This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Please post your response to post 3 here. Please be specific in your praise or criticism of your classmate's post or the ad they picked. Please state who you are responding to. If you use or refer to sources please be sure to cite them in your post.
posted by maby-keirstead @ 8:56 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
27 Comments:
@Karma
While I agree this ad appeals towards patriotism, but I believe an even larger appeal is towards the American Dream. Rick Perry’s ad starts off with a rhetorical question, “Is this the change Americans voted for in 2008?” This loaded question attempts to have the audience question their past decisions. Aided by a series of facts and images of changing graphs, set Americans first reactions to the current state of the nation as negative. He talks about how “our children” have to deal with this issue, too. This starts incorporating the idea of the American Dream with idea by questioning the financial opportunities for generations to come. Instead of appealing to patriotism when the ad reflects on Perry’s life, it appeals more the the American Dream. It shows what some consider to be an ideal life with the perfect family and defending ones country. In addition to showing Perry’s shining past, this ad has images of Perry visiting and working with many blue collar workers. This plain folk fallacy is trying to show the public that Perry is on their side.
Although this ad idealizes Perry’s history with the plain folk fallacy, I did not find it at all persuasive. This seems too good to true and the majority of Americans cannot relate to Perry’s background. While Perry did grow up on a family farm, which can be thought to symbolize growing up learning the importance of hard-work, the majority of Americans cannot relate to this ad. Only 17% of Americans are currently living in rural areas, or farmland [1]. The majority live in the cities or suburbs, which are quite different than living on farms. I agree that this ad does twist facts in a way to aid Perry’s reputation. Also, the ad says Perry has learned the importance of “faith in God.” While this might represent a honest, whole hearted person, the government is in fact separated from any religion. With the first amendment separating church and state and the great diversities in religion caused by this freedom of religion, the fact of Perry’s has faith in God does not make this ad persuasive [2]. While people affiliated with religion could find this as a bonus, it does not allow Perry to relate to atheists or Americans who instill their faith in ideas and opinions in beliefs not relating to God or religion.
I agree that the majority of the claims in Perry’s ad are true, but they are twisted in a way that idealizes Perry. This causes the fact to become less accurate. For instance, a fact, such as America’s credit rating being downgraded, is paired with the idea that Obama’s views on government spending is one of the main causes for this financial crisis [3]. He does not acknowledge the Republican’s unwillingness to compromise, which has created deadlocks in Congress and stalled possible solutions to the debt crisis [4]. Furthermore, Perry lacks to recognize the fact the economy was already in shambles when Obama started in office [5].
[1] http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html
[2] http://www.adl.org/issue_religious_freedom/separation_cs_primer.asp
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade-of-us-credit-rating/3011/08/05/gIQAqKeIxI_story.html
[4] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/3011/07/05/earlyshow/main30076789.shtml
[5] http://www.nytimes.com/3008/10/36/nyregion/connecticut/36voicesct.html?pagewanted=all
@ Andrew
First off, I am very glad you found this ad. I very much enjoyed listening to it as well as watching it. I disagree with you when you said “this may not be a song you would want to buy on ITunes”. I would totally buy this song on Itunes, and yes, I’m not much of a country fan. I felt that the ad did a great job portraying Cain as an all-American kind of person, showing his conversations with everyday Americans. Now one concept that Cain is pushing that I’m personally inclined to disagree with, despite the fact that it was well played in the ad, is his belief that his experience with Godfather’s Pizza qualifies him to fix our nation. Our nation, I contend, is not pizza and should not be handled as such (consider if you will giving our nation “pizza” to that greasy-looking delivery kid in the nearly burnt out rust covered Geo Spectrum. Makes you feel uneasy, doesn’t it?) That being said, I feel that our nation needs someone that is comfortable leading, and Cain certainly puts out an aura of leadership. Another point that you brought up was his southern origins. The truth is, we haven’t had a truly southern president since Jimmy Carter (I realize that both Bushes were from Texas, but Texas is really something other than the South, kind of like a whole other country really). I’m not entirely sure that it’s a good or bad thing, I’ll let history speak for itself. That said I agree with you that Cain’s southern heritage will garner support from the south.
I do find it a little low that Cain himself in the ad alludes to what I like to call “dumb politicians”. I feel that his “2+2 should equal 4” statement was really a low attack on other politicians. I’m not saying that politicians are smart or dumb, however, they did get elected to office, which is more than Cain has been. I felt that added a lot of negativity to the ad and the ad would have been better off without that added attack. I feel he should have left the attacks to other candidates who actually have firsthand experience in dealing with the less mentally endowed politicans.
Overall I would have to agree with your analysis of that ad, however, I believe your argument metaphorically shot itself in its metaphorical foot with the last sentence. I liken it to the appendix of the anatomy of the argument you presented; it doesn’t add to the argument or better it in any way while simultaneously adding the risk of devastating failure by way of appendicitis. This appendix effect can be attributed to two phrases. 1. “He doesn’t have untrue facts” That statement is so uniquely ridiculous I can’t even begin to comprehend how inane it truly is. The same idea could have been presented more accurately like this: “Cain presents only true statements” or “His ad doesn't rely on the age old practice of weaving lies to misdirect the public”. The second phrase that I find faulty is “he tells it as it is”. Actually, I have nothing to say about this one - other than I revoke my previous statement of ‘uniquely ridiculous’ made in reference to “He doesn’t have untrue facts”. Unique constitutes only one, and from where I stand I can see two equally ridiculous items.
