VA-SEN: Blistering New Ad Hammers Allen Over Body Armor Vote
Don't miss this powerful new ad. An independent group called Vote Vets -- which describes itself as a PAC for electing candidates "critical of the execution of the war in Iraq" to Congress -- has just unleashed a TV advertisement slamming GOP incumbent Senator George Allen over what it claims is a recent vote of his against funding body armor for troops in Iraq. The ad, which a group spokesman claims will run in major markets through Sunday, features a soldier back from Iraq named Pete Granato. "Senator George Allen voted against giving our troops this," Granato says, holding modern body armor up to the camera. "Now it's time for us to vote against him." If you want to see someone really going on offense against the GOP on national security, be sure to watch this ad. More on this later.
Wow.
That is powerful and awesome.
Way to go VETS!!!
Hard hitting.....I like it.
nicenasty
September 13, 2006 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Blistering" is putting it mildly. I wonder how Allen will respond?
September 13, 2006 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's about time progressives produced hard-hitting ads like this. They should use this against Talent, Chafee, and every other vulnerable Republican who voted against body armor.
September 13, 2006 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this such a hard lesson for Democrats to learn. Two sides can play the attack game. And they are such a BIG target. Why every election cycle do the Dems wait for the Republicans to go negative, allow them to call Dems traitors, unpatriotic, weak and cowardly; given the "target-rich" nature of today's Republican Party the best defense is starting the attacks early and often.
September 13, 2006 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn good!
September 13, 2006 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Holy Macaca. They finally hit him with the chair.
September 13, 2006 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I encourage all to take a look at the "Staff & Advisors" part of the VoteVets.org site.
You can bet your ass that there's one hell of a lot of similarly-minded folks now stuck in middle of Operation Iraqi Liberation.
I just hope they can grit their teeth and remain in the service of our country until we get the hell out of that cluster fuck.
September 13, 2006 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may not be as clear-cut an issue as it looks. I know several people, who served in Iraq, tell me that the full armor could be so heavy, and in intense heat, that they felt that it was more important to have more agility than armor. Others believed in the armor.
One friend, a first sergeant, grumbles a lot...his Humvee, which he was driving, hit an IED and flipped on its side. He was unhurt...briefly, until the major in the front passenger seat, who wasn't wearing his seat belt, fell into my friend and broke six ribs. Both were in armor. IIRC,he said you had to remove the crotch protector to be able to drive.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
September 13, 2006 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Warning: devil's advocate alert: sorry, I'm not really crazy about the ad.
Don't get me wrong: the concept is great, the attack on Allen is valid and powerful, but the script kind of sucks.
Frankly the ad is a little confusing. First off, the vests look the same, and Pete Granato says 'this' alot expecting viewers to figure out what he's refering to. For example:
'Senator Allen voted against giving our troops THIS' (holding up a vest) - but it looks just like the other one, so...wait...is that 'no' vote good or bad?
Then there's the shooting...you can't really tell what's happening as the bullets hit the vests. People who know what to look for will realize the angle is switched from front-view to rear-view so we are seeing the bullets penetrate the vest. But then when he switches targets we can't really tell whether the slugs are penetrating the body armor or not (until he opens the vests to reveal the non-bullet holes and the bullet holes). He shoots the right vest first, then the one on the left. But then he opens the left vest first before the right.
I'm just saying, I don't think it's crystal clear what's happening. If you're gonna spend all that money to get an ad up in major TV markets, for petesake go the extra mile and get full-body manequins, or even drape the vests over gallon jugs of milk even so you can watch the drama as one springs a leak and one doesn't. The difference between a good ad and a great ad is the little details like that that help the people on the margin 'get it' without having to think, assess, or interpret.
Bottom line: would your grandmother get it? I just don't know if mine would.
September 13, 2006 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's what the Republicans call educating the public about Allen's voting record. The lack of such ads is exactly why the Republicans keep getting elected.
When their voting record is made public, they lose. Good for Vote Vets. Telling the truth. We should see a lot more of these.
September 13, 2006 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think Steven Spielberg directed the ad, from what I see they're amature film makers. Give them some slack or send them some money so thay can afford to hire professionals. I'm sure the anti Kerry Swift Boat ads weren't created by the vets involved.
This ad is taking a play out of the Republican play book, it will put Allen on the defensive. Good work.
September 13, 2006 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
This ad might actually work well if they could've found someone who doesn't sound like he's straight out of the Sopranos to do it. That ain't gonna play well in the real world of Virginia...
September 13, 2006 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it.
A real vet.
A real weapon.
A real crappy situation.
This was a known and talked-about issue months ago. What a perfect way to illustrate it during the election cycle.
September 13, 2006 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Senator Allen voted against giving our troops THIS' (holding up a vest) - but it looks just like the other one, so...wait...is that 'no' vote good or bad?
Man, you gotta watch the ad again, this time with your eyes open. It's clear as day.
Those two vests are clearly different. The new one has many horizontal straps totally unlike the old version. I'm no military expert or gun afficianado and the difference is plain as could be to me.
Plus, it's crystal clear which vest he's holding at the end when he indicts Allen for voting against them. Just look in the background and you see the old style is still on the mannequin. The new one is the one he's carrying. And yeah, I think my grandmother would get it, too. Sheesh.
September 13, 2006 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ad isn't playing for me. I tried exiting out of one server and going to another and the same thing happened. I'm glad that it must be working for some people, but it worries me that it seems to be broken now.
Jan Knaus
September 13, 2006 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I agree. It's a great concept but rather poor execution (ahem). The nice thing though is the buzz generated.
September 14, 2006 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everything you say about what makes the ad confusing...and I was initially puzzled and unable to grasp the gist of what he was saying....HOWEVER, that is why they say a picture is worth a thousand words.
When he opened up the vests,and you saw that one had bullet wounds and the other didn't...the message became CRYSTAL CLEAR.
So, yes, my grandma and senior citizens will get it, cause the picture tells the story.
September 14, 2006 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a person who has not ever seen those vests before, I disagree. Those vests were not clearly different to me. They looked alike due to the camflouage design. Moreover, his words do not make what he is saying clear, by the use of THIS without specificity. So,I was unclear what the heck he was attempting to say. Of course, he is being vague so he can deliver the powerful punch line, which since it is bullet wounds ...works...and that overpowers the confusing dialogue.
September 14, 2006 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You've gotta be kidding! The new vest has so many horizontal nylon straps that it almost hides the camo. Really! Go watch the video again and tell me you don't see them. Night and day, I tell ya.
September 14, 2006 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. I'm so tired of deceptive political ads that this just makes me wonder, "Did Allen really vote against better body armor because he wanted to spend the money elsewhere, or did he technically vote against it in some procedural thing with full knowledge it would pass, or because it was attached to some bill he opposed, or what?"
The other thing is the vet says the new body armor is for "today's weapons." That AK is a Vietnam-era weapon, and was the main casualty-producer of THAT war, when we were wearing the old flak vests that can't stop rifle bullets. That better armor has been around for a long time (we used to call it Ranger armor) without being widely issued.
It just seems like one of those deceptive attack ads. Does anyone really believe George Allen or any other flag-wavin' Republican dislikes soldiers and doesn't care about their personal protection? I'd be perfectly willing to believe he's a jerk, but that kind of jerk? Not so much.
September 19, 2006 4:04 AM | Reply | Permalink