TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists

New York Times ^ | Jan. 7, 2003 | KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

[MrLeRoy]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Ratcheting up the debate over sport utility vehicles, new television commercials suggest that people who buy the vehicles are supporting terrorists. The commercials are so provocative that some television stations are refusing to run them.

Patterned after the commercials that try to discourage drug use by suggesting that profits from illegal drugs go to terrorists, the new commercials say that money for gas needed for S.U.V.'s goes to terrorists.

"This is George," a girl's voice says of an oblivious man at a gas station. "This is the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The screen then shows a map of the Middle East. "These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The picture switches to a scene of armed terrorists in a desert. "And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his S.U.V."

A second commercial depicts a series of ordinary Americans saying things like: "I helped hijack an airplane"; "I gave money to a terrorist training camp in a foreign country"; "What if I need to go off-road?"

At the close, the screen is filled with the words: "What is your S.U.V. doing to our national security?"

The two 30-second commercials are the brainchild of the author and columnist Arianna Huffington. Her target audience, she said, is Detroit and Congress, especially the Republicans and Democrats who last year voted against a bill, sponsored by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would have raised fuel-efficiency standards.

Spokesmen for the automakers dismissed the commercials.

Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said of Ms. Huffington, "Her opinion is out-voted every year by Americans who buy S.U.V.'s for their safety, comfort and versatility." He said that S.U.V.'s now account for 21 percent of the market.

In an interview, Senator Kerry distanced himself from the commercials. He said that rather than oppose S.U.V.'s outright, he believed they should be more efficient.

"I haven't seen these commercials," he said, "but anybody can drive as large an S.U.V. as they want, though it can be more efficient than it is today."

Ms. Huffington's group, which calls itself the Detroit Project, has bought almost $200,000 of air time for the commercials, to run from Sunday to Thursday. While the group may lose some viewers if stations refuse to run the advertisements, the message is attracting attention through news coverage.

The advertisements are to be broadcast on "Meet The Press," "Face the Nation" and "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and Washington.

But some local affiliates say they will not run them. At the ABC affiliate in New York, Art Moore, director of programming, said, "There were a lot of statements being made that were not backed up, and they're talking about hot-button issues."

Ms. Huffington said she got the idea for the commercials while watching the antidrug commercials, sponsored by the Bush administration. In her syndicated column, she asked readers if they would be willing to pay for "a people's ad campaign to jolt our leaders into reality."

She said she received 5,000 e-mail messages and eventually raised $50,000 from the public. Bigger contributors included Steve Bing, the film producer; Larry David, the comedian and "Seinfeld" co-creator; and Norman Lear, the television producer.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"my neighbor, who drives an SUV, puts under 50 miles on her vehicle each week, and her SUV has been "keyed" more than once."

You live in the "blue" (Gore) zone, don't you?

[MrLeRoy]

It is not equivalent to the drug ads which do not single out any specific subset of drug or user in the way this ad does.

So your only disagreement with the Huffington ad is the singling out? If it had targeted all users of petroleum products, you would agree with it?

I can't believe, though, you actually take this seriously.

Take what seriously? I don't think buying drugs or petroleum products makes one morally complicit in terrorism.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"This is George,"
"This is the gas that George bought for his S.U.V."
"This is the oilfield in Alaska that could fuel George's SUV for xxxx years."
"These are the Democrats that won't let anyone develop the oil field.
"These are the countries where we have to buy oil from becasue of the Democrats"
"And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries becasue of the Democrats."

A guy just called into the nationally-syndicated Rusty Humphries radio show and quoted this to great effect!

[tallhappy]

So your only disagreement with the Huffington ad is the singling out?

No. It was, though, a point that showed your statement was wrong about their equivalence.

If it had targeted all users of petroleum products, you would agree with it?

No. It is demagogic.

I understand you are one of the arrested development drug obsessed types and you think the other was demagogic and it bothers you.

As far as this, though, the purchase of oil vs purchase of illegal drugs and how much may go to terrorist groups is not nearly equivalent.

It would be like making no distinction between prescription drugs and illegal drugs as far as where the profits go.

That we are too dependent on ME oil is a fine point. Huffington doesn't even come close to making it. Nor is her attempt to make it rational or honest.

My advice to you is to stop taking illegal drugs. It messes up your thought.

[tallhappy]

I don't think buying drugs or petroleum products makes one morally complicit in terrorism.

Neither claim moral complicence. That was the whole point of the ad - that support was fostered unknowingly by drug use or driving an SUV.

You are such a silly person.

[Dan Day]

"Could you name one drug lord who *doesn't* use murder and bribery and intimidation to protect his business?"

None of those are terrorism.

*boggle*

Murder and intimidation and kidnapping and torture of judges, prosecutors, politicians, police, and civilians in order to intimidate a country into backing off from enforcing its drug laws *is* terrorism, son.

What did you think it was, hearty free speech?

Let's take one concrete example as an illustrative case. In 1999, Colombian drug lords set off two car-bombs in one week in reaction to a Colombian Supreme Court decision to reinstate extraditions to the US for drug traffickers.

At least 7 people were killed, 40 injured, and two buildings were destroyed.

Interestingly, the court decision was a reversal of a prior position which had been explicitly enacted in capitulation to earlier narco-terrorism. As CNN put it:

No Colombian drug traffickers have been extradited since 1991, when Bogota banned the practice following a terror campaign waged in part by the late Medellin cartel drug lord Pablo Escobar.