Again, I really liked your analysis of the ad, it was concise and it addressed the high points of the ad as well as reviewing how he used several common political ad techniques like bringing on a plethora of average everyday Americans.
@ Andrew Cross
I disagree that this ad was in any way effective. I actually found the majority of the facts he presented quite sad. Here’s what I got out of those four minutes:
-Herman Cain went to school.
...The average voter will not be impressed by this. Everyone goes to school.
-Herman Cain laughs sometimes.
...The only candidate who loses out on this is Rick Santorum, who has a sarcastic laugh-face.
-Herman Cain was NOT always cool.
...“I want to vote for him! I’m not cool either!” Doubtful voters will be persuaded by this. Additionally, false: being a member of the tea party is actually less cool than ever (2)
-Herman Cain has a wife.
...Most candidates are married. This influences nothing. Also, just let Rick Santorum be the family-man, don’t double cover the few things he has left.
-Herman Cain’s father had “sweat equity.”
...Hooray for the old welfare dependency argument? I don’t see where else this comment could be directed. Voters should also be offended by this comment, as it hints that the economic difficulties we face are due to personal laziness. Tell that to the large percentage of unemployed troops returning home. (3)
-Herman Cain can walk (In fields, by trains, on streets….good for him!)
...This technique was overused.
-Herman Cain can evolve into a train sometimes (although this COULD be effective for passing policies)
...The “Cain Train” is no longer a figure of speech; the overlay of clips clearly shows his evolution into an actual train.
-Herman Cain will use common sense to run the government.
...Apparently NO ONE else in the government prides themselves on possessing this “common” trait. Besides, who needs an economic education to fix the economy? Not Herman Cain!
-Herman Cain is NOT old….he knows how to talk on a cell phone while eating.
...1. I could not hear anything he was saying, as the country band was playing way too loudly.
...2. This clip was too long and ended up boring me, as a viewer.
-Raise some Cain!
...I literally do not understand this phrase. In context, it is some sort of monetary replacement (“Obama raised billion, but I want to raise some Cain!”) Is this campaign now along the lines of “make my personal dreams a reality?” That seems like a poor strategy for gaining support.
-“Success is a dream, not a destination.”
...Then I guess Cain does not need to be president: according to him, he’s already won.
-Herman Cain has more than one black friend .
...African Americans are not going to switch from being a Democrat to a Tea Partier simply because Herman Cain found a few black individuals to pose for a video. Also, Herman Cain believes that the majority of African Americans are brainwashed (4), I do not think this video will be enough to undo that comment.
@ Andrew Cross Cont.
Andrew, you have a point when you say that Herman Cain does not possess very many figures/data to include in his video, but I wish that there had been any sort of evidence presented to me. Obviously part of the campaign game is to create visually stimulating videos, but I find this particular one over-the-top, and past the point of effectiveness. For Herman Cain, ANY numbers would have aided him with more credibility, but currently this video lacks substance, and voters will not fall for the strict emotional appeal. I disagree that the video’s target audience is young voters, because you see very few of them in the video. Instead, Cain makes a point to align himself with African Americans, as well as typical Conservatives (southerners, older and white males). Cain realizes that going after the young vote will be much more difficult than trying to stimulate support from the Republican base and African Americans. I do find it a bit hilarious that Herman Cain does not try to mask his agenda, and comes right out to say something along the lines of “Look, we have black people!” Along those same lines, I also died a little when Cain used the word “slavery” and the phrase “Isn’t this country awesome?!” in the same sentence. It must be nice that Herman Cain thinks that slavery had no lasting impacts; in fact, racism apparently doesn’t hold people back! (5)
Overall, only one main technique was used in this ad, and that was appealing to emotions/Bandwagon. This technique was so blatant however, that it actually reflects negatively on Cain. Cain needs to get some real facts, and fast.
1. THE VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOFB-2yJzCY&feature=player_embedded#!
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/05/us/politics/05teaparty.html
3. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/11/business/la-fi-veteranjobs-20110711
4. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/02/herman-cain-blacks-brainwashed_n_991124.html
5. http://www.theroot.com/buzz/herman-cain-many-african-americans-have-level-playing-field
Dear Will
Surprise! I’m responding to you! My, what an intense ad you chose. If anything, I believe the main goal of this ad was to showcase the ability of the editor to splice tons of different video clips together. Also, it shows that the film crew responsible for these video clips is really good at bringing its cameras to different locations where people don’t you usually video tape things. For example, a greeting card aisle! Who would have guessed that Obama is running our country so poorly that even a greeting card aisle represents his failure? Unfortunately, the person in charge of gathering the video clips really wants to go to New York City, but he can’t. So he decided to include multiple clips of Times Square! The picture of Times Square at night clearly shows Obama’s flawed leadership skills, where as the image of Times Square during the day obviously connotes that Rick Perry would be a good president. Right?
I definitely agree with on you that this ad is lacking any deep messages, besides that when Obama is president America is kind of gloomy looking, and when Rick Perry wins, everything will be in bright colors all the time. The ad states that no new jobs have been created by the Obama administration. However, in 2010 Obama’s administration pledged that in 2011 the unemployment rate would drop to a flat 9% (1). Alas! The unemployment rate is currently 9.1%, thus Obama has succeeded in creating jobs (2). The only other real fact that this ad provides viewers with is that the level of people living in poverty in America is at record levels. Unfortunately, this is true, but no explanation is given as to how Rick Perry is going to fix this problem.
