The RNC's latest attempt at cuteness, humor and political and social relevancy finds a James Bond-like depiction of the Speaker of the House (and, I might add, second in line for the presidency) not-too-subtly as Pussy Galore. And you have to love Pelosi in crosshairs, gunshots and blood dripping down the screen.
While the RNC ultimately decided to going with the hip-hop strategy of Michael Steele, they might have found (as the Dems are still wont to do) that depictions of women in politics might be less ham-handed if they had more women in their reporting structure - especially the marketing and ad departments.
As the Republicans try to gain back some traction in 2010, they'll have to hope that Republican, center-leaning Dems and Independent women hate Pelosi more than they hate sexist and violent images against women. Hell, PUMA may even have a hard time parsing this one.
The ad wasn't intended to appeal to you. You're a Democrat. You're supposed to take offense at it. The mere fact that the RNC sponsored it makes it offensive to you.
So it worked just fine.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
giles chauvin
3:32PM May 24th 2009
so what you're saying is that the GOP strategy is to gain popularity by being offensive. hey, it worked for don rickles.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-3)
bob
3:37PM May 24th 2009
No giles,
What I'm saying is that as a Democrat you're preconditioned to find anything with the RNC logo on it offensive.
As a test for yourself, try to imagine Sarah Palin's image in the place of Nancy Pelosi's, and a DNC tagline attached to the end of it.
It's great when you picture it that way, isn't?
C'mon, admit it.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
griley75
4:04PM May 24th 2009
Not quite sure what the Republicans are getting at here. In 2002 Pelosi was not Speaker and the Democrats didn't have the numbers to over-ride anything the GOP wanted to do. Are they saying that Pelosi knowing about the torture back when she had no power to do anything about it is somehow worse than them authorizing it?
I say release eveything and let's find who knew and who did what. I'll bet the RNC doesn't like that idea, since it might land a bunch of them in jail.
This whole thing stinks of Karl Rove's tactics, just keep slinging mud and see what sticks. It's a blatent attempt at misdirection in order to keep the focus off the crimes in their own camp. I don't think anyone is buying what the GOP is selling anymore.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-2)
Peggy
4:22PM May 24th 2009
Jane Harman wasn't House Speaker either and had less to say about anything than Pelosi did in 2002. But she had the good sense and guts to protest in writing. And all the changing versions that Pelosi has provided lately certainly haven't improved her image. If there's nothing to hide, why aren't the Dems pushing Obama harder for their so called "truth commission"? After all, up to this point, Reid and Pelosi have called all the shots and Obama is just there for the ride. If those two don't want something, Obama doesn't stand a chance of getting it.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (4)
rfmcbob
6:12PM May 24th 2009
How much is the U.S Government paying for Pelosi to routinely return to Ca. on special U. S. Air Force flights?? Let's pull her "unlimited use frequent flyer card" and make her pay her way on commercial coach!!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (6)
dfhughes
12:27AM May 25th 2009
With such imaginative and revelant ads is their any way the republicans will fail to make a super comeback? The brain trust that is the GOP doesn't miss a trick when it comes to standing for something and offering the voters a choice. How many voters know who Nancy Pelosi is? How many voters are interested in attacking this woman? There are so few republican women that Nancy as a democrat is a great object to abuse, few republicans will care.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
tercar1
10:13PM May 24th 2009
Nancy BULLosi was a member of Congress that was informed on security matters. Now she is lieing about getting them. LIE LIE LIE Nancy, even your fellow Democrats won't lie for you!
RATE THIS COMMENT: (3)
yabbiyum
10:49PM May 24th 2009
That Repuglicants think they can turn the finger of justice around towards the Dems is simply repugnant. They could not stoop any lower. THEY got us into the war in Iraq for no real reason, THEY supported Bush and Cheney's henchmen in Gitmo. THEY would do it again in a heartbeat. To blame any Dem for the destruction of our country by the former presidential regime is dispicable, if not laughable.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-1)
kathy
1:00AM May 25th 2009
And at that time the Democrats supported Bush too. Cant have it both way amigo.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (3)
giles chauvin
11:56PM May 24th 2009
pauvre petit bob, .......and then you mention palin....in an attempt to prove your point... ahahahaahahHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHAH get back with me when it turns out that saddam attacked on 9-11 because he had wmd's.
FOR THOSE WHO FAILED READING COMPREHENSION: 1- cia claims briefing held by someone who doesn't have a security pass to attend those briefings. 2- cia names another senator who also attended said briefings, when in fact, that senator was no longer in office. 3- why would they tell nancy and not gw. 4- to not already know these things means that you post comments about news that you haven't read.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (-3)
bob
8:32AM May 25th 2009
giles,
My post was in response to the Denise's entry. If you note, she didn't go into the specifics either. Rather, it's all about how offensive this ad is to women and how it's a giant fail on that level. The ad wasn't designed to appeal to the Denise Williams' or the giles chauvin's of the world, because you're Democrats.
Your complete overreaction to my suggestion that if you substitute Palin for Pelosi and DNC or RNC you'd actually find the ad clever suggests to me that I hit the nail right on the head. You know I'm right. You know these kinds of ads are not about the truth. None of them ever are, on either side of the fence. They're about firing up the troops.
It's an effective ad to its target audience. The fail is on Denise's part in attempting to paint it as something it's not.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
Wendell
2:42AM May 25th 2009
Nancy Pelosi has been caught trying to have things both ways. I doubt any ad pointing this out could win the approval of such biased reporters as the author of this article. Pelosi knew what was going on, but had no desire to oppose it in 2002. Her late found horror at torture only arose as Bush's poll numbers plummeted. Now, she wants to be one of the torch bearers at Cheney's date with the stake. Pelosi is an opportunistic hypocrite.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (1)
Truth
3:34AM May 25th 2009
Denise, Have another carton of Twinkies, your blood sugar has dropped below 400. Where were all of you oh so supportive feminists when Palin was being attacked for her clothes, her religious beliefs, and even the motherhood of her child. Some vile leftists ( as if there are other kinds) went so far as to accuse her husband of incest with her daughter. Where was your big, fat waddle wagging during all of that? Sure as hell not defending Palin as a woman. Where were you when Carrie prejean was attacked for giving an honest answer regarding her stance on gay marriage? Absent again! No NOW, no feminists, no liberal media came out and defended her. Now you've got your 6W pantyhose in a bundle because Pelosi is being mocked for being a lying sack of crap. Tough. the ad is funny. I watched it, and the women in the room thought it was as funny as we men did. Funny is funny. Have some cheesecake.
RATE THIS COMMENT: (0)
Francis Schwalm
6:11AM May 25th 2009
I know one thing for sure. Nancy Pelosi is a lying sack of California horse manure. Jon Stewart had a few clipos of her lying through her teeth. When the Liberal Media is calling her a lier I have to believe. I believe, I believe, I believe Nancy Pelosi is a cold faced lier. So what else is new? Squido