instruments that give Perry a patriotic, heroic feel. Never underestimate the value of good background music in ads.
On to the actual content of the ad: "Is this the change Americans voted for in 2008?" Nice rhetorical question, doubting Obama and opening on the rest of the ad. "Two out of every five dollars we spend is borrowed from creditors." Fact check: total federal spending was in the vicinity of 3.5 trillion for 2010 while the deficit was 1.2 trillion(1). Deficit/spending ratio: about 0.34. Close enough, we'll let this one slide. Next: "One in every six eligible Americans can't find a job." Fact check: Unemployment rate is at 9.1%, according to the U.S. department of labor(2). I don't know what Mr. Perry is thinking he is saying, but what I'm hearing isn't remotely accurate. 1 for 2 so far. "Home values are almost 1/3 lower than they were 5 years ago." In September 2006 median price was about $227,000(3). 2/3 of this is $151000. August 2011 they were about $209000. 1 for 3, now. "And job creators lack the confidence to invest because of federal regulation and the debt crisis." Another nice example of projecting blame onto Obama for little-explained and likely unjustified reasons. I like his technique. "Record debt and our President's refusal to control spending led to our nation's credit rating being downgraded for the first time in history." The only bit that can really be argued with here is the shifting of all the blame to Obama, where it should be spread around. Still, I guess it's accurate. 2 for 4.
On to the bit about Rick Perry. The music picks up a bit, as the reader states, "But hope is on the horizon. Not an empty rhetoric of hope, but a record that gives us hope." Wow, this is the most unsubtle smear of Obama yet. "Rick Perry learned the values of hard work, patriotism, and faith in God." I'd like to cite my first amendment rights here, as well as observe the separation of church and state needed for governmental function. This passage is very attractive to Evangelicals and makes the rest of us throw up in our mouths a bit. Next up is a passage which I shall paraphrase: Rick Perry was born on a family farm, served in the Air Force as a captain, then returned to marry his high school sweetheart. This is standard mk.1 appeals to family values. It's tried, it's true, it's fairly boring. It's a necessary part of a conservative ad, though. I suppose it's fairly effective at its job. "He's signed six balanced budgets and an historic tax cut" Three things here: First, the words "historic tax cut" and "balanced budget" used together make no sense to an almost comical degree. Second, Texas state debt under Perry has risen from $13.7 billion in 2001 to $34.08 billion in 2009(4). And apparently his 2011 budget was balanced by a variety of tricks, most of which involved kicking the can down the road(4). Very much 2 for 5. And third, is "an historic" even right? That's what was said, and I'm pretty sure it isn't. "He's fought the lawsuit reforms that brought thousands of doctors to Texas." I like this wording. Away, doctors, away!
"He signed a loser pay law to stop frivolous lawsuits." Only two points here: One, it is predicted to have basically no effect(5). Two, if strengthened, the major effect would be to discourage small businesses from using lawsuits as protection against larger businesses(5). While not technically a falsehood, I am going to add this to his record just because it is so misleading. 2 for 6. "And Rick Perry's Texas has created more than 40% of America's net new jobs in two years." Please refer to my reply to post 1. Texas poverty rate is higher than U.S. poverty rate, and rising faster(6). Again, technically true, but Perry is being very misleading here. I'm going to call this 2 for 7. Finally, closing out the ad, it is explained how Rick Perry is the proven executive leader who can make tough decisions while getting America working again, he is the best, he can make everything better, etc.
The techniques here are thorough smearing of Obama, combined with a bunch of meaningless numbers, set to appropriate background music. Oh, and pointing out how Perry is a heroic family man with strong Christian attachments. It argues decently for Rick Perry, at least until the facts are examined. Perry's final record on facts I checked: 2 nominally accurate, 3 flat-out wrong by most definitions (not the ones he was using!) and 2 that are technically true but very misleading. Now, do I find it persuasive? HahahahahahahaNo. I am moderately liberal. Mr. Perry is so far conservative you can't even see him from where I stand. With no positions I actually agree with, facts I find suspicious, and little aimed at my demographic, this ad has solidly failed to convert me to Perry's cause.