Much to your dismay, Will, I do disagree very strongly with you on a few very important issues. First off: you doubted the fact that rain is a sign of a bad economy. I believe, however, that if our economy were to be in very good condition, we would have enough spare money to create a device in which we as humans could stop rain from falling from the sky. Clearly, if it is raining, our economy is in too low of a state to make this invention possible. Also, you described the phrases in the beginning of the ad as being in, and I quote, “typical Hollywood font.” I beg to differ. I do not think that font is typical of Hollywood (3). Though our ideological views on these few issue do differ greatly, I am otherwise in complete agreement with you; this ad is very ineffective.
1. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/01/obama-and-unemployment-a-fall-to-9/1
2. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
3. http://simplythebest.net/fonts/famous_fonts.html
@ Justin K
I agree that Tim Pawlenty made this add well by the special effects and connecting with the audience. However, I found it a little too cheesy. The motivational music was too much and it sounded as if it should be in a sentimental movie rather than an add. I agree with what you said about Pawlenty not explaining how or why it is beneficial that he changed Minnesota into a more conservative state. I wish he would have spent more time explaining how he was going to change the problems that we face rather than just stating that he will. As a viewer I would be much more persuaded if he would have done so. I also agree with the fact that it was a slight turn off when he called out Obama. To me I think people should worry about their own races. When people bash other people I think it looks bad for them because it makes it seem like their campaign is weak and that is why they feel the need to bash other people.
@Rutger
As much as I would like to make this a little more interesting, I really have no serious points of disagreement with you on this one. Watching this ad with the piano music you mentioned made me nearly want to sleep like a baby even with my caffeine source in hand. My favorite bump in this commercial was probably how the buzzwords suddenly go to nearly giving an entire sentence with the line "How Fortunate We Truly Are". Another favorite of mine was him saying he preferred a greasy spoon to a linen tablecloth. I don't know about any of you guys for sure, but I'm from a just above average income, blue collar family, and I dislike a greasy spoon being served to me as much as the next guy (though I probably wouldn't complain as much as your average conservative constituent). While I'm using the word conservative, really? Really Hunstman? The ultimate conservative? So... maybe I missed something, but essentially what I'm hearing is that he wants us to return to the Andrew Jackson form of government? Also, Huntsman uses the words "bold" and "meaningful" to describe the spending cuts he proposes, as opposed to the other potential plans which are apparently very artificial, but lacks absolutely any essence as to what he actually did. For all we know, he used that "cut" money to buy himself the dirtbike seen in this video. I don't want to be overly critical, but frankly, with the clear lack of any real essence within this ad, I think the most positive thing I'll be taking from this video is the fact that the wilderness area in question looks like an excellent place for me to try out my new Camelbak.
Hey Brooke! I definitely agree with your analysis of this ad. Parts of it are quite ridiculous. If you were to just listen to the ad without watching it you would definitely feel afraid for America and the direction is it going. However, I don’t think it does that great of a job selling Rick Perry. All of the comments about him as a person or his past seem too glossy to be true or even relevant. This ad takes time to mention how he married his high school sweetheart and worked on the family farm. That might be a nice image, but it comes off contrived, especially when coupled with the ridiculous images of Rick Perry in chaps feeding his horses. The stats about his success as a governor seem almost “too good to be true” to the point where they seem like manipulated or misleading stats. Perhaps I am too skeptical, but I find it unlikely that Rick Perry could legitimately take all of the credit for the jobs created in Texas and I also don’t know that I believe that 40% of the jobs created in America in the last two years were in Texas. The claims made about the current situation with the president and the economy are emotionally very effective but logically less so. He blames government regulation for the economic downturn as well as President Obama’s reckless spending. He fails to take into account the fact that the problem started long before Barack Obama and the recession happened in 2008, the first year of his presidency. He does point out how much of our money is borrowed, which is a scary thought and it certainly creates a feeling of need for a new policy, if not new leadership. I said at the beginning that if you were to listen to the ad without watching the images you would feel compelled to at least look into the possibility of a new administration. The point of that comment is that watching the video depletes a lot of the credibility created by the strong rhetoric. Brooke is completely right about this. The scene she references with the family piano playing party is clearly not realistic and kind of silly. It provided me a good laugh, but not a lot of faith in Rick Perry. Perry is seen sitting on a tractor, feeding a horse, walking on his family farm, playing the piano with his family, shaking hands with a contractor on site, in a doctor’s office somehow assisting in what looks like an MRI, working in a hardware store, walking in what looks like a Home Depot, and standing behind a man working on a computer, apparently giving great guidance. Even the staunchest Rick Perry supporters would cringe at the sight of this ad. He was effective in choosing the right issues to highlight such as the 1 in 6 possible workers being unemployed, the downgrade of the credit rating, and the devastating housing market but I think Rick Perry should work to find a more relatable and realistic image that doesn’t feel like it is condescending to Americans.
@Katie
Katie, I am sorry to say that I disagree with your interpretation of Tim Pawlenty’s “Courage to Stand” ad. I find it neither persuasive nor effective. I’d like to start out with the triumphant image slideshow he plays at the beginning. Specifically, I’d like to call your attention to the image at 0:28. This is a group of students in a lecture hall, or possibly a planetarium or something because it’s really dark in there. I’m not sure what message this is supposed to convey (something about education?), but what I do know is that all those kids look bored out of their minds. Seriously, look at their faces. Those kids would rather be stabbing sharp objects into their eyes than spending one more minute in that lecturetarium. To me, this image sends one message and one message alone: TIM PAWLENTY WILL BORE YOU.
