Have a Cookie!
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.
Have a Cookie!
Drugs are illegal. The purchase of them sends funds back up the pipeline to the cartels. The cartels do perpetrate terrorist activity in the home nation against law enforcement, judges and elected officials.
You may wish to argue that this terrorism wouldn't take place if governments and law enforcement officials would leave the cartels alone. I'm not even sure that would eliminate all violence and terrorism as cartels jockeyed for dominance in their markets.
Side by side I don't believe it is accurate to state that both claims of supporting terrorism are equally untrue.
Well, I would hope so, since there is this concept called "Truth in Advertising", which applies to all commercials except for the Political ones, of course.
We get 21 mpg in mixed driving (guess that it is 19-20 city and 21-23 freeway)
I make no apologies ..I love the car and will buy a another in a couple of years..(my '99 only has 36,000) when I get 50,000 we will get another..
Thank you I thought I was the only one that thought the ads were dumb...
Not at all; drugs and petroleum are both products some of whose purchase price goes to terrorists. If buying one is supporting terrorism then buying the other is supporting terrorism. (Note that I think neither purchase supports terrorism.)
That is how I feel when OReilly goes off on it..the man probably owns a mansion that is VERY warm in the winter and nicely cooled in the summer..and He flys all over the place..He is more responsible for the use of oil produts than most of the SUV drivers..Bet He probably gets to work in a fox owned limo..wanna guess the milage on that ?
WOW I think she needs to shut up 3/4 of her home to save energy don't you?
" drugs and petroleum are both products some of whose purchase price goes to terrorists. "
...and this:
" (Note that I think neither purchase supports terrorism.) "
...in the same post. So, according to you, some of the money of BOTH these products GOES to terrorists. But, that money, DOESN'T support terrorism? That makes sense.
Some of those governments support terrorism.
You may wish to argue that this terrorism wouldn't take place if governments and law enforcement officials would leave the cartels alone.
I would argue that if drugs were legal they would be much cheaper, so with the loss of profit-per-sale and of market share terrorists would get much less money from drugs.
I'm not even sure that would eliminate all violence and terrorism as cartels jockeyed for dominance in their markets.
I don't see much violence among dealers of the legal drug alcohol in any market, domestic or foreign.
Yes, it does---at least if you construe "support" as implying moral culpability (which is the way the drug ads mean it).
How does one know the origin of the drugs in your bag? Not all drug producers are terrorists or fund them. So the drug argument and the oil argument remain equivalent.
Probably depens upon what is available at those loophole-ridden GUN SHOWS. We all know this is where terrorists shop for weaponry.
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.