(1)http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
(2) http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
(3) http://www.census.gov/const/uspricemon.pdf
(4) http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/07/06/261752/perry-budget-accounting-gimmicks/
(5) http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southcentral/2011/10/05/218678.htm
(6) http://www.cppp.org/files/091311_PovertyDay_PolicyPage.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5i66q1f3M3w
As you know our good buddy Tim Pawlenty is no seeking the republican party nomination but this ad is from a few months ago when he was. This ad attempts to rally support for Pawlenty while also letting us know who he is and what he has done. The ad is sucsessful in that he makes connections to the people, such as telling us his humble begining and using minnesota as a microcausum to the entire country. Pawlenty does not attack Obama to badly but does say that the country does not need him and also playing on his campaign slogan at the very end by say that change is still coming. In a way the ad is very motivational and if I was not from minnesota, where we have had to endure him, I may be slightly interested.
As far as accuacy and truth, the article is somwhat lacking. while there are alot of facts in the ad there are also many opinions that are perhaps to bold for an ad this early in the race. For instance just the fact that he calls the president out and infers that he is the best replacment is a little bit of a turn off. Also the ad is a little breif especially when he says he changed minnesota a conservative direction. He never says how he did this or why it was benifical to the state or why it will be benfiical to the country. Overall this ad was very well done and profesional.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biqIuX3uX0U
Jon Huntsmen knows what the American Public wants. They want soft piano music. They want a new leader with a new perspective. And they want buzzwords. Lots and lots of buzzwords. This ad is very keen on providing the viewer with phrases that hold deep-seated connections, such as “Strong at Home,” and “Builds Jobs.” Every word and line revolves around building him as the perfect candidate for the presidential election through not policy, but personality. He is a family man, an “ultimate Conservative,” “forever Pro-Life.” He does state that he will reduce government, and reduce taxes, but in no specific manner, rather a broad easily redefined blanket statement. He makes passive aggressive statements against Obama when he describes his plan for a market run health care system, sighing, and wishing aloud that “others had taken that path.” His attacks against other candidates surround the idea of never flipping nor flopping, nor dropping out of high school to tour with a band. He appeals to the Christian majority with the use of the phrase “God given gifts” to explain his talent, and why he is deserving to be in office. The use of the word America repeated many times helps to reinforce in voters’ minds how patriotic he is, without ever saying it outright.
The imagery of this ad is very lacking. Footage of a dirt biker riding across the desert is in the end brought back and showed to be relevant, the ad is long enough that the single sentence tying it together will not be remembered. The buzzwords written at the bottom of the screen also only serve to illustrate how much he is relying on their power rather than the power of his message. All in all, the ad does not provide enough focus on issues at hand, nor enough relevance and coherence to persuade. If it was played on the radio however, and only half-listened to, it would sound very delightful to the listener. The peaceful music and calming voice give much credibility, but the meaning drowns it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kduRV01IHWg
This ad is very dramatic. It had intense music going on, quick cuts and crazy fadeouts. At first it reminded me of a movie trailer but then the fanfare just became too much. Much of the ad is spent challenging Obamas success as the current President. With all the quick cuts I almost wonder if the ad was intended to work as a sort of subliminal message. The First half of the ad compares Obama to an exaggerated view of the poor economic climate America is in; While the second half of the ad relates Perry to kids running around with American flags and hard working folk. This ad really is just playing to people’s emotions. The only time facts are used are when they are pointing out the high unemployment rates. There are also snippets of newscasters talking about the troubling economic. Those clips are more creditable then the quick facts that just pop up throughout the ad because viewers at least get some sort of source from them. Personally neither of these can be seen as super creditable. Another the problem is with the heavy music being used throughout the ad and the dramatic flourish used when talking about Perry. It causes the viewer gets overwhelmed. Well, they will either be flustered by all that’s going on or they will not give the ad much merit because it is too over the top and just blames Obama for everything while touting that Perry is Gods gift to America. While all the imagery is effective the ad would have more power behind it if it could actually back up what its suggesting. If Perry is going to turn the country around what has he done in the past that could back up this claim? The ad doesn’t say, but it probably should. Overall I would say this ad needs to calm down because I find it slightly humorous. However I would also say that if Perry gets the Republican nomination he will need to go after Obama, so its good that he has addressed Obama in his ad. He should still calm it down though and try to give evidence as to why he would be a better president then Obama.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz3XgYLqCjg&feature=relmfu
