Reason on The Daily Show YouTube

In case you missed last night's episode of The Daily Show, YouTube now has the video of November cover story author David Mark.

Comments

Bill G | October 13, 2006, 2:20pm | #

Nice Woodward smack down at the end ;)

Phileleutherus Lipsiensis | October 13, 2006, 3:41pm | #

I'll repeat what I stated below:

As a general rule you should simply ignore any and all political campaign ads. Especially ANY AD which makes a claim like the following: Senator X voted for measure Y fifty-seven times.

Josh | October 13, 2006, 4:21pm | #

As a rule if I know nothing about a candidate other than his slick campaign add, I vote against him on the basis that the add was probably funded by someone looking for a no bid contract or other such favors. If both candidates have those adds, welcome to America.

crap-action-jackson | October 13, 2006, 4:40pm | #

I just vote for the guy with the helmet-like hair. Helmuty + shoe-polishy = gay howdy doodie = trent lotty = gets my vote every time.

agqfd | October 13, 2006, 5:16pm | #

it wasn't a rerun last night? My DVR didn't record it. Listed as a rerun.

Tim Cavanaugh | October 13, 2006, 5:16pm | #

One area Mark never mentions is how often the actual content of a negative ad (not the excessive negativity) makes you like the target better: Every time I see an add saying something like "Senator Richpigge has been denounced by the teacher's union; he blocked legislation protecting our children from deadly handguns, and opposes mandatory health care for kittens," I think "Sounds like my kind of guy." I'm sure many people have that kind of reaction.

Isaac Bartram | October 13, 2006, 5:52pm | #

Tim

I remember when the Dems denounced Bob Dole for voting against the origial Medicare Bill and the Dept of Ed, I asked someone, "Why do the Democrats want me to vote for Bob Dole?"

Again | October 13, 2006, 6:43pm | #

In Arizona right now, regardless of party most everyone is rushing to see who can be tougher on illegal immigrants. J.D. Hayworth's opponent has an ad right now criticizing him for not being tough enough on illegal immigration.

I believe Hayworth's policy currently advocates shooting them from a guard tower as they attempt to cross the border, so I'm not entirely sure what his opponenet plans on doing.

The other big negative ads are the ones for the smoking bans. There's two separate propositions, each of them bans. The tobacco companies are stuck supporting one of the bans, because the other basically bans smoking everywhere except in your basement between midnight and 1 am.

Pro massive ban: "All you have to do is look at who is supporting each proposition: our ban is supported by puppies and rainbows, their ban is supported by teh devul."

Pro moderate ban: "The massive ban is going to cost more than the state spends on sex offenders! It's going to spend more than onschool supplies. Oh noes, teh childern! Won't somebody please think of the children?"

I'm trying to figure out whether the best strategy would be to vote for neither of the bans (since I don't want it banned at all), or whether to vote for Sweden style state intervention into people's private lives against the Cambodian style of the other prop.

Swimmy | October 13, 2006, 8:50pm | #

My favorite is when attack ads accuse something that not only I think is positive but something that actively works against their own propositions. Example, here in Virginia an anti-Allen ad notes that he voted to cut taxes on oil corporations. Anyone with basic microecon knowledge knows that taxes on businesses are passed on to consumers based on demand elasticity--the lower the elasticity, the more consumers suffer. The ad implies that he's helping the evil corporations take our money, but anyone who understands that gas is an extremely inelastic good should laugh out loud at that ad.

Grand Chalupa | October 13, 2006, 10:25pm | #

My favorite is when attack ads accuse something that not only I think is positive but something that actively works against their own propositions. Example, here in Virginia an anti-Allen ad notes that he voted to cut taxes on oil corporations. Anyone with basic microecon knowledge knows that taxes on businesses are passed on to consumers based on demand elasticity--the lower the elasticity, the more consumers suffer. The ad implies that he's helping the evil corporations take our money, but anyone who understands that gas is an extremely inelastic good should laugh out loud at that ad.

What a nice little fantasy world you live in where political decisions are based on reason. What's it like?

Ellie | October 14, 2006, 11:08pm | #

I'm sure many people have that kind of reaction.

Here in Tennessee, Bob Corker's running a flailingly angry ad that screams about how Harold Ford Junior "voted AGAINST the Patriot Act." OMG WORLD WILL END!!11!! That sure makes me want to vote for the guy.

Then again, half of Corker's ads talk about how super-tough he is on illegal immigration and crime. The other half have him talking to his mother on a sunlit porch where she scolds him or refuses to let him get a word in edgewise. What a tough guy.

karel | October 19, 2006, 3:37am | #

ionolsen22 Best site I see. Thanks.http://www_3_2.gmail.com/
http://www_3_3.gmail.com/
http://www_3_4.gmail.com/
http://www_3_5.gmail.com/
http://www_3_6.gmail.com/
http://www_3_7.gmail.com/
http://www_3_8.gmail.com/
http://www_3_9.gmail.com/
http://www_3_10.gmail.com/
http://www_3_11.gmail.com/