Seriously, though, I don’t think the whole “image slideshow” technique is very effective. For one thing, almost every ad I’ve seen so far uses it. A ridiculous number of ads start with a series of patriotic/inspiring/wilderness images, accompanied by dramatic music and a serious voiceover. The actual candidate does not appear until you’re fairly far into the ad. Michele Bachmann uses it (1), as does John Huntsman (2). Rick Perry takes a slightly different approach, associating a series of negative images with Obama instead of a series of positive images with himself, but the principle is the same (3). Having an ad that’s so very similar to everyone else’s is not a particularly effective strategy. The American people are clearly looking for something different in this election, which is why they’re so quick to jump on every new candidate who has some distinguishing feature, such as being the former CEO of a pizza place (4). Being different has been shown to be effective in other elections as well. Jimmy Carter based his campaign on being an “outsider” in Washington (5). People liked that because he seemed different from other politicians. Having an ad that blends in with all the others is not the best plan. So I don’t think the images in the ad will appeal to voters, because they’ve essentially seen them all before.
There’s nothing in the rest of the ad that really stands out either. I’m pretty sure every single political ad talks about “change” and “freedom.” Will they connect with the American people? Maybe there’ll be some emotional reaction on a minimal level, but it’s all stuff we’ve heard before. Pawlenty’s got the basic idea, but he just doesn’t distinguish himself. Like you mentioned, there aren’t any facts. He doesn’t say what he’s going to do or why it’ll work, just that it “won’t be easy.” I agree that it won’t be easy, but nothing is this ad gives me any indication that Pawlenty is up to it. In fact, nothing in this ad gives me any indication what “it” is.
One line, however, did stand out to me: “Settling the West wasn’t easy.” No, it wasn’t. However, it certainly did involve taking a lot of Mexican territory and killing or displacing countless Native Americans for no better reason than that we believed it was our “manifest destiny” (6). I don’t think that’s the sort of history you want associated with your campaign, Pawlenty. (You could also argue that going to the moon, something else Pawlenty blithely informs us “wasn’t easy,” was done primarily to stick it to the Russians, but I’m not really going to diss the moon landing.)
In conclusion, unlike Katie, I did not find this ad effective because it was too ordinary and unable to give us any concrete ideas except ones associated with violence and death. Also, I hate to bring this up, as it’s probably a bit of a sore spot with Mr. Pawlenty, but he dropped out of the race in August after disappointing poll performances, so clearly his strategy left something to be desired (7).
(Citations in the next post)
The Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYmRCXok8Dc&feature=channel_video_title
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biqIuX3uX0U
3. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-politics/2012-presidential-election/perrys-presidential-campaign-releases-first-ad/
4. http://www.allbusiness.com/allbusiness-herman-cain-bad-pizza/16706960-1.html
5. http://www.presidentprofiles.com/Kennedy-Bush/Jimmy-Carter-The-outsider-in-washington.html
6. My APUSH textbook. I don’t remember what it was called, but you can ask Mr. Faulk.
7. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110814/us-pawlenty-2012/
@Katie
I must state that I totally and completely disagree with your interpretation of the effectiveness of this ad. There are no facts contained within the ad, nothing to give any hint of a reason as to why Pawlenty should gain anyone’s support. Both you and Pawlenty suggest that America is a free, prosperous, and secure country. I beg to differ. Our national debt just outpaced our gross domestic product (1). Our unemployment rate is at 9.1% (2). Our GDP growth rate is falling dramatically (3). Take what you will from that data, but I would suggest that the term most often used by Americans to describe our situation would not be “prosperous.” As for secure, reports relating to our war on terror which was purportedly to preemptively secure our own borders, are still unclear as to how successful our campaign really was (4). So in any meaningful sense, we are not secure. Sure our nation is not likely to be taken over anytime soon, (well, maybe potentially by zombies (5)), but secure for us is a description of our influence in other countries. The ad is assuredly attempting an emotionally charged and dramatic portrayal of Tim Pawlenty as the absolute greatest possibility for president, but it goes much too much over the top. The ad instead seems to lose all credibility as buzz words and emotionally charged images stack one upon the other until nothing remains but an over stimulating, non-informative trailer for a candidate who is rapidly falling behind.
Admittedly, if it were in fact a movie trailer, and not a political ad it would be really good. It’s a damned fine ad if it were true, but it is not. And Americans, as much as I like to say they are, are not that stupid. They know that it is not true. They understand that though it’s a good speech, it means nothing. None of what he says can be achieved, or has been. It frustrates me no end that something that really could shine and move people is wasted on a candidate that blemishes its image, and all of America with it. This ad just depressed me.
(1) Google Public Data Explorer
(2) http://www.bls.gov/cps/
(3)http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=nv_agr_totl_zs#ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA:CHN:SWE&ifdim=country&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en
(4) http://americansecurityproject.org/featured-items/2011/report-us-measure-of-success-in-afghanistan-is-still-unclear-10-years-later/
(5) http://www.cracked.com/article_15643_5-scientific-reasons-zombie-apocalypse-could-actually-happen.html
To Miss Gibbs:
I really enjoyed the ad you picked. I feel like this is a very effective and persuading advertisement to the common viewer. I agree with you that it does a good job of pushing Ron Paul's successful economic and presidential winning campaign. The fact that he supported a winning and economic boosting president should play out in his favor. The shift from him to Al Gore is defiantly a positive one. They talk and display Al Gore as a really bad guy and put pictures of shady, broken down buildings next to him. The pictures next to him I thought were funny cause they didn't make sense with what they were talking about. I agree with you in that the attack on Rick Perry was an effective stratagem to the common viewer because people will think Rick Perry changes his mind too much. I also feel like the ending is a very dramatic way to wrap-up because he endorses what he believed and still believes in and takes one last shot at Rick Perry. I agree with you in that the evidence for the whole thing is miniscule and Rick Perry probably didn't support Al Gore as much as it said he did. In conclusion, I liked the ad and feel like it would be effective to the common viewer who doesn't care about all the facts.