The presidential campaign advertisement that I decided to analyze is Mitt Romney’s “In America: Anything is Possible”. This advertisement was released to the public shortly after Romney announced his decision to run for the presidential office in 2012. This ad was well-crafted and an excellent way to introduce Mitt Romney to the people. After viewing this ad, two things are clearly evident: the heart-provoking images and the emotionally charged language. These two techniques help to shape Romney’s public image as one who will be a strong, capable leader, along with creating the vision of an optimistic America (with Mitt Romney at the lead). Romney’s ad is loaded with prestigious American symbols, beginning with the icon Statue of Liberty, which is used more than once, along with the United States flag. Both of these clearly symbolize the strength of our united nation, and the freedoms and opportunities it has to offer. In accordance with this, Romney shows a lot of general positive images such as people smiling, the “simple American life”, and people achieving their goals amongst other things. All of these images help to create this ideal American image, and show/ remind the people what makes this nation so great and why we are proud to be Americans. In addition, Romney uses strong, efficacious language to further the intended message of his advertisement. In his opening monologue Romney says “… that in America, their children will have a better life,” showing the promise that this nation has to offer to both new people and those who are already citizens. More importantly was his phrase, “We stand for freedom, and opportunity, and hope. The principles that made this nation a great and powerful leader of the world have not lost their meaning. They never will.” Those three words (freedom, opportunity, and hope) are values that Americans hold to be true and sacred of their country, really hitting a special place in each person’s heart. Every second of this campaign keeps building upon this optimistic, positive image, but never does it become too overwhelming or cliché. All these elements just seem to fit perfectly to make an impressive advertisement that is unique. On a spate note, it must be mentioned that this advertisement does not talk about the current state of our nation, rather the future that lies ahead. This was unique and stood out to me, for often candidates shed negative light on their opponents to make their own ideas seem more promising. However, Romney avoids talking about the nation’s problems (which everyone is clearly aware of) and maintains the hopeful, positive message of this advertisement.
Obviously, this advertisement is more about setting the stage for Romney as a presidential candidate rather than discussing his opinions on the issues. However, a brief glimpse of his political opinion is given when he states, “The American ideals of freedom and economic opportunity need a clear and unapologetic defense, and I intend to make it because I have lived it.” This is a subtle hint at his plans to change and reinvigorate the economy (how he plans to is not stated), and encourage the ideals that America promotes. With the previous fact in mind, I am unable to discuss whether or not the ad’s claims are true since it’s really not making any. Rather, it is simply setting up the images of Romney and a future America, which do seem promising. I definitely feel that this advertisement made an extremely persuasive and effective case for Mitt Romney as president, and would definitely capture the attention of a large demographic. As I stated before, this advertisement uses such powerful images and words that one cannot help but pay attention and be piqued by what Mr. Romney may have to offer his country in the future. I believe that this advertisement will make people want to learn more about Romney, even if they already have an opinion on him. This is honestly one of the more powerful advertisements that I have seen in a long time. It was a great beginning ad for Romney, and his future ads that focus more on the issues will be interesting to see.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgcvb8htQyk
This ad campaign ran back during the summer, in anticipation of the debt ceiling deals. The video uses techniques that are common to action movie trailers (ie “movie voice”, panning shots, huge build-up to the climax, dramatic music). The video begins with a shot of the Statue of Liberty, an obvious American symbol, and progresses to tell a story not unlike a huge government scandal being unveiled. The opening statements refer to Reagan, and paint him as a victim, forced to raise the debt ceiling due to such great opposition. The biggest element of the video is definitely the progression of Democrats as “liars” throughout history. This is a unique approach for Ron Paul, as he does not specifically target Obama, but the system as w hole. The video alludes to the idea that historically, Democrats break their promise. Midway through the video, Ron Paul switches to attacking the current Democratic party leaders (visually, they are depicted with frowning faces, obstructed with words such as “higher taxes”, which bring clear negative connotations). After attacking the Democrats, Ron Paul shifts to attacking his own party. This, I believe, is the most effective part of the video. I like that Ron Paul does not simply pit Democrats against Republicans, but instead pits himself against EVERYONE. Although risky, it portrays him as a revolutionary (an advocate of major change). The huge theatrical build-up continues until Ron Paul is introduced (note that money is no longer falling, but instead….confetti. Cute). Another thing to note is that Ron Paul is the only smiling face that is shown in the video (after all, everyone else is simply incapable of leading). Ron Paul goes on to cite his goals; “Cut spending, balance the budget, No Deals.” To the average Republican, this would seem very persuasive: it hints at the idea that compromise is ruining the system. For me, this idea is terrifying. A president that refuses to compromise sounds “awesome” to the people, but they need to realize that stonewalling opposition actually slows the legislation process down further (the government is not based upon the opinions of a single individual). The video ends with Ron Paul promising to “stand up” to the “Washington Machine”. Once again, stop being ridiculous. I surely hope that Americans do not fall for this overblown rhetoric, as it is simply unrealistic. A president that discourages compromise….good luck passing anything.
