Poll
Question:
Do you approve or disapprove of the use of a candidate's children in political ads?
Option 1: Approve
votes: 6
Option 2: Disapprove
votes: 14
Option 3: Other - Please explain your gutless opinion
votes: 4
Inspired by this ad for the US senate staring the candidates 5 year old son.
http://hinckleyforsenate.com/tv-splash/
Disapprove. You use your kids as political props then they become fair game. Same for political spouses.
Don't they always use their family in Political Ads? I mean just a family group shot to show the candidate is not gay and stuff. But generally I think it is really crap to use your family this way.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 11, 2012, 07:04:11 PM
Disapprove. You use your kids as political props then they become fair game. Same for political spouses.
Yeah I remember a young Chelsea Clinton being attacked for being ugly by the entire country in 1992. That had to suck.
Disapprove.
FWIW Obama has made heavy use of his girls as props at certain times, interjecting their names into speeches that really have nothing to do with them.
Quote from: Valmy on October 11, 2012, 07:05:45 PM
Yeah I remember a young Chelsea Clinton being attacked for being ugly by the entire country in 1992. That had to suck.
Ya, well at least they weren't lying. That's a rare thing for politically tinged topics.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
Disapprove.
FWIW Obama has made heavy use of his girls as props at certain times, interjecting their names into speeches that really have nothing to do with them.
I know Clinton did the same thing. Leading to said Chelsea mocking.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
Disapprove.
FWIW Obama has made heavy use of his girls as props at certain times, interjecting their names into speeches that really have nothing to do with them.
I think it does depend on sincerity and topic. I respect the Brown's and Blair's kept their children very private. But I can understand and equally respect the way Cameron would talk about his son Ivan who had epilepsy and cerebral palsy and died a few years ago (Gordon Brown lost a child too, his daughter, Jennifer, died after only 10 day). He's used it, and his experience of sitting in a hospital overnight to talk about his personal commitment to the NHS, or in his last speech about how he thinks the Paralympics have changed the perception of disabled people.
That seems different from using a child as a prop.
I should say that this seems far more prevalent in the US than the UK. I think possibly because our press is far nastier and more brutal, they would very much treat any child in the public eye as a fair target. If the politician keeps them private, except for the odd group photo, they have more protection against the press.
Edit: Also I think it's fair for Clegg to say that even if people hate him now it's not on for people to have protests outside his family home shouting abuse at him, because he's a man with a young family. If politicians don't make their family lives public then they should be entitled to keep it private.
Clegg should have known better. That sort of knobbish behavior works in British politics, so why wouldn't people show up at his house and throw shit at his wife? Stupidity, violence and rudeness are the virtues of the People, and the virtues that Labour has striven to encourage.
"absolutely appalling"
I see nothing wrong with using children in political ads.
(https://graphics.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2008/06/16/1213671077_0606/539w.jpg)
All political ads should be produced and written by kids that are ten years old or younger, starring casts of fuzzy animals and robots to illustrate hot button topics.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 11, 2012, 09:05:41 PM
I see nothing wrong with using children in political ads.
"They told me if I voted for Goldwater, he would get us into a war in Vietnam. Well, I voted for Goldwater and that's what happened."
Everybody is someone's child. :rolleyes:
Disapprove. Children have no concept of quality and customer focus.
Somewhat dissaprove.
It would be kind of weird to totally blank them out and ignore they exist, especially when this man who the media spotlight is on apparently loves them so much.
But actively using them as tools....yeah. Thats bad.
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
Disapprove.
FWIW Obama has made heavy use of his girls as props at certain times, interjecting their names into speeches that really have nothing to do with them.
And Romney has trotted his Five Boys out every chance he gets, too. It's been a common theme this election year, and I find it a bit... odd.
I only approve if a dozen or so children are holding up a dais which the candidate stands on, elevating them to a godlike height. This would have totemic power.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 08:58:10 AM
And Romney has trotted his Five Boys out every chance he gets, too. It's been a common theme this election year, and I find it a bit... odd.
His boys are grown up and voluntarily participate.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
Disapprove.
FWIW Obama has made heavy use of his girls as props at certain times, interjecting their names into speeches that really have nothing to do with them.
And Romney has trotted his Five Boys out every chance he gets, too. It's been a common theme this election year, and I find it a bit... odd.
His youngest kid is in his 30s.
Quote from: Habbaku on October 12, 2012, 11:23:39 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
Disapprove.
FWIW Obama has made heavy use of his girls as props at certain times, interjecting their names into speeches that really have nothing to do with them.
And Romney has trotted his Five Boys out every chance he gets, too. It's been a common theme this election year, and I find it a bit... odd.
His youngest kid is in his 30s.
Obama has mentioned his daughters. He hasn't sent them stumping for him. Romney's kids have been almost as involved in his election campaign as he has.
I just find it weird that either of them are relying so heavily on their families. I don't remember it ever being such a big thing. Bush Jr actively avoided putting his wife and daughters in the spotlight. The Clinton's paraded Chelsea and were roundly criticized for it. Bush Sr didn't rely on his sons when he ran, and his boys were all in politics! I didn't even know that Reagan had kids until he was well into his first term.
Well this is the first time since JFK you've had a young family in the White House.
It seems a little unusual to have adult kids being prominent. I don't remember Reagan or Bush's kids really being around in the campaign, although I'm too young to remember 1980.
Quote from: Sheilbh on October 12, 2012, 11:36:26 AM
Well this is the first time since JFK you've had a young family in the White House.
:huh:
Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr all had children in the White House.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 11:27:10 AM
Obama has mentioned his daughters.