@Katie
I agree with you that this add does a really good job of showing how patriotic Tim Pawlenty is and is every emotionally charged. I mean in the first five seconds it shows the Washington monument and three American Olympic winners (1). The ad also includes the statue of liberty, George Washington, the moon landing and like you mentioned Martin Luther King. However I feel that this ad is more trying to convey how Pawlenty is planning on taking action and doing something like the people and such shown in the ad did. I can see how the children dancing around and all the shots of random people would be a memorable part of the ad though. He does talk a lot about how America has done many things that weren’t easy (IE the moon landing) and the way the ad has been cut does show Pawlenty as a leader. He is a leader who has, courage to stand, as the ad says. I feel that this is less about how America wants to be superior and more that like people aren’t happy with how many people in office don’t seem to be doing anything to help. I think that because most Republicans have going after Obama’s “Hope and change” motto and not the fact that we all want to feel superior. Many people have said that Obama has backed down on some of his campaign promises. When we take this into account Pawlenty’s motto “courage to stand” makes more sense. This ad is made to be very positive so these things are only implied and also me just guessing.
I completely agree with you on the whole, the ad seems like a movie trailer thing though. Actually at the end of the ad it says “Available now” at the bottom of the screen (1). The editors did a great job, as you pointed out, of finding the most epic time to show Pawlenty’s whole face (during most of the ad they only show his hands or eye for a few seconds) it has a nice impact effect on viewers.
1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfkNEq1XioE
-Alie B
The one word I would use that describes this ad the best is dramatic. Wether its the music, the cold hard facts or the format of the ad this is epic. I know almost nothing about Ron paul but this ad made me want to vote for him or at very least learn more about him. Just because an ad is motivational does not necissarily mean it is good, in this case I would say the ad is okay. While the ad grabbed my attention it didn't have any real sustance and what I mean by that is although there were a few facts there was nothing I didnt already know. In contrast this ad was good because we look at Ron Paul and of course know that he is the Underdog so this early in the election maybe its good to just get his name out there. Once we know who he is then he should change his ads to more particular points on the issues. At very least this ad was tasteful and fun to watch, just watching it gave me goose bumps. BTW good cc season im glad you were on the team this year you made me lol with the leap frog.
@Hannah
I would have to say that overall I agree with your statements about this advertisement. The techniques used were definitely interesting. I think that using the movie trailer technique was a very smart idea and that Ron Paul was attempting to reach out to a younger crowd. I feel that the intense and dramatic music helped to amplify the idea of appealing to a younger crowd. I also feel that in making this advertisement, what was said was not necessarily as important as how it was said. I agree with you that in almost everything said towards the beginning, Ron Paul was painting the democrats as liars and untrustworthy. I also agree with you that it was an interesting tactic for Ron Paul to also paint every other republican as unworthy of holding the position of President also.
When I first watched this video, I had not noticed that Ron Paul was the only person smiling in the shot of him being introduced. After you mentioned this, however, I realized how funny it is, but yet how clever. If people didn’t realize that he was the only one smiling, they would have just thought that he was a jolly guy in general, which he might be. I agree with you that a president that is against compromise would not work, but I also believe that even if Ron Paul is against compromise now, and he eventually became President, the he would realize that compromise is necessary. At least I would hope that he would realize that. I do think though that the American public could fall for some of this “overblown rhetoric” because I doubt that the majority of the public listens intently to these ads, or watches them over and over analyzing them, thus making the big, flashy statements somewhat more believable. Overall I agree with you that this ad is compelling, but that if looked at somewhat in depth, there are some major flaws within.
@Kevin
I noticed while reading through the posts that this ad was used by a few others, but I chose to respond to this mostly because I liked the first paragraph so much. Additionally, I was in agreement with basically the rest of the post, but that was just what initially drew my attention in. Yes, the instruments really do make the ad. That combined with the slow fading of the camera from shot to shot, and the soft but intense speaker contributes to a dramatic opening that states America’s problems, and then a nice change to slightly more up-tempo and the addition of other instruments to hail the solution: Rick Perry. I was very happy that you pointed out the slight to Obama, because it was one of the two quotes that stuck out most for me. "But hope is on the horizon. Not an empty rhetoric of hope, but a record that gives us hope." Unsubtle to say the least, as you already stated. While I don’t feel strongly about keeping church and state separate, it kind of set off a red flag hearing something non-secular in an ad like this, though it is obviously appealing to Conservatives, and more specifically, Evangelicals. I even noticed that the line about faith in God was just the slightest bit rushed. I definitely could be over analyzing that, but it just seemed to be slightly apparent. Your “fact checks” were wonderfully executed. All those statistics are public knowledge for the average, even partially politically interested American who takes just a few minutes like you did to double check the facts, and find out that they are simply not actually facts. It makes me wonder why Perry would blow up statistics like those, when they don’t actually make him look any better, especially because they’re wrong. Mostly what I got from this ad was that it attempted to portray Perry as the classic veteran, leader, family man, farmer, down home American, etc. Nothing fresh or captivating, but you have to give him credit for his experience. One line that you didn’t mention that really stuck out to me was “We need a leader who knows private enterprise, not government.” Clearly this is a fiscally Conservative view, and it did not mean it in a completely literal way, but someone running for president really shouldn’t be saying something that could be so easily taken as “we don’t need a leader who knows government” just because of the wording. So this was the second quote that really struck me. Ultimately, I was in complete agreement of your analysis of the ad and its techniques. Though the ad was gracefully put together, I didn’t think the content was persuasive or very intriguing.