Now let’s begin the fact-checking. There are only three major statements that Ron Paul makes during the entire video: America is $14 trillion in debt, millions are unemployed, and the dollar is in decline. As of May, America had reached its debt limit of $14.29 trillion (2). During May, June, and July, the unemployment percentage hovered around 9.1% (over 27 million). (3). During June, the dollar faced a decline lasting over three weeks (4). Ron Paul cited safe figures, and I doubt he would risk any numerical inaccuracies for some of his first ads going into the campaign season.
Overall, the ad campaign is very appealing. However, when you watch the video several times and consider what Ron Paul is advocating, the persuasion element begins to deteriorate. The point of a commercial such as this, however, is that you only see it once through. I continue to refer to this ad as “like a movie trailer”, and movie trailers operate in the same way: Watching a trailer over and over can make you realize that in its simplicity, it is only dramatic music and flashy words. Ron Paul’s video is the same way.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgcvb8htQyk
2. http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/national_debt_us/index.html
3. http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
4. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-03/dollar-declines-to-three-week-low-versus-yen-on-growth-outlook.html
‘Rick Perry: Time to Get America Working Again’:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0n3NLgSsAg&feature=player_embedded#!
Questions regarding Presidential Ad 2012:
1. What techniques is it using to try to persuade voters?
2. Are the claims it is making true, partially true or false?
3. Do you find it persuasive?
4. Why or why not?
Responses:
1. This ad definitely appeals to patriotism. It talks about how he grew up in a small town in Texas, he was in the military, and after the military he went back to his hometown where he married his high school sweetheart. This section about his life makes it sound like he is a very traditional person. The ad is probably intended for the average white American. The phrase “empty rhetoric of hope” refers to the slogan for Obama’s 2008 campaign. It is a subtle jab at Obama and offers Perry as a leader with a “record of hope”. This is meant to make the listener feel that Rick Perry is the leader that could provide the best solutions for the nation’s problems (unemployment, national debt, etc).
2. Most of the information that is given is true. Some of the facts that the ad uses are true, but misleading. At times they provide opinions, which are disguised as facts. Some statements such as: “40% of all net new jobs are created in Texas” during his recent tenure as governor might be true. This statistic is supported by other articles, but the quality of the jobs is what needs to be taken into consideration. The jobs that Rick Perry discussed are not all high-paying jobs. Also, because Texas’ population has gone up around 4.2 million people within the past 10 years, there is higher employment in Texas, but there is also the highest unemployment level in almost 24 years in Texas. [1] In the ad, it was suggested that record debt and Obama’s refusal to control spending led to the first credit rating drop for the United States government in history. This statement isn’t entirely true, because the blame for the credit drop cannot be placed solely on President Obama. Congress creates the budget, with input from other people such as lobbyists and of course, the President. The ad also states that while he was governor of Texas, 6 balanced budgets were created. It is a true statement, but it isn’t a great accomplishment because states are required to balance their own budget. It has to be done- he signed 6 balanced budgets, but Rick Perry didn’t create them by himself.
