New Ad Will Highlight Saddam's WMD, Terror Ties

CNS News ^ | 10/27/2004 | CNS Staff Writers

[Impeach98]

Like I said - we've been picking up our fundraising the past few days.

And we're in more places than just national cable news! We're determined to show MoveOn.org that conservatives can outrun them in the final sprint :)

[Republican Wildcat]

I just heard a similar ad in my own market -- they were supporting Anne Northup and Bush.

[XJarhead]

Uh, I don't like the ad. I cringed, because "startling new developments sounds like an infomercial to me.

Okay, how many undecideds out there are really going to believe that there really are "startling new developments" when Bush hasn't said a peep about them himself? No headline, no major news stories, nothing. And the first they hear about it is through some group running an ad? Yeah, I know all about the "mainstream/liberal media" covering it up, but that sounds like kooky conservative conspiracy stuff to folks who are still in the middle. It may be completely true, but the ad implies that only this one group is brave enough to ferret out the truth.

Don't like the infomercial/fake news report style. Better to say something like "look at the evidence that is out there", without the "startling new" tag. Show the docs, voice over more serious without fake network anchorette strolling the set.

I'm prepared to be flamed, but that's how I see it. What sounds good to us believers doesn't always sound good to the target audience.

[Impeach98]

Thanks for your comments.

The developments ARE startling and there's a reason the ad spends so much time at the end with the pictures of the documents telling people to go online to see them (with links to the stories about the docs and the docs themselves).

Your desire for something that was more reassuring is understandable. However, what that would be is a scenario where this ad HIGHLIGHTED existing major media reports.

But they don't exist - and you and I both know why. So, this was the best approach as perceived by the folks at MAF.

I don't dispute your points, just not sure that an alternative solution would have properly addressed this (short of taking Rather, Jenning and Brokaw hostage and holding them until CBS, NBC and ABC reported on these documents being discovered).

OK - you said you wanted to be flamed, but your point was rational. So, this will have to suffice for now:

[Impeach98]

P.S. Melanie Morgan - who appears in the ad, is a legitimate reporter for decades. She even covered the Beirut, 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks.

And, that set - is actually the KGO News (ABC San Francisco) public affairs set. Melanie works for ABC and got permission to use the set.

[XJarhead]

Thanks for the kind response. The news set thing is pretty funny -- didn't guess it was an actual one.

My perspective is probably the result of me being a lawyer. The most important thing in any case is credibility. If you lose that, you're sunk. Biggest mistake most people make when trying to convince others of their position is to oversell. Another version of that is to demonize the other side, because a lot of people filter that stuff out. It's the biggest mistake the Rats have made in this campaign.

Have you seen the Bush "whatever it takes" ad? Absolutely wonderful.