• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Tell me this isn't a blatantly racist political ad

thumbnail.aspx
 
Dekasa said:
I don't think you understand Iowa's viewpoint.
Click to expand...
It's not really about "Iowa's" viewpoint. It's about Iowa's small but vocal band of well-organized evangelicals. Vanderplaats (sp?), the guy featured in the ad, is a homophobe and an evangelical, or at least he panders to evangelicals. His organization is doing robo-calls against Ron Paul because Paul won't stipulate marriage must be one man and one woman. The "us" he's talking about is evangelicals (and probably homophobes).
 
Bowfinger said:
It's not really about "Iowa's" viewpoint. It's about Iowa's small but vocal band of well-organized evangelicals. Vanderplaats (sp?), the guy featured in the ad, is a homophobe and an evangelical, or at least he panders to evangelicals. His organization is doing robo-calls against Ron Paul because Paul won't stipulate marriage must be one man and one woman. The "us" he's talking about is evangelicals (and probably homophobes).
Click to expand...

And that makes this ad, in and of itself, racist? I think not.
 
Well, you know that phony was probably thinking that...however I don't see as blantantly racist...
 
Bowfinger said:
WTF? How can you get that so backwards? I said the "us" he is referring to is evangelicals. It has NOTHING to do with race. /facepalm
Click to expand...

Did you read the OP? Perhaps I'll explain my statement more clearly. Being as this ad goes out to all Iowans (I would assume, seeing as its an Iowa caucus ad), by saying "one of us" he's saying "an Iowan." While he may mean to say, he's an evangelical who hates gays, he absolutely doesn't make that statement IN THE AD. Now pay attention, I'm not commenting on the guy whatsoever outside of this ad because frankly there's no way I'm voting for him and he doesn't have a chance, regardless.

The reason I stated Iowa's viewpoint was important is because the way Iowans will take this ad is that he's not some corrupt, urban guy (and I mean urban as in metropolitan, not code for minorities.) Iowans view themselves as hard-working, down-to-earth, solid, level-headed people--a stark contrast to the way they view the the typical politician (ie lying, stealing, corrupt guy who hasn't done an honest days work in his life.) Hence why I said that Iowans' viewpoint was important, they don't view it as a racial thing, they view it more as a big-city corruption/integrity thing.

Now stop with the evangelical cares, that's not what the thread is about. It's about whether or not the *ad* is racist.
 
Dekasa said:
Did you read the OP? Perhaps I'll explain my statement more clearly. Being as this ad goes out to all Iowans (I would assume, seeing as its an Iowa caucus ad), by saying "one of us" he's saying "an Iowan." While he may mean to say, he's an evangelical who hates gays, he absolutely doesn't make that statement IN THE AD. Now pay attention, I'm not commenting on the guy whatsoever outside of this ad because frankly there's no way I'm voting for him and he doesn't have a chance, regardless.

The reason I stated Iowa's viewpoint was important is because the way Iowans will take this ad is that he's not some corrupt, urban guy (and I mean urban as in metropolitan, not code for minorities.) Iowans view themselves as hard-working, down-to-earth, solid, level-headed people--a stark contrast to the way they view the the typical politician (ie lying, stealing, corrupt guy who hasn't done an honest days work in his life.) Hence why I said that Iowans' viewpoint was important, they don't view it as a racial thing, they view it more as a big-city corruption/integrity thing.

Now stop with the evangelical cares, that's not what the thread is about. It's about whether or not the *ad* is racist.
Click to expand...
Whatever, dude. The ad is not racist; the OP is wrong. I've moved past that to explain why, but you're stuck on an ill-informed assumption, apparently drawn from your stereotype of Iowa.

Are you an Iowan? I am, and I can tell you this ad is NOT targeted at all Iowans. It is targeted quite specifically at Iowa's evangelicals and other extreme social conservatives. Vanderplaats is almost a cult figure to them, someone who is well recognized and revered by Iowa evangelicals. Those evangelicals are currently split among many candidates, with many still undecided. This opens the door to a more socially liberal candidate like Romney. This ad is attempting to use Vanderplaats' endorsement to consolidate evangelicals' support on Santorum.
 
Bowfinger said:
Whatever, dude. The ad is not racist; the OP is wrong. I've moved past that to explain why, but you're stuck on an ill-informed assumption, apparently drawn from your stereotype of Iowa.

Are you an Iowan? I am, and I can tell you this ad is NOT targeted at all Iowans. It is targeted quite specifically at Iowa's evangelicals and other extreme social conservatives. Vanderplaats is almost a cult figure to them, someone who is well recognized and revered by Iowa evangelicals. Those evangelicals are currently split among many candidates, with many still undecided. This opens the door to a more socially liberal candidate like Romney. This ad is attempting to use Vanderplaats' endorsement to consolidate evangelicals' support on Santorum.
Click to expand...

Wait....so you walked into a thread, completely misunderstood me, and then went onto a totally different topic?

Got it.
 
Dekasa said:
Wait....so you walked into a thread, completely misunderstood me, and then went onto a totally different topic?

Got it.
Click to expand...
No sweetheart, I understood you perfectly ... and you're wrong. Get over it. The OP was wrong too about the ad being racist. I explained why. That's what one does in a debate or a discussion.
 
I am a self admitted Liberal liberal liberal and proud of it, and I didn't see the ad as blatantly racist. As I assumed being one of "US" more likely means being a right wing conservative nut case.