3. Yes, I found this ad very persuasive. It made it sound as if Rick Perry could solve all of the nation’s economic problems. Everything about the ad was made to make people feel good about Rick Perry as a candidate and also as a person as a whole. When they talk about his personal life, they mention all of the things about him that they think that people would like to relate to as Americans. This makes listeners feel connected with him and at times equal with him, so he is more of a comrade than one of their superiors.
4. For this ad, Perry made sure that all of the statements were in his favor. Some may have been facts, while others may have been statements that are subject to interpretation or debate. Many of the things he has done were glorified to sound like he is some sort of hero. This is done so that listeners think of Rick Perry as the best choice to be the nation’s next president.
Sources:
[1] http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2011-08-25/Our-view-Texas-growth-under-Perry-is-no-miracle/50140126/1
This video uses many dramatic techniques to persuade its voters. For instance, it uses many references to American history in both the fight from oppression and the push for freedom. In addition, the abrupt change of tone used in this ad is an effective advertisement technique. This ad starts off by using a reference to the American Constitution, by saying “In 2012, We the People will be heard...” [1]. The entire thirty seconds denounces President Obama’s current tax codes by using a very powerful comparison of slavery. With dark and solemn music playing in the background and images of protestors and their signs, Cain effectively catches a viewer’s attention. After the sudden shift to really positive and almost gospel like music, the tone of this ad turns for the solemn present to a hopeful future, which, obviously, will only occur if Cain becomes the next president. Cain even describes his new 999 plan as “a major step towards tearing the chains off the back of the American people.” Again, he refers to his idea of the parallel between slavery’s chains and the tax burden on Americans. In addition to using historical references and tone shifts, Cain shows many video clips of himself giving speeches and talking in a more small group setting. It gives the initial impression that Cain is a man who really cares about his people and wants to personally hear their opinions. Also, audience includes children, parents, and senior citizens cheering him on. I believe this is in attempt to show how many followers he already has gained. The bandwagon effect is now in full force, if everyone is supporting Cain, that obviously means you need join in the support. At the very end of the ad, the message, “if 10% is good enough for God, then 9% should be just fine for the Federal Government.” This Biblical reference is using the appeal to authority fallacy to gain support from the religious community.
The claims Cain makes in this ad are mainly false. For instance, slavery and the current tax code are definitely not even close to the same level of cruelty and inhumanity. Even before slaves arrived to America, ten to twenty percent died in the middle passage [2]. The tax code is not causing people to die. It was not one bit persuasive to me. I believe it is not okay to compare such a horrific and still sensitive time of American history to such frivolous things as taxes and money. I am not saying they are not very important things in society, it is incredibly inappropriate and offensive to create a parallel of slavery and tax codes. Furthermore, Cain’s claim that the “IRS is the overseer of the American people” is also false. I did not find this ad to be persuasive, I actually found it to be quite cliche. Cain uses some very stereotypical campaign ad techniques such as showing himself giving speeches and crowds of supporters cheering him on. Additionally, is too dramatic and cheesy in the display of Cain’s economic platform and the current economy. The fallacies made in this ad are simple maneuvers created in attempts of gaining support for his campaign. Although this ad used many techniques in efforts to gain a backing in his political campaign, I was not persuaded to jump from my strong bias towards the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-IuiEmXoBhI
[1]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_zoom_1.html
[2] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p277.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EL5Atp_vF0
Wow. This may be the single-most misguided and confused presidential ad I have ever seen. This ad, by Rick Perry, is a classic example of playing to voters’ emotions instead of their heads. There is zero message aside from “Obama bad, Perry good.” It’s made like a movie trailer, complete with escalating background music and flashy transitions. The first half of the trailer shows deserted neighborhoods and shops in disrepair, intercut with images of Obama, and words like “failure” and “zero” roll across the screen, in some typical Hollywood font. It also emphasisez rain very heavily, as if rain is a sign of a bad economy. While it is clear Perry is attacking Obama, what he is actually critisciing is much more vague. There is some mention of the economy, some mention of jobs, but nothing is specificed. A favorite term of the ad is to call Obama “President Zero,” an apparent attack on his perceived lack of progress. What the trailer leaves out is that this lack of progress is due to the repubvlican’s immaturity, and their blocking him at every turn. I do not fins this persuasive in any definition of the word. This ad has zero sunstance, and the only voters it willl influence are the ones who are too lazy to turn on the google machine and lear about politics themselves.