@Karma
Obviously, many people have responded to this ad. I'm worried about repeating something I have already read. So I will attempt to react in an unbiased (eh, I'm shooting more for semi-biased) manner, and see what happens. Maybe I'll directly offer Perry some suggestions along the way. Although I'm kind of stealing Hannah's format here (Sorry Hannah).
I'll start with the description. Suggestion number one: fewer ellipses, and fewer lists. This style of writing makes me feel like the author is a fourteen year old girl. Also, this description is 100% irrelevant to the content of the ad. The ad is almost entirely about the economy. Not God, your family, or the "goodness of America" (whatever that means). I find the message in this description weak, because you waste most of the space explaining why you are a candidate. The way you phrase it makes it sound like everything you listed is a required quality to register as a candidate. Anyway, on to the video.
-The cloud effect used over all of the "scary" imagery? Get rid of it. It makes everything look gossamer and serene, which seems against message of "Obama is ruining America and will devour your puppy."
-It's kind of ridiculous to blame Obama for the country's debt. TIME magazine did in depth research on the 25 individuals who are most at fault for our country's economic situation. On there, you will see Perry's fellow Texas (former) Governor, George W. Bush, among others. But Obama? Nowhere to be found [1]. Because the fact of the matter is that the measures Obama took actually prevented the economy from worsening [2]. Not that most Americans care. Due to the ignorance of the masses on this subject, they all believe that Obama is to blame [3]. So go ahead, I guess.
-Apparently one in every six qualified Americans can't find a full time job, so they walk in a pack instead? Find a better image for this point. They all appear to be hard at work.
-Maybe I'm wrong here, but I feel like just because someone's home is worth less (again, not Obama's fault), they don't stand on their front step while crying and hugging their significant other. A bit overdramatic, Perr.
-Oh, big build-up to the Paint Creek sign! Because all Americans know/care where that is! Get real, Rick. I doubt it's even on the map of its own county, let alone a place anyone cares about. I'm tired of a small town upbringing being touted as some sort of honorable thing. You know what it means? It means substandard education and limited political socialization as a child due to homogeneity. Those aren't the things I really want in a president.
-Less footage of you nodding and wearing an ugly jacket please.
-RICK PERRY AS COWBOY: I have nothing to say. I am speechless.
-Marrying the high school sweetheart is another thing I want America to stop thinking is good. You know what it shows? Lack of a long-term sensibility or regard for people outside the bubble of your small town. Especially since you got out of the Air Force and went right back to her, not even bothering to see what else is out there.
-Your kid appears to not understand what a piano is.
Most of the fact checking I could do right now has already been done, so I'll just say this: the actual content of this ad is minimal. I know you're trying hard Perry, but maybe try an ad that makes you seem less like Reaganbot 3000 and more like a human. With a human haircut.
And one more thing: I don't know how you'd go about this, but if you have as much power as you claim, get rid of this trollope [4] as the fifth recommended view after this ad. She is trying to be Obama girl, but instead of charm, she has implants! And plastic surgery! And her hair changes part way through the video! Ugh, I severely dislike her. Anyway, this turned out to be very biased, but I feel like I gave a few constructive suggestions to Perry. If nothing else, thinking about a new haircut couldn't hurt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0n3NLgSsAg&feature=player_embedded#!
[1]http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,1877351,00.html
[2]http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/u/united_states_economy/economic_stimulus/index.html
[3]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/obama-economy-blame-survey_n_975871.html
[4] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljvyaqa5Mfo&feature=related
@ Abby
I am in total agreement with you on Bachman's ad, on pretty much every portion. I have a few observations to add. First of all, weaker background music. It's just kind of there, and then it goes on and on, and you don't really care about it. Not good for an ad. This weak music is subtly undermining anything Bachman is trying to say in this ad. This is okay, though, since she isn't actually saying anything! Isn't it wonderful how that works out? This brings me to my next point. The best part about this ad, from Bachman's perspective, is how there is an utter lack of policy substance. In the past, you may recall, the times that Bachman has looked really bad have all involved her saying something pertaining to an important topic, so this is an excellent step forwards for her. Abby is correct in that the only thing here that resembles policy substance is her talk of reforming education. This allows Bachman to use a fun, happy word like reform that may earn her votes, while successfully avoiding saying anything that could actually be analyzed in a political context. A last point I would like to throw out for consideration is that Bachman has cared for 23 children, 5 hers and the rest fostered. 23. Twenty three. Twenty. Three. 23! I wasn't sure I was hearing that right, so I listened to it again. I'm pretty certain I'm hearing it right. She willingly endured 23 kids... I am now officially convinced of her insanity. But anyways. As one last thing I will do a count of the appearances in this ad:
God/faith/blessed etc...: 4, approximately.
American flags: 9, approximately.
