Tuna and Mr Obama’s Campaign
In the 50s there was a tuna cannery that used an advertising campaign based on
“Our tuna will not turn black in the can.”
Now, no tuna by any manufacturer did not turn black in the can, however this campaign was highly successful. The trepidation and uncertainty generated by the thought that the other canneries never seemed to mention “turning black” in the can left them to wonder on that possibility. This sort of advertising is today illegal.
However it is not apparently illegal on the campaign trail. Mr Obama campaigns as the candidate of “hope” and that he is a “uniter.” ….
This is exactly the same sort of argument/campaign as claiming “will not turn black in the can.” It implies, by omission that the other candidate(s) are the candidates who will turn black in the can.
Mr Obama has announced that his campaign is a “higher” more ethcial sort of campaign. Yeah, right. It’s a campaign that uses advertisting tactics which have been illlegal for decades.
Filed under: Democrats • Government • Mark O. • Politics
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
This is exactly the same sort of argument/campaign as claiming “will not turn black in the can.” It implies, by omission that the other candidate(s) are the candidates who will turn black in the can.
I reckon I’d disagree. It may well be a rebuff of our current president who ran as a uniter but who was anything BUT, but I have not yet seen Obama imply any such thing about McCain.
Perhaps it is all in how you take things. It’s sort of an unprovable allegation, unless you can read Obama’s mind to know his motives.
Dan,
First, you insist on knowing Obama’s motives. But I think that is not a criteria used to determine if this sort of advertising is legal or not. I can’t in an advertising claim that my milk contains no petroleum products.
Every politician is campaigning on implicit claims of hope and unity. Obama’s explicit naming of these as his theme I find to be similar to the noted (illegal) advertising technique. This is however, legal in politics. I’m questioning the ethics of it.
As for actual unity, as noted earlier, I doubt the substance of Mr Obama’s claim to unity as you did about Mr Bush’s claims in the 2000 campaign. In Mr Bush’s case he had substance to back it up, as he was able, in Texas, to form cross party boundaries and effect unity. In the rougher school of the beltway that didn’t hold. But … in Mr Obama’s case he doesn’t even have history to back up his “uniter” claim.
And I have read/skimmed Mr Obama’s platform pdf. I found nothing in it that hinted of crossing the aisle or compromising with any conservative ideas. You have also not been able to come up with any. So … where do you get your notion that he is a uniter … is it just from him repeatedly saying he is?
Dan,
This was cross posted at my blog, in that conversation it was noted, my analogy is flawed.
The advertising is illegal if the claim is a claim which no product of that type ever presented. Like tuna turning black or milk and petroleum. It is not the case that no politician has claimed hope/unity for they all do implicitly … but this is not a negative claim of something which no politician shares.
It would be wrong for him to try to distance himself from his opposition by claiming he’s “not a child molester” … but this claim of unity and hope is not like that.
As I’ve noted, I still have difficulty with his claim of unity/hope because I think it has no basis, i.e., is a lie. But the problem isn’t one of black tuna.
And so, when a politician claims to be patriotic, he is also making the claim that his/her opponent is NOT patriotic?
When a politician makes the claim to be a person who supports family values, he/she is also claiming that their opponent DOESN’T support family values?
What then can a candidate say that isn’t an attack on their opponent?
As to this:
I found nothing in it that hinted of crossing the aisle or compromising with any conservative ideas.
From Obama’s website:
# Reinstate PAYGO Rules: Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules
# Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks.
# Make Government Spending More Accountable and Efficient
====
For starters. These OUGHT to be IDEALS that conservatives can believe in. They ARE conservative IDEALS.
I HAVE pointed to these more than once. If you don’t find conservative ideals there, well, that’s your right to interpret it that way, I guess, but these are ideals that Conservatives in the classic sense believe in. Paying as you go, not going into debt. Transparency in gov’t. Efficiency.
And that’s just a few examples in one area of his plans.
Perhaps you could tell me what constitutes a Conservative ideal that you want to see Obama embrace so I can know what you’re talking about, as I think I have answered pretty directly this question about three times now.
As I asked you, are you only looking to see if Obama has changed his position on about three Hot Spot topics (abortion, gay marriage, Iraq War) and, if he hasn’t changed those positions, that means to you he is not supporting conservative IDEALS? Because that’s a different question than what you asked originally.
Or, put another way, are you saying that fiscal responsibility is NOT a conservative ideal? If you think those ideas I pointed to ARE supported by conservative ideals, then it would seem you have to acknowledge he has embraced some conservative ideals.
I must admit, I’m not seeing where you’re coming from (again, unless you’re asking for him to change his position on three specific topics as the only valid measure of whether or not he has reached across the aisle/whether he embraces conservative ideals).
You’re noting what he’s saying. I think what Mark is asking is, what has he done? One can say “the era of big government is over”, but that doesn’t mean it is, nor even that the one saying it believes that it is or even wants it.
Mark’s original question was:
Name one way in which Obama has “reached out” and “united” left and right? How has he ever compromised or reached out to the right?
