heh
Posted on 01/08/2003 11:57:05 AM PST by 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.
I know some people don't understand this, but SUVs are a sturdy safe vehicle, and certainly a product that I should be able to buy if I can afford one and I desire to.
This talk about SUVs is nothing but classism to the max. I thought we were better than this. Honestly, it is disturbing to see the ignorance on this issue.
I can't afford to buy a $10 million dollar home. I do not resent others who can and do. More power to them. I can afford an SUV. I desire to drive one. That's the end of it.
heh
It would be like making no distinction between prescription drugs and illegal drugs as far as where the profits go.
If we imported prescription drugs from terrorist-supporting countries, as we do oil, that would be a valid comparison.
My advice to you is to stop taking illegal drugs.
I don't---nor the deadly addictive legal drugs tobacco and alcohol. My advice to you is to stop making ad hominem arguments.
The implied point was that now that you know, you'd be morally complicit if you continued your purchases.
And you expect us to believe that ALL "drug lords" engage in this form of murder/kidnapping/etc?
Some do; no evidence has been presented that ALL do. So the cases have not been shown to be non-equivalent.
Don't be naive.
When you lack evidence, resort to sneering.
Yeah, sure. My advice to you is to learn what argument means and what advice means.
I'd also like you to consider why you are not taken seriously. There are reasons.
Yes.
The idiocy of Huffington and this entire discussion is amazing. I mean, how did we become such a stupid society?
It's surreal.
Right, your baseless and slanderous implication was not meant to have any bearing on the debate. Sure.
I'd also like you to consider why you are not taken seriously.
You're assuming facts not in evidence.
Quit squirming; you clearly implied that my argments are crippled by drug use: "My advice to you is to stop taking illegal drugs. It messes up your thought."
Yes. I believe that to be the case.
Perhaps that is why your arguments are so weak and silly.
If that is not the reason for your irrational thought process, then perhaps you are simply not very bright.
Yes. I believe that to be the case.
So you proudly proclaim your use of ad hominems. What a toad.
I made my arguments in a straightforward way, with no ad hominums.
You understood them and agreed with me and admitted you were wrong.
My comments about the reasons for your muddled thinking (although in your favor you were able to recognize and admit when you were wrong) do not involve arguing any point.
You are not wrong because you use drugs and have messed up your mind. I never argued or implied that. You are wrong because you were wrong -- your logic was faulty.
Sure thing, Mr. Clinton---and I can't even tell you what the meaning of "is" is.
As far as "SUV's and terrorism" are concerned this is such a stupid issue that it's amazing the media would give it so much hype (maybe not so amazing given the media's sordidness).
More squirming. The only thing you've shown me wrong on is the precise equivalence of the SUV and drug ads---and your false slander didn't come till after I'd dropped that claim.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.