The drug lords' so-called "total war against the government" left hundreds of police officials, journalists, judges, politicians, and their loved ones dead or injured, threatening the very foundation of Colombia's government.

Oh, but *that's* not terrorism, you say...

Here's a dollar, buy a clue.

[lainie]

Shoot.. I searched for this and nothing came up with the parameter "s.u.v." Is this thing case sensitive?

Anyway...

I think I have a book to burn.

[lainie]

Is search case-sensitive? I couldn't believe this story wasn't posted -- turns out it is, twice :)

[Dan Day]

I don't think buying drugs or petroleum products makes one morally complicit in terrorism.

What you're missing is that while some of our petroleum dollars *might* be diverted to terrorism, money spent on illegal drugs goes *directly* to drug cartels, which *directly* participate in terrorism themselves as part of the way they "do business".

You may buy your dope from friendly Joe, the neighborhood drug distributor, but your dollars *will* end up in the hands of some really nasty organized crime families, who *aren't* in the business of doing charity work.

Petroleum dollars, on the other hand, go to oil companies around the world, and/or governments. The fact that some of them *might* use a portion of their fungible dollars to divert towards terrorism is a separate, indirect effect, not one that can be laid directly at the feet of the American gasoline consumer.

You can buy gas without necessarily putting money on the pockets of organized crime. You *can't* do the same with your illegal drug purchases, because it's run and controlled *by* organized crime, directly.

[LayoutGuru2]

NOT!

[Possenti]

OK freepers, listen up...

Stop buying and driving SUV's! Soon, I'm sure our divinely-appointed commander-in-chief will address this threat to our national security. It's only one more sacrifice we need to make in our ongoing war on the terrorists. We've already given up many rights for our cause, and we can surely give up our SUV's in order to be safer.

Everyone seems to be buying every other pro-war propaganda piece put out by the media - why is this one different? My guess is the fact that our God-given rights are intangible - we don't really miss them until they're totally gone. Our SUV's, however are material things that appeal to our physical senses. We zealously defend our earthly pleasures while often ignoring the philisophical and transcendent.

[Darnright]

"SUV + Yuppie + urban street + yakking on a cell phone + turning a corner = a great threat to pedestrians."

I've driven around lots of folks yakking on cell phones, and never had a problem. However, I had to slam on my brakes to keep some chick from taking off my front end as she appropriated my lane.

She was busily holding a conversation with the guy sitting next to her in SIGN LANGUAGE! We watched her for 2 more miles, raptly watching the passenger's hands as they gabbed away.

Sheesh.

[KDD]

Dan...marijuana is the #1 cash crop in more then 24 states in these United States..

I hear those Humbolt county terrorist cartels are the most dangerous. And those Myakka farmers down here just acted like good ole boys. Terrrorist funders they were.

The President and Att. General should declare those pot growing States "terrorist States" and the farmers in them terrorists?

The ONDCP ads target pot...70% of which is grown here in the good ole US of A...with the rest brought to us by those terrorist supporters in Canada and Mexico.

The ONDCP ads are a 4 billion dollar pile of stinking government propaganda.

These SUV ads are a well deserved slam on those ads.

[RnMomof7]

.....and stop using 5 pounds of oil-based makeup to cover that ugly mug every time she goes on TV!!!!!

.ohhhhhhhh I had considered posting that her former husband uses more petro in his "latex" products than most of us use in our car..BUT I did not want to get toooooooo personal:>)

[lainie]

It's official: Arianna Huffington is now certifiable!
(Was at Jesse Jackson's birthday party)

[Dan Day]

Dan...marijuana is the #1 cash crop in more then 24 states in these United States..

I hear those Humbolt county terrorist cartels are the most dangerous. And those Myakka farmers down here just acted like good ole boys. Terrrorist funders they were.

Try being a witness against them in court and see just how closely they resemble peaceful soybean farmers...

Don't be naive.

The President and Att. General should declare those pot growing States "terrorist States"

If the states support the activity and actively resist efforts to stop it, yes.

and the farmers in them terrorists?

Are you really so ignorant as to not be aware how much violence and gang violence in the US is done in support of the drug trade? Just because the drug trade is "domestic" doesn't mean it's done by these folks:

The ONDCP ads are a 4 billion dollar pile of stinking government propaganda.

If it helps you sleep better at night denying how much violence is done due to the illegal drug trade, may your illusions bring you some comfort.

And people who bought bootleg alcohol during Prohibition had "nothing" to do with the rise of violence by Al Capone and similar thugs, eh?

[FreeTheHostages]

BUT, it's also hard to see around something when you're driving TWO FEET behind the vehicle in front of you. Sound familiar?

:::hanging head in shame::: A little familiar.

[FreeTheHostages]

LOL, yeah "the body part thing is a little on the edge" you're right. But then you end your post by noting people posting about "running little cars off the road." Sigh. So somethin' like that's going on.

[FreeTheHostages]

But they do. You haven't met the scrawny, liberal Yuppies in SUVs, power-hungry Washington DC attorneys, that populate my city and try to run little cars over. It's definitely a body part thing.

I'm more comfortable with country people who have SUVs and have an actual need for them.

[Grig]

"A guy just called into the nationally-syndicated Rusty Humphries radio show and quoted this to great effect!"

Dang! Missed another shot at fame. Any chance a clip of this will be on the net somewhere? I've never heard of Rusty Humphries before.