I was answering that question. He has reached out to the right by standing up for Classic Conservative values and spelling them out in his platform. That IS an answer to that question.
Now, if you want to ask what he HAS DONE (implying, I believe, what he has voted for; how he has worked with Republicans in general – yes?) in the past, well, that’s a different question. I’d have to re-look at his record to answer that, as I don’t recall every vote and bipartisan efforts he may or may not have made.
I’ll be glad to do that, but it is a different question than what was originally asked.
So, to answer this other question:
Back in 2006, Obama led a bipartisan coalition of Senators to deal with our energy crises concerns.
Following the Walter Reed Hospital scandal, he “led a bipartisan effort to remedy both the immediate and more systematic shortcomings that contributed to the deplorable conditions causing wounded warriors to fight a second battle at home.” (from Obama’s website)
He “was a leader on a significant bipartisan ethics bill that passed. He co-authored successful government-transparency legislation with one of his most conservative colleagues, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.” source
How many efforts should I cite?
I thought the point, though, was that we are talking about ideals. At least that’s what is important to me.
He has enumerated ideals that are of the sort that both conservatives and liberals can unite behind. Are uniting behind.
Further, he is working, in his platform and in his leadership, getting beyond the stereotypes of “conservative” and “liberal,” “Left” and “Right,” to join us together in ideals that all Americans hold in common – ideals of personal and societal responsibility. Ideals of ending corruption and having gov’t representatives that truly represent people, not corporations. Ideals of truth and justice and compassion.
These ideals transcend Left and Right, I’d hope you could agree, and they are the exactly the sort of thing that we can unite behind.
I also would still like to know the answer to this:
If a candidate can’t say positive things about themselves in campaigning without assuming that they’re implying the opposite (and negative) thing about their opponent, what then can a candidate say that isn’t an attack on their opponent?
“I Like Vanilla Ice Cream?”
“I’m in support of puppies – which is not to say that kittens are bad, though!”
Unless I’m missing something, it would seem to take all the wind out of a candidate’s sails if they could not emphasize what they consider to be their positive points. It seems to me like a ridiculous request.
Which is quite a different thing than saying candidates should not imply negative generalities about their opponent. “He’s UnAmerican!” “He’d appease terrorists!” These sorts of blatant mistruths work to somewhat undermine the election process, except that the people are generally alert enough not to fall for such tricks.
When one campaigns, ideally, they would talk about their positions and emphasize their positive points and why they’re the best candidate to do the job. Seems to me.
Mark’s original question was:
Name one way in which Obama has “reached out” and “united” left and right? How has he ever compromised or reached out to the right?
You did not answer that question originally. Mark asked how Obama has reached out, not how Obama says he will reach out. In comment 2, Mark even provided an example of what Bush did, not said, in Texas, so there shouldn’t have been any misunderstanding that he was looking for past actions. As with my example, saying big government is over and doing it are two entirely different things. Great to hear it, but talk is cheap. Even greater to see it done.
Your subsequent examples — treatment of vets and government ethics — should indeed, as you say, be common goals of both parties. But then, is that really “reaching out” when both sides think the same thing (or should) already? “I’m in support of puppies” is not, I think, a statement of reaching out.
John McCain is talking about the environment and his polices regarding it that is making some on the Right a bit upset. That, I would say, is more like reaching out to the other side; where you have something to lose (some support) but do what you think is right anyway and compromise with the other side of the aisle.
I have no idea where the question about a candidate saying positive things about themselves came from. I think all that Mark was asking was to find some examples of what Obama had done to suggest that his words had any meaning.
Bush’s comments, by the way, about appeasing terrorists, was spoken in Israel, where the Knesset knew well that Jimmy Carter had just been there doing just that. That the Obama reacted so vociferously to it says, I think, more about them than about Bush.
It’s off-topic, but Carter did not “appease” terrorists, at least not by the meaning you’re wanting to attach to that word, I believe.
appease:
1. to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe
2. to satisfy, allay, or relieve; assuage:
3. to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles.
If I’m not mistaken, you’re suggesting that Carter appeased terrorists in that third meaning of the word. But Carter has no power to concede to demands of Hamas, so that is verifiably incorrect.
What Carter did was to TALK to Hamas, and the Republicans are really fighting a losing battle when they suggest that we ought not talk to heads of states and other important leaders. The Bush-types (I won’t say “republicans” because of the reasonable Republicans that are out there) need to understand that there is a difference between Talking and Appeasing. We’ve had enough of the belligerence and hubris.
That’s part of the reason the Republicans are in the mess they’re in today.
But, as I said, off-topic.
More like sense 2; satisfying their need for the legitimizing of their demands (which Carter then proceeded to misrepresent) and relieving any concerns they might have had that their sycophants are still working for them. He talked to them, told the world they wanted to live peacefully with Israel, and they then said the opposite and resumed rocket attacks. That outcome was completely predictable. Until Hamas themselves say, at the very least, that they want to live in peace with the state of Israel, and/or remove the goal of its extermination from their charter, there’s nothing to say, at least and especially at a Presidential level.