The second half of the ad is much different, yet exactly the same. Instead of being an attack against Obama, it carries instead a pro-Perry message. It shows images and videos of Perry, intersperesd with “patriotic” images such as a boy running with an American flag, and fighter jets. It shows farmland, the Statue of Liberty, and more farmland. This is a clear attewmpt to reach the “real America,” a classic republican mistake, because there is no “real America.” And while this impressive display of patriotism is rolling, a speech by Perry is playing in the background, consisting solely of dramatic phrases such as “America is the last great hope of mankind.” Really? Last great hope of mankind? Hey, buddy, there’s this place called China. The scenes then shift to factories, and factory workers, and the speech says something about “America’s best years are yet to come.” This ad is nothing but pointless, useless, fluff.
I am having so much fun watching these ads and reading your posts! Thanks. I can't wait to show some of these to my 9th graders! :) MA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EL5Atp_vF0
Rick Perry’s 2012 presidential ad, “Proven Leadership,” uploaded on September 20th, sets the bar high for other candidates—at least for those candidates wishing to make an TV ad filled with dramatic cinematography, a driven soundtrack, and a lack of specific policies the candidate believes in.
The ad opens with desolate shots of empty streets and public transportation, erie with the ambient noise of urban environments—without any evidence of recent human inhabitance. Obama’s voice is projected in, just loud enough to be heard over the cacophony of sirens, thunder, rain, and wind, assuring the public that “we are headed in the right direction.” An empty swing oscillates restlessly in the wind.
I have to admit, its a little ridiculous. Ok, maybe a lot ridiculous. But even though my mind refuses to rationalize the concept of a presidential ad that reminds me of almost any movie trailer, I’m drawn into the ad. As the ad transitions into specific criticism of the Obama administration, the ad falls into persuasive rhetoric, relying on repetition to associate Obama with the negative connotations of the word “zero”—”zero hope”, “zero jobs”, “zero change.” As someone who doesn’t agree with any of Perry’s views, I would still say the ad is very effective. Almost all information in the ad so far is a direct quote. I trust that the majority of the content is true. At this point in the ad, as the dark music swells, and as Obama’s voice proclaims “I’m just getting started,” the typical viewer probably is feeling like there is no hope for America’s future...or is there?
The dark images fade, and galloping horses on a beach fill the screen. Images of hope and patriotism flash by with a stately determination, as the music changes, “a new name for leadership”, Rick Perry, cuts through the disillusionment and distrust.
I can’t help the response I know feel towards Perry. I like him! I’m programmed to feel what the music tells me to, and the music is now telling me to register to vote. Immediately. Even the shiny titles are drawing me in! As the music swells to a climax, euphoria floods me, and I’m filled with a sense that everything will be alright.
Presumably not wanting to alienate viewers at this critical moment, the ad creators have notably left out all mention of exactly what Perry will do as president—how he will remedy the current situation. If I wasn’t informed about the election, I wouldn’t even know that Perry had conservative views.