And as I read up on the Rick Santorium record, Santorium was even more devise than Gingrich. And got the boot from the Senate by Pennsylvanian voters in 11/2006 for that and other hypocrisy reasons.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Yes...it's quite clear that your conclusion requires special context recognition skills. 🙄
Click to expand...
There's that compulsion to be an asshat again. You just can't help yourself.

The context is the back story behind Bob Vanderplaats, something you can't tell from the ad and likely wouldn't know unless you were an Iowan. Vanderplaats has been the most visible leader of Iowans opposed to gays in general, and gay marriage in particular. He led the effort to fire three of the Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled (unanimously) that gay marriage was legal under the Iowa constitution. (Those three being the only three of the nine justices due for voter affirmation last year.) Vanderplaats has also led an initiative to get all of the candidates to sign a pledge to define marriage as one man and one woman. Paul refused to sign this pledge, so Vanderplaat's group is now attacking him.

You really should see a doctor about removing that chip on your shoulder. You're starting to look like you have two heads.
 
I don't see any racial angle at all in the ad. By "he's one of us" he's certainly contrasting Santorum with Romney. This is, after all, an ad for the Iowa primary. It might be a dig at Romney's religion, among other things. If this was an ad for the general election, the implication might be different.
 
Bowfinger said:
There's that compulsion to be an asshat again. You just can't help yourself.

The context is the back story behind Bob Vanderplaats, something you can't tell from the ad and likely wouldn't know unless you were an Iowan. Vanderplaats has been the most visible leader of Iowans opposed to gays in general, and gay marriage in particular. He led the effort to fire three of the Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled (unanimously) that gay marriage was legal under the Iowa constitution. (Those three being the only three of the nine justices due for voter affirmation last year.) Vanderplaats has also led an initiative to get all of the candidates to sign a pledge to define marriage as one man and one woman. Paul refused to sign this pledge, so Vanderplaat's group is now attacking him.

You really should see a doctor about removing that chip on your shoulder. You're starting to look like you have two heads.
Click to expand...

So, by your context, any ad with Vanderplaats mentioned is homophobic, regardless of topic?
 
Dekasa said:
So, by your context, any ad with Vanderplaats mentioned is homophobic, regardless of topic?
Click to expand...
Fluff off. You have the reasoning skills of a six year old, and you're becoming very, very boring. You were wrong and I said so. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings, but maybe P&N isn't the place for you if you're so incredibly thin-skinned.
 
Bowfinger said:
Fluff off. You have the reasoning skills of a six year old, and you're becoming very, very boring. You were wrong and I said so. I'm sorry if that hurt your feelings, but maybe P&N isn't the place for you if you're so incredibly thin-skinned.
Click to expand...

Curious. Not sure what makes me thinned skinned for asking a question.

I love that I'm the one who's apparently hurt, but you're the one tossing insults. It's a nice touch :thumbsup:

But seriously, could you answer the question?
 
Bowfinger said:
There's that compulsion to be an asshat again. You just can't help yourself.

The context is the back story behind Bob Vanderplaats, something you can't tell from the ad and likely wouldn't know unless you were an Iowan. Vanderplaats has been the most visible leader of Iowans opposed to gays in general, and gay marriage in particular. He led the effort to fire three of the Iowa Supreme Court justices who ruled (unanimously) that gay marriage was legal under the Iowa constitution. (Those three being the only three of the nine justices due for voter affirmation last year.) Vanderplaats has also led an initiative to get all of the candidates to sign a pledge to define marriage as one man and one woman. Paul refused to sign this pledge, so Vanderplaat's group is now attacking him.

You really should see a doctor about removing that chip on your shoulder. You're starting to look like you have two heads.
Click to expand...
I've looked at Vander Plaats background and still think you're extrapoling well beyond what is rational by stating the Santorum endorsement ad is "probably homophobic".

Any idiot can see that this ad isn't racist. But homophobic? Well...not even sportage would go there.
 
Last edited:
Doc Savage Fan said:
I've looked at Vander Plaats background and still think you're extrapoling well beyond what is rational by stating the Santorum endorsement ad is "probably homophobic".

Any idiot can see that that ad isn't racist. But homophobic? Well...not even sportage would go there.
Click to expand...
Again, that's simply how Vanderplaats has made his name in Iowa. It is an implicit reason many of his supporters are behind him. Certainly there are people who support him for other reasons too, but his high-profile anti-gay crusade is what has set him apart in Iowa politics. I believe this ad will connect with homophobes on that basis.


By the way, I didn't say the ad was "probably homophobic". I said it was, "Yes, at least to an extent." If you're going to put quotes around words and attribute them to someone, make sure they're accurate quotes.
 
Bowfinger said:
Again, that's simply how Vanderplaats has made his name in Iowa. It is an implicit reason many of his supporters are behind him. Certainly there are people who support him for other reasons too, but his high-profile anti-gay crusade is what has set him apart in Iowa politics. I believe this ad will connect with homophobes on that basis.


By the way, I didn't say the ad was "probably homophobic". I said it was, "Yes, at least to an extent." If you're going to put quotes around words and attribute them to someone, make sure they're accurate quotes.
Click to expand...
Your right...I stand corrected...the "us" referred to in the ad is actually code for "probably homophobes". /s

By the way...it's Vander Plaats.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
...
By the way...it's Vander Plaats.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks. I didn't think I had it quite right, but didn't stop to look it up. (You'll note the first time I used it I put a (sp?) after it since I wasn't sure of the spelling.)

Edit: also BTW, I already expressly stated the "us" he refers to is "evangelicals", not homophobes. Homophobes are a subset of evangelicals, and are not exclusive to evangelicals.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top