{"id":806,"date":"2008-10-19T09:52:39","date_gmt":"2008-10-19T13:52:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.opticality.com\/blog\/?p=806"},"modified":"2008-10-19T09:57:40","modified_gmt":"2008-10-19T13:57:40","slug":"selling-the-presidency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/2008\/10\/19\/selling-the-presidency\/","title":{"rendered":"Selling the Presidency"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday, The NY Times had an <a title=\"The NY Times on Presidential Ad Budgets\" href=\"http:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2008\/10\/18\/us\/politics\/18ads.html\" target=\"_blank\">article discussing the size of the ad budgets<\/a> of both campaigns. Regardless of the statistics provided in that article, it crystalized for me something I had been feeling for a long while, but couldn&#8217;t articulate, even to myself.<\/p>\n<p>The purpose of ads is to <strong>sell<\/strong> something to us. It is <strong>not<\/strong> meant to <strong>educate<\/strong> us, even though marketers would love to spin it that way.<\/p>\n<p>Unfortunately, the Presidency shouldn&#8217;t be <strong>sold<\/strong>, it should be <strong>earned<\/strong>. While I can rationalize the need for smaller elections to use ads, when many of us haven&#8217;t even heard a candidate&#8217;s name before, let alone their position on an issue, that simply isn&#8217;t (or shouldn&#8217;t be!) the case for the Presidential candidates.<\/p>\n<p>These days, they get nearly unlimited air time, ink in major newspapers, too many blog posts, etc. Then, even if you missed any of that, it&#8217;s all available to watch again, 24\/7, on YouTube, etc. Therefore, it&#8217;s not fair to say that they need a targeted way to get their message out.<\/p>\n<p>Like it or not, the spin-meisters are getting paid to <strong>influence<\/strong> us, in tried and true ways, affecting even those of us who believe we are immune to advertising. Obama is Miller-Lite and McCain is Bud-Light (yes, they spell <em>lite<\/em> differently, because someone studied the effect on our psychies!). This is just very sad to me.<\/p>\n<p>It doesn&#8217;t matter whether it&#8217;s a positive or negative ad, it&#8217;s just wrong. Madison Avenue puts out negative ads as well:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Translation:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>This is your wallet. This is your wallet after my opponent becomes President. Any questions?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Here&#8217;s what I would like to see, as completely ridiculous as the idea is.<\/p>\n<p>For the Presidency only (if it works, we can consider extending it to other high-profile races), permit <strong>zero<\/strong> ads, from <strong>anyone<\/strong>! That means no 527 ads, no party ads, no campaign ads, none, period. No issue ads either.<\/p>\n<p>Second, no candidate should be permitted to point out the negatives of the other. We have plenty of places to read that kind of <em>reporting<\/em>, even if we don&#8217;t want it. Candidates should be <strong>forced<\/strong> to talk <strong>only<\/strong> about what they will do as President. Don&#8217;t draw the contrast, leave that one task to my personal brain.<\/p>\n<p>If a candidate says anything about his opponent (positive or negative) at a rally, it should simply <strong>never<\/strong> be run on TV (network or cable). Tell me what <strong>you<\/strong> will do for me, not what the other guy <strong>won&#8217;t<\/strong> do for me!<\/p>\n<p>Obviously, this will <strong>never<\/strong> happen. At least now you know how I would like it to be&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Yesterday, The NY Times had an article discussing the size of the ad budgets of both campaigns. Regardless of the statistics provided in that article, it crystalized for me something I had been feeling for a long while, but couldn&#8217;t articulate, even to myself. The purpose of ads is to sell something to us. It [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[3,2,89],"tags":[158,205,1372],"class_list":["post-806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-3","category-2","category-politics","tag-barack-obama","tag-john-mccain","tag-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=806"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":809,"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806\/revisions\/809"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/opticality.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}