I’ll be honest—this ad portrays Perry as the ideal president. But it lacks the substance to persuade intelligent voters to hop on the bandwagon. But maybe thats not the point. Maybe the ad is just meant to put the name out on the table, and to have viewers associate it with the powerful emotions invoked in the ad. In this respect, its persuasive. But the lack of Perry’s actual political beliefs leaves me a little uneasy. I hope Perry comes out with an informative ad in the near future, because if he can link the emotional responses with his policies, he will be unstoppable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EL5Atp_vF0 Rick Perry’s 2012 “Proven Leadership” presidential ad was uploaded on September 20th. From a cinematographic viewpoint, this ad is wonderful and every other candidate should want to have an ad like it, but politically it leaves the viewer wondering what exactly the candidate’s beliefs are (other than believing that he would make a good president). To persuade viewers that they are in desperate need of a change in leadership the ad begins with depressing images or public transportation and empty streets, urban places that should be bustling but look utterly devoid of human inhabitance. In the background, rain, thunder, wind, and sirens can be heard. Also, the current president’s voice is heard saying “We are headed in the right direction.” This ad resembles a movie trailer more than an advertisement for a presidential candidate. This ad would be extremely persuasive to a potential voter who does not agree with many of Perry’s views because of the repetitive language and the way that Obama’s words are made to feel haunting. This ad directly criticizes the Obama administration using the word “zero” and applying it to different promising words that were used in the president’s 2009 campaign, such as “hope” and “change.” When the viewers hear Obama’s voice declare “I’m just getting started,” ominous music swells, provoking feelings and thoughts of a hopeless situation and future for our country. The next images that viewers see is actually horses galloping on a beach, patriotic and hopeful music plays, Rick Perry is “a new name for leadership.” The creators of this political ad have left out many important details to Perry’s campaign, such as his platform and how he’s going to fix the mess that he’s saying our president made. This ad lacks critical information about Perry because it does nothing other than portray him as a knight in shining armor. This ad seems to be targeted to those who are uninformed about the presidential race and are not likely to vote, since it doesn’t even state what party Perry belongs to. Honestly, I do not think that this ad is supposed to promote Perry’s beliefs because it doesn’t state them. I believe that this ad is only an advertisement, something to sell the product effectively.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylST6_Px2_4&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active
The ad I have selected to analyze is from Michele Bachmann’s website, and discusses her views on immigration. Unlike the Ron Paul and Rick Perry ads that most people analyzed, this one is very straightforward. It features the Congresswoman standing in front of a grey/ beige wall (I am not very good with colors), with a vase of red flowers, half of a crystal bowl and a potted tree in the background, framing Bachmann. Using techniques handed down from Mr. Wills, it is obvious that the tree is a symbol for the growth and renewal that Bachmann plans to bring to the nation. The crystal bowl is a symbol on two different levels, first is symbolizes the richness of America that Bachmann is pledging to protect, but it also symbolizes the fragility of America, and that Bachmann needs to protect with her immigration policies. The flowers, however, are the most intriguing. First, notice that they are red. This means they symbolize fire, as well as the Republican colors and the blood that Bachmann plans on spilling as part of her immigration policy. They also symbolize the fruit of America, which Bachmann plans on never letting illegal immigrants pick. Anyway, on a more serious note, this ad is very basic. Bachmann starts by reassuring voters that she indeed cares about them, and Republicans “have a heart.” At first this sounds like an campaign ad on the issue of social services, but then Bachmann reveals it is about illegal immigration. She goes on to say that all of Obama's policies on the issue are bad and misleading, and lastly she claims that she will restore glory by doing exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing. The problem is, Bachmann's policies will be detrimental to the nation's economy, military and social well being on the whole. First, Bachmann promises to "stop giving tuition breaks to illegal immigrants." This is clearly a reference to the DREAM act, which most experts argue will strengthen not only the military, but our educational system and economy as well. It provides a path to legal immigration and expands the working base. Bachmann opposes it because she believes that it takes away opportunities from"hard-working Americans" but she fails to realize that Americans already have access to all of the jobs the DREAM act gives to illegal aliens. Secondly, Bachmann promises, albeit ambiguously, to "build a fence." I would ask her such questions as "how" and "where" and "when" and "why." She doesn't have a way to pay for it, nor does she say what southern states it will cover, or when she will do it. However, the most important question is why, because no one can honestly think that a fence will stop immigrants from getting into the United States. It will only increase tensions with Mexico, which is facing huge internal strife from various drug lords. This is a dangerous proposition for the U.S. to take on. Additionally it is important to point out that no plan survives first contact with the "enemy," and it is likely that immigrants will find another way to get around the fence. Lastly, Bachmann promises to back states like Arizona in enforcing immigration laws. This belies her blatant racism well. Arizona's laws in regard to immigration have been protested almost universally as a racist set of laws that allow the sheriff's department to engage in racial profiling, which if allowed to continue and spread can tear apart the diversity of a society. All in all, Bachmann's ad is alright, but her policies are atrocious.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home