That's an understatement. He mentions them a lot. He mentions them even when the topic has nothing to do with them.
But it's not a huge deal to me.
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
It seems a little unusual to have adult kids being prominent. I don't remember Reagan or Bush's kids really being around in the campaign, although I'm too young to remember 1980.
I accidentally saw a softcore porn movie with that Reagan chick once. I WAS NOT AROUSED.
Quote from: derspiess on October 12, 2012, 11:45:09 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 11:27:10 AM
Obama has mentioned his daughters.
That's an understatement. He mentions them a lot. He mentions them even when the topic has nothing to do with them.
But it's not a huge deal to me.
You're so focused on bashing Obama that you're not listening to what I'm saying.
BOTH of them have been inordinately reliant on their families throughout this election. I don't even remember Obama mentioning the girls so much the first time around. I'm just trying to understand why this particular election is like this when, historically, that hasn't been the case in US politics.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 11:42:23 AM
Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr all had children in the White House.
I think Shelf meant like elementary age.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 11:47:07 AM
You're so focused on bashing Obama
Not really. I have more important things over which to bash him.
Quotethat you're not listening to what I'm saying.
I'm trying, but you can sometimes be vague when you make your point.
QuoteBOTH of them have been inordinately reliant on their families throughout this election. I don't even remember Obama mentioning the girls so much the first time around. I'm just trying to understand why this particular election is like this when, historically, that hasn't been the case in US politics.
I'm not sure I see that big of an up-tick for this election. But if there is, it could simply be due to the fact that this has been a very close race (so far closer than any race I've followed) and both candidates need to play whatever cards they have. Putting family members on display humanizes the candidate and makes him more relatable-- even I guess if it's 5 sons :D
Objectively speaking, there has not been a whole lot of substance in this election from either side, but a whole lot of fluff.
Speaking of using children, what are the odds of a Mormon having not even one attractive daughter to put on stage? :(
I got yelled at when I leered at Santorum's daughter.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 11:42:23 AM
Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr all had children in the White House.
I think Shelf meant like elementary age.
Amy Carter was nine when Jimmy was inaugerated.
Chelsea Clinton was eight or nine.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 12, 2012, 12:02:07 PM
I got yelled at when I leered at Santorum's daughter.
That was hilarious.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 12:02:22 PM
Amy Carter was nine when Jimmy was inaugerated.
Chelsea Clinton was eight or nine.
No shit. I figured them both for older.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 12:04:10 PM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 12:02:22 PM
Amy Carter was nine when Jimmy was inaugerated.
Chelsea Clinton was eight or nine.
No shit. I figured them both for older.
Same, I had no idea.
They're both older now.
Chelsea blossomed from a gangly, awkwardly unattractive pre-tween to a gangly, awkwardly unattractive young adult during that Administration.
And Amy had three older brothers, none of which ever stumped for Pops.
Chelsea looks better than her parents.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 12, 2012, 01:13:05 PM
Chelsea looks better than her parents.
Well, yeah...but that's because their faces have started to melt from old age.
Not just today.
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 12:02:22 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 12, 2012, 11:48:15 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 11:42:23 AM
Carter, Clinton, Bush Jr all had children in the White House.
I think Shelf meant like elementary age.
Amy Carter was nine when Jimmy was inaugerated.
Spelling it like he pronounces it, eh?
Quote from: Habbaku on October 12, 2012, 03:25:18 PM
Spelling it like he pronounces it, eh?
No spell-check at work. :blush:
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 11:27:10 AM
Quote from: Habbaku on October 12, 2012, 11:23:39 AM
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 08:58:10 AM
Quote from: derspiess on October 11, 2012, 07:12:42 PM
Disapprove.
FWIW Obama has made heavy use of his girls as props at certain times, interjecting their names into speeches that really have nothing to do with them.
And Romney has trotted his Five Boys out every chance he gets, too. It's been a common theme this election year, and I find it a bit... odd.
His youngest kid is in his 30s.
Obama has mentioned his daughters. He hasn't sent them stumping for him. Romney's kids have been almost as involved in his election campaign as he has.
Obama's daughters are ages 11 and 14.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 12, 2012, 05:31:05 PM
Obama's daughters are ages 11 and 14.
*waits for Phillip V to catch up with the rest of the thread*
Quote from: merithyn on October 12, 2012, 12:39:39 PM
And Amy had three older brothers, none of which ever stumped for Pops.
I don't really remember Carter's sons, but if they were more like their uncle than their father, I can understand why he wouldn't want them campaigning for him.
Quote from: Phillip V on October 12, 2012, 05:31:05 PM
Obama's daughters are ages 11 and 14.
Romney's not gonna make an issue of his opponent's youth and inexperience.
Quote from: The Brain on October 12, 2012, 11:46:39 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 12, 2012, 11:42:03 AM
It seems a little unusual to have adult kids being prominent. I don't remember Reagan or Bush's kids really being around in the campaign, although I'm too young to remember 1980.
I accidentally saw a softcore porn movie with that Reagan chick once. I WAS NOT AROUSED.
I saw a movie with Faye Reagan. I was.
The Reagan White House was indeed a raunchy place.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2Fimagebuzz%2Fterminal01%2F2009%2F1%2F30%2F0%2Fnancy-reagan-on-mr-ts-lap-22767-1233292335-2.jpg&hash=52d32cf3ab0c941aba9af37573d26f8a9b61fb0e)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-lt0.pinterest.com%2Fupload%2F159948224236486294_caLwr7h1_b.jpg&hash=1a3d65f506f371ddd5e72348a099560f81d4d8c2)