VoteVets.org hits Allen on body armor

September 13, 2006

It’s often difficult to know for sure which ads will resonate with voters, but this struck me as a pretty good one in Virginia’s Senate race.

The ad comes from VoteVets.org, which used to be Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) PAC, but which broke off to do more partisan campaign work. The result is an ad like this one.

Of course, Allen wasn’t the only one who voted against body armor funding — and he won’t be the only one to find this ad on the air before November.

From the group’s press release:

VoteVets.org is now raising funds on its website to continue running the ad in Virginia, and in other states, against other Senators. Those who donate to the ad campaign will get to vote on who the group should hold accountable next.

Chairman of VoteVets.org and Iraq war veteran Jon Soltz explained, “We have ads ready to go on all of those who voted against giving our troops body armor. No one knows where we’ll run the ad next. That will be determined by the people who donate to keep this campaign going.”

It strikes me as an ad that most Republicans wouldn’t want to see in their state. What do you think? Is it effective?

Well, I’m glad they started with Virginia. Hopefully I’ll be able to see the ad from home.

Tom Cleaver, are these more “Professional Veterans” or real soldiers?

  • “No one knows where we’ll run the ad next.”

    These guys are great.

    Just to clarify, if you follow the links to the voter record you see, for example, that Allen voted Yea on the motion to table the amendment. If I understand this correctly Allen did not say “No armor for the troops” he said “Yes, let’s drop this for now.”
    Am I right?

    A lot of people (all of them Republicans except Miller) must be scrambling to come up with an explanation that doesn’t make them look like skunks. Especially since this was specifically for the National Guard who really should be here. You know. Guarding the nation. I do hope these are the same people who have been screaming that Democrats don’t support the troops. Ha ha, nyah!

  • If I were Allen, I’d squirm. If the shooter had been revealed to be a vet in a wheel chair at the end of the ad, Allen might well have been toast.

    -jjf

  • That’s a GREAT ad!

    Succinct, short, and powerful.

    All those legislators who refused to do this little bit, to keep the troops alive, deserve to be tarred and feathered and run out of office.

  • That’s a scarily effective ad. I expect that targeted Republicans will make some effort to prevent it from being shown.

  • “all of those who voted against”

    Now where’s the list of who’s not served? Same list maybe or at least a lot of crossover?

    Great ad.

  • Answer (# 4), you are implying that somehow VoteVets.org distorted the purpose of the vote. That’s not true at all. (snark warning) It’s SOP for the Rethugs to distort any and all vote taken. Sen. Kerry and former senator Max Cleland know that all too well. It’s great to see an organization that knows how to fight–especially fight Republicans.

  • Zell must have wanted our troops to protect themselves with SPIT BALL ARMOR (wild eyes bulging out).

    Seriously, this is a great ad. Please, everyone, give them some cash to make more like it.

    And Dems, that is how a real ad is done. Keep it simple, don’t worry about technicalities, just fire away at the torso.

    BLAM, BLAM, BLAM.

    Since Republican voters are fact-impaired zombies, you may need to use another clip loaded with video of the culprits actually voting against the troops or trying to explain their votes.

  • I like the ad because it is honest and not a smear job, as opposed to what the swiftboaters ran.

    Two other tangential points about the ad that will help is it will remind voters of the cost in blood and limbs that our armed forces have sacrificed on our behalf, which Republicans have drawn a curtain over time and again. It also points out that the chickenhawks who so easily send someone else to fight for them have refused to support the same troops if it meant it would cost them taxpayer dollars to do so. Bush once said that all Americans have sacrifced in this war with our tax dollars. This ad shows that we have much more sacrificing to do.

  • #10. sknm
    No really, I was making sure I understood how this worked. When I saw the Yea vote from Allen I got confused…(it happens).

    I think this ad is perfect not only because it is short, stark and to the point (five billion times better than the PSAs They Want to Kill Us garbage) but it takes the GOP’s screwed up logic and turns it against them. Who ran around saying people who disagreed with the President/GOP were harming the troops? Well, here are some troops who disagree with the GOP. Who decided the National Guard had to get involved? And who decided not to give them body armor? Ouch.

    There is no way to counter this ad using the favourite GOP tactic of attacking the person who disagrees. Perfect.

  • Answer, I should have written my first sentence (in # 10) as a question; it would have captured the snark better. I was referring to the inate ability of Republicans to distort the facts when the intricacies of the legislative process causes millions of emotion-addled Americans to have their eyes (and minds) glaze over with fear and confusion. These vets are giving the Rethugs a dose of their own medicine.

  • Paul Waldman, who to my mind Gets It Right most of the time, has definitely done so with his constructive criticism of this ad, published over at The Gadflyer:

    What’s good is that the ad has something of a narrative arc, and a strong visual/auditory element, namely, gunfire, which as we know every red-blooded American just can’t get enough of. The message is being delivered by someone with credibility on the subject. The only problem is that the core message – about George Allen – passes by so quickly it’s easy to miss.

    Here’s a tip for any admakers who happen to see this: the core message of your ad has to be represented in print. Words on the screen. A whole lot of research has shown that when you put words up reiterating the message, viewers are more likely to remember it. When we see words, we have an urge to read them. It isn’t too complicated. Research has also shown that it helps if the words move. It can be a subtle movement – slowly sliding from one side of the screen to the other, for instance – but if they move it draws the eye.

    In sum, this ad is very good except for the fact that many if not most of the people who see it might remember that they saw an ad with a guy shooting bulletproof vests, but won’t remember that George Allen didn’t get soldiers the body armor they needed. If that’s the result, the ad will fail. Some print saying “George Allen voted against body armor” would have done the job.

  • I would like to see this ad aired here in Missouri, with Tom’s suggestions for improvement. I think it would be a nice way to help Senator Jim “I was for torture before I was against it” Talent to an early retirement.

  • I saw this yesterday, sitting at the computer with my wife, who is to the right of Allen Keyes (no kidding). It just hit her so hard.

    I forebear to tell her that our other senator, John Warner, voted against the body armor too.

  • http://factcheck.org/article438.html

    A new ad claims Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia “voted against giving our troops” modern body armor. He did no such thing. The ad cites a vote on an appropriations amendment that had nothing whatever to do with body armor.

    The ad also claims troops were sent to Iraq with flak vests “left over from the Vietnam war,” another falsehood. The ad actually shows an improved vest that wasn’t available until the 1980’s.

    Don’t let facts get in the way of a good lie……

  • VotVets latest commercial featuring a Purple Heart recipient and challenging Rush Limbaugh is totally banal (if not ignorant once you read/listen to the entire transcript). I too am a Purple Heart recipient and would die for this characters First Amendment rights. But even Al-Qaeda thinks we’re on the “right track!” And they’re running like hades to get out of our way.

    • Comments are closed.