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.
So your point is what? That the gub'mint (or just you and Arianna?) should insure that the automakers are forced (or "incentivised") to do (what they/you decree to be) the "right thing," whether it's profitable or not?
How about doing away with the CAFE nonsense altogether and letting people buy what they damn well want and producers make what they damn well want?
Doesn't one have to have a BRAIN to have a BRAINCHILD???
BZZZZZZZT!
Apparently you failed to notice this is Puffington's little crusade, on behalf of her hero McInsane. I know it's stunning, but she really is serious about this. You credit her with way too much subtly, humor and intelligence.
"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."
What you said needs REPEATING OVER AND OVER!! Amen!
As I said, it's clearly meant to imply moral culpability, which I deny in both cases.
You're right, I've already had to retract my earlier statement. Unbelievable.
I easily put 250 miles a week on my 2001 Toyota Camry. Yet, it hasn't been vandalized. However, my neighbor, who drives an SUV, puts under 50 miles on her vehicle each week, and her SUV has been "keyed" more than once.
Why can't these hyper-liberal eco-terrorist fools understand that someone like me is "damaging the environment" more so than your average SUV owner? These cry-for-help delusional "activists" seem to be acting by assumption vs. fact.
Arianna has clearly lost it. But in truth I'd say she was simply able to mask her leftism under some issues that we shared views about early on. She's probably been a flaming leftist all along.
If we do legitimize drugs, won't there still be a black market for underage children?
SUVs are legal. Drugs are not. If you wish to organize and place like minded people in office, or put inniatives on the ballots, sooner or later you may get them passed and enforced. I will still disagree with you, but it's your right to persue.
At this time, you still can't say that there's not difference with the two issues. Well, you can say it, but under the current policies it isn't true. Perhaps through your efforts and others in time it will be.
You're highly deluded.
If the carmakers could make an SUV that was more fuel efficient, all else being equal, people would buy more of that model versus the less efficient model of some other manufacturer.
"Which in no way explains why they can't be more efficient. They can be, but that doesn't profit an auto manufacturer, so they don't"
True. But they always can be dangerous -- hard to see around and anticipate future traffic movements in front of them. I really think some SUV owners buy them to compensate for small body parts. That's what I'm thinking and there I said it. ;)
I agree with both of you. Although, the body part thing is a little on the edge...
I'm no fan of SUVs in the city -- here in DC they are driven by self-absorbed yuppie liberal lawyers who don't need/want SUVs for any reason other than to push pedestrians across the crosswalks, if you ask me.
Same thing here in Detroit, and across FR. Just read the SUV or the hybrid threads, and see the people boasting of "running those little econoboxes off the road. Boy they're sure scared when I heave into their rear-view mirror with my 16,000 pound 1 MPOG Chrysler Behemoth!"
And all the better for it. When someone says "FDR", I think of a President who believes in catching a person a fish, to feed him/her for a day vs. someone who believes in TEACHING a person how to fish...
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.