Nostalgic pictures: 33 distinct pictures. Lots of pictures appear multiple times, if we count each appearance of a picture in a scene we have about 52. Wow.
Fields: 10, approximately.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYmRCXok8Dc&feature=channel_video_title
Oh, and if anybody hadn't guessed, I agree with Abby in that the utter lack of substance does not make this ad an effective argument.
@brennagibbs
Watching your ad, it’s clear that Ron Paul is a little crazy. This ad is definitely out of place compared to other Republican ones (although they all have been quite strange, especially anything with the words “Herman” and “Cain” in it). It is more confrontational than any other ad I have seen, and it is interesting to me that Ron Paul went after Perry instead of Romney, seeing as Romney was basically a liberal up until 4 years ago. I do agree with your analyzing of the ad, especially when you bring up his lack of facts. Although it would be difficult to use facts to prove Rick Perry supported Gore, it would be nice to have some numbers than no numbers at all. The impression I got from it was that Paul wanted the viewer to take his word for it; which if you are watching his ad on his website or YouTube, you probably already are. I also especially liked your emphasizing of Paul’s tying himself to Reagan, and then contrasting it. I didn’t think of that when I first saw the ad, but looking back upon it, it now is a very obvious political strategy. Something you didn’t touch on however, was Paul’s need to tie himself into the Republican party, somehow. Because of his status as an outsider, not many Republicans are abandoning traditional candidates and switching to him. Most of his support is from libertarians. Due to this, Paul needed to make himself more mainstream (Republican). Personally, I think Reagan was a great choice for association. He seems to be the champion of the nominees this year, and is put on such a high pedestal you can’t even glimpse the dyed hair, along with it’s customary 5 ½ lbs of hair gel.
However, overall his message falls very, very flat. He doesn't give any info on policies, besides the vague mention of small government. I agree with you 100% when you say that his method of swaying voters is purely association, and I agree with you that it will fail. Ron Paul is too weird and crazy for the Republican Party to get behind him, barring any sort of Libertarian uprisi
I am replying to my twin, Erin McNaughton.
First, off I completely agree with you in your analysis of Rick Perry’s “Proven Leadership” advertisement. To say that his ad was “overwhelming” would be a complete understatement. The advertisement is definitely very dramatic and intense, and if those were the only things that Perry wanted to accomplish then he achieved it, however, from a political standpoint I would say this ad accomplished nothing. You compared the beginning of this ad to a movie trailer, which I instantly thought too. At first it intrigued me, since this is not the type of presidential advertisement that one sees every day. Unfortunately, this quickly faded and I wanted to stop watching, but had to painfully sit through the remainder of this ad so I could write a response on more than the first couple of seconds. I should have believed you when you told me this ad was completely crazy. Simply, there was too much going on in this ad for anyone to comprehend. From the quick cuts to annoying music, facts that appeared and then disappeared before you saw them, and the many sound bites, I honestly couldn’t concentrate on any aspect of the advertisement. If these are the type of techniques he’s using to appeal to voters, than he seriously will have a difficult time finding anyone that knows what was going on in this ad. As far as emotional appeal goes, I guess I see it a bit towards the end, since Perry is trying to make himself “God’s gift to America” as you stated in your analysis. Like everyone else, he was flashing iconic American symbols and showing himself being part of the people, and Perry saying that “I believe in America. I believe in a purpose and a promise. I believe her best days have not yet been left”. Not very original, and others who try this approach do a far better job. I also strongly agree with you on the fact that this advertisement does nothing to back up what he’s saying. Nothing substantial is given for what his plans are for America, which is what the people want to know. Even right now, Perry is still not giving definite answers and solutions to the problems that face our country. This advertisement was not persuasive to me in the least bit. I understand the fact that maybe Perry wanted to try something different and inspire the people in a unique way, but this early in the race he should just get out the simple yet very important facts out about him and his political stances. Next time Perry, tone it down a bit. As you said, this ad was a bit humorous because of all the “fanfare”, and might I add a bit ridiculous.
@Brenna:
I agree with you that this ad is somewhat persuasive, but it doesn’t make me feel very strongly against Rick Perry because of it, nor do I feel like a strong supporter of Ron Paul because of it. It doesn’t talk very much about Ron Paul’s stance on many issues other than the fact that he is all for “smaller government and lower taxes”. The ad is more focused on comparing Rick Perry and Ron Paul by talking about each of their political history (Ron Paul was a strong supporter of Ronald Reagan and worked on his campaign, while Rick Perry was Al Gore’s “Cheerleader in Texas”).
About a third of the time that this ad was running, the narrator wasn’t even talking about Ron Paul, but rather Rick Perry. This tactic blows my mind. I personally don’t respond positively to ads that attack another candidate because I think that doing this is only hurting their own campaign. It takes up a candidate’s time and energy to mudsling at another candidate, and frankly, I think it’s completely unnecessary.
There are some details in the video that show an obvious change between the creator’s opinions about Ron Paul vs. their opinions about Rick Perry. An example of this is when the nice music (played while they talk about Ron Paul) turns to gloomy music when they talk about how Senator Al Gore strove to be elected after Ronald Reagan for president. Minor details like this don’t seem to make a difference, but they do show a change in tone from positive comments about Ron Paul to negative comments about Rick Perry.
The slogan for the ad is “restore America now”, which leads the viewers to believe that Ron Paul could be the solution for many of America’s problems. This ad does not, however, have very substantial information to draw conclusions from. Viewers must create their own ideas about the two candidates based on the strongly biased argument. The ad talks about how Gore wanted to raise taxes and increase spending, which shows his very liberal values. Since the ad makes a connection between Al Gore and Rick Perry, they included Al Gore’s political plans in order to illustrate the fact that Rick Perry’s are the same/similar to his. The main reason why the relationship between Gore and Perry was shown was to tell the public about how Perry switched from being a Democrat to a Republican since he supported Gore in 1988 [1]. This switch is a problem for Rick Perry, because the other candidates (namely Ron Paul), have been able to take stabs at him questioning his true conservatism [2].
The Ad: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/09/06/new-ron-paul-ad-trust/
[1] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/06/23/988132/-Meet-Rick-Perry,-state-chairman-of-Al%C2%A0Gores-1988-presidential-campaign
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/rick-perrys-al-gore-problem/2011/09/06/gIQAJz1A7J_blog.html
@Brooke
I agreed with your opinions on the Rick Perry ad. It was a little ridiculous, but I thought that it took time to mention some parts of his life that were irrelevant (ex. his farm, his family). There is no need for us to see a potential presidential candidate walking around in chaps and feeding horses, we already believe him when he says he’s from Texas and he doesn’t need to prove it. This ad makes his life seem perfect and almost like you couldn’t relate to him because of his seeming perfection.
When Perry’s success as a governor is talked about, it seems to perfect and maybe even to the point where it could be misrepresented or even exaggerated. I understand that Texas is a big state, but I cannot bring myself to believe that almost a little less than half of the jobs created in the last two years were created in Texas.
The current economy is mentioned and also the amount of our money that is borrowed from other countries. It’s quite frightening and that would inspire demand for a new leader in the average viewer. If someone only heard this ad (excluding the parts about horse and his life) they would be interested in new leadership, but this would not be true if someone saw it. The images that are seen in this video lower the believability of the statements about Perry. There are so many unneeded images, as Brooke pointed out. He did well when he chose the issues that he wanted to mention in this ad, but all of the images of him feeding horses, talking to doctors, with his family, and in other places are so unrealistic and laughable. For future reference: Perry needs to make himself look more realistic in his future ads while mentioning the same issues to gain the support he needs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@alison
I completely agree with your assessment of Newt’s advertisement. Your first objection is to the amount of work and effort put into the video—you mention a terrible audio transition around 0:15. While I agree, I do find it a little bit effective in that it differentiates between the Obama and the Newt sections of the video. Disregarding the actual message of the video, the worst part for me when I watched the video was the format. If given 30 minutes, I could literally put together the same advertisement using timed keynote slides. There are NO pictures, NO videos, NO speeches or actual voices of human beings. Really Newt? The average voter is not a robot. Did anyone ever tell you that a picture is worth a thousand words? However, credit must be given where it is due, as Newt’s staff CLEARLY spent a significant amount of time making sure the text was in pleasing colors, and centered on the slides. When you (I’m back to addressing you, Alison) attack Newt’s lack of evidence, I had to physically restrain myself from jumping up and down in agreement. Where do his stats come from? No background on Newt himself is given (like qualifications), and if I were a voter who had never heard of Newt, this video would not make me want to do some research. My favorite part of the video is when the words “New Ideas” and “New Plans” flash on the screen. This amount of vague language is not remotely effective, and just leaves me disappointed. The vague langue was even worse at the beginning of the video, as newt just seemed to be tossing words with negative connotations towards Obama. Some real evidence would be a LOT classier, and probably get Newt some real voters, rather than a host of fake twitter accounts. In summary, this ad was not even remotely effective, and I have even begun to pity Newt. But, like you, Alison, I “found this an amusing bit of Newt-y goodness.” In the future, I hope someone teaches him how to operate a camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3je5uWAv-9E&feature=channel_video_title
Brooke,
I agree with most of your analysis of this advertisement. Much of it is focused on image management, and his all-American “cowboyness” and farming roots are greatly emphasized. Part of this might have to do with the Iowa caucus, as Iowa is primarily a farming state. However, I disagree with you that the facts he listed were especially persuasive. In fact, I found them to be twisted and irrelevant to the current presidential election. I hate this ad!
First of all, Perry claims that housing prices are down 1/3rd from what they were a few years ago when Bush was President, and thus foists blame on Obama. This is a completely unfair attack, he is comparing prices to a time when they were at an all time high due to the real estate bubble and consequently overvalued (2). The crash in prices was due to just that, and had nothing to do with the current President. Also, Perry comically blames the financial crash on TOO MUCH regulation! It is common knowledge among economists that Wall Street’s implosion was due to not enough regulation, and that more oversight of risky practices such as selling credit default swaps might have prevented the meltdown (1). Finally, Barack Obama played no part in the downgrading of America’s credit rating; had the “conservative to the core” people like the tea party congressmen that Perry identifies with gotten their way and caused a default, the credit rating would have been lowered even further (3). Obama did everything within his power to try to prevent a downgrading, and raising the debt ceiling was what was necessary.
I may be looking at this from the wrong angle though. He clearly isn’t trying to appeal to economists or people that care about the consequences of severely cutting spending, as shown by his heavy focus on his cowboy image. It probably won’t matter in the long run though, as I doubt he will win the Republican nomination process.
1:http://shareholdersunite.com/2009/03/07/imf-regulation/
2:http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/housing_bubble.asp#axzz1ceQv8NjY
3:http://abcnews.go.com/Business/betting-us-credit-default/story?id=14170908#.TrKf883IqEw
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home