TV Ads Say S.U.V. Owners Support Terrorists

New York Times ^ | 1/07/03 | KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

[kattracks]

ASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Ratcheting up the debate over sport utility vehicles, new television commercials suggest that people who buy the vehicles are supporting terrorists. The commercials are so provocative that some television stations are refusing to run them.

Patterned after the commercials that try to discourage drug use by suggesting that profits from illegal drugs go to terrorists, the new commercials say that money for gas needed for S.U.V.'s goes to terrorists.

"This is George," a girl's voice says of an oblivious man at a gas station. "This is the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The screen then shows a map of the Middle East. "These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The picture switches to a scene of armed terrorists in a desert. "And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his S.U.V."

A second commercial depicts a series of ordinary Americans saying things like: "I helped hijack an airplane"; "I gave money to a terrorist training camp in a foreign country"; "What if I need to go off-road?"

At the close, the screen is filled with the words: "What is your S.U.V. doing to our national security?"

The two 30-second commercials are the brainchild of the author and columnist Arianna Huffington. Her target audience, she said, is Detroit and Congress, especially the Republicans and Democrats who last year voted against a bill, sponsored by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would have raised fuel-efficiency standards.

Spokesmen for the automakers dismissed the commercials.

Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said of Ms. Huffington, "Her opinion is out-voted every year by Americans who buy S.U.V.'s for their safety, comfort and versatility." He said that S.U.V.'s now account for 21 percent of the market.

In an interview, Senator Kerry distanced himself from the commercials. He said that rather than oppose S.U.V.'s outright, he believed they should be more efficient.

"I haven't seen these commercials," he said, "but anybody can drive as large an S.U.V. as they want, though it can be more efficient than it is today."

Ms. Huffington's group, which calls itself the Detroit Project, has bought almost $200,000 of air time for the commercials, to run from Sunday to Thursday. While the group may lose some viewers if stations refuse to run the advertisements, the message is attracting attention through news coverage.

The advertisements are to be broadcast on "Meet The Press," "Face the Nation" and "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and Washington.

But some local affiliates say they will not run them. At the ABC affiliate in New York, Art Moore, director of programming, said, "There were a lot of statements being made that were not backed up, and they're talking about hot-button issues."

Ms. Huffington said she got the idea for the commercials while watching the antidrug commercials, sponsored by the Bush administration. In her syndicated column, she asked readers if they would be willing to pay for "a people's ad campaign to jolt our leaders into reality."

She said she received 5,000 e-mail messages and eventually raised $50,000 from the public. Bigger contributors included Steve Bing, the film producer; Larry David, the comedian and "Seinfeld" co-creator; and Norman Lear, the television producer.

[biblewonk]

I guess your problem is with our government for not using our own oil.

My problem is that allowing the free market to dictate the size and composition is foolish. People around here seem to so honor the free market that they are willing to allow even that. Oil and steel are nuclear weapons are militarily startegic items and should not be dictated entirely by the market. I think we have allowed our enemies too much liberty in controlling us through our appetite for luxury under the guize of "safety and utility".

[DoughtyOne]

I'm all for it...

[tacticalogic]

If we accept that we should stop using oil because terrorists will potentially profit from our buying it, then all that is necessary for them to deny us the use of any resource is to find some way to profit from it, anywhere in the world.

[xm177e2]

It doesn't matter what label you put on FARC, they are terrorists.

[Protagoras]

My problem is that allowing the free market

That sums it up. You don't like the free market. Period. Your authoritarian slip is showing. Buying oil ain't like selling nukes. Goofy stuff, as usual.

[Protagoras]

FARC

Sorry, I don't know what that code means.

[paltz]

Sheesh! And to think I used to think Arriana was fairly conservative

Arianna was a conservative when it was more "fun" to be a conservative in her mind. The years of Reagan also made being conservative particularly glamourous(Keep in mind Reagan did come from Old Hollywood). However, during the Clinton years, it was no "fun" anymore and she began to not get invited to all the parties she was being invited to during the 80's. The long and short of it all is: She's simply a shallow woman wanting to be accepted with the political trend of the moment, but she's fooling herself.

[bootyist-monk]

Here's the email I just sent her...

Arianna,

Just a question. How much energy does Larry David's mansion use? Or Stephen Bing's? Or yours? The private jets run on solar power, right? Leaf blowers for the tennis courts use natural gas? Wind power provides the heat for the pool?

I didn't realize that the latest Bentleys, Ferraris, Mercedes or Jaguars had been converted to hydrogen fuel. Of course, I'm just a one of the great unwashed, so details like this escape me. However, it is nice to know that Mr. Bing's packed garage doesn't include anything so obscene as a terrorism-sponsoring, fossil-fueled Land Rover. And I'm sure that he only hands out 10-speed bikes to his various mistresses, being a patriotic American, and all.

Yep, you windbags suck up more energy in a month than most of us serfs do in a year, and yet you have the gall to lecture us about our choice of vehicle. Tell you what, when you and the rest of the your moron friends on the Westside learn to live in 1800 square feet, I'll learn to drive something other than an SUV. Until then, do like your ex and suck tailpipe.

Bootyist

Send her one yourself. It's fun and theraputic. arianna@ariannaonline.com

[j_tull]

Why don't they find real issues to nag about?

I agree. Mrs. _tull wanted a Subaru Outback for bad weather driving. I bought it, it gets 20mpg AND burns premium! My big block 'burb got 15 on regular. Sheesh.

[dead]

My problem is that allowing the free market to dictate the size and composition is foolish.

The free market is ALWAYS the best vehicle to decide these issues.

"While it might surprise many ecologists to hear, capitalism is itself the ultimate form of conservationism. Capitalists seek to conserve resources, not because of sentimental feelings about nature or the earth or whales or worry about the well-being of future generations, but simply because every drop of oil, every ton of ore, every shipment of wood saved is a cost reduction and money in the pocket."
-- Steven E Plaut, "The Joy Of Capitalism"

[danelectro]

The connection between oil $ and terrorism is far more accurate then any percieved connection between pot smokers and terrorism (who came up with this ridiculous idea anyway?).

yes, both ideas are moronic. and i imagine it was someone in the drug czar's office that thought up the original drugs=terrorism spots.

this thread proves many people don't understand satire.

[oyez]

Arianna dodn't realize that a lot of us buy SUV's so we can haul more people and drive fewer cars. My family would have to drive two Toyoda's to to the job of one Yukon.

This campaign is designed to keep classes at each other's throats.

[dead]

this thread proves many people don't understand satire.

No, your post proves that some people don’t know Arianna Huffington’s stated agenda. She advocates for more government control of our purchasing decisions, and government policies to force car makers to meet her green objectives.

Would it be so painful for us to slow down the intravenous drip of oil that keeps these hideously anti-American regimes alive? There are car companies with electric and hybrid cars already on the market. And a little pressure on our wasteful ways could unleash a new wave of good old American inventiveness…Bush Inc. has sided with the Enrons of the world to stifle energy-saving technology and keep America in an artificially prolonged state of dependence…Of course, waiting for the Bush administration to get religion on energy conservation would be about as fruitful as waiting for Saddam to welcome U.S. inspectors to his palaces. It ain't gonna happen.
- Arianna Huffington 10/22/02

[pgyanke]

Well, you invited me here. Based on our last discussion on another thread, I can only assume you knew I'd join the flaming... please don your suit...

I understand where you're coming from but you're looking at the situation emotionally and not rationally nor economically. The fact of the matter is that most direct terrorist funding comes from three main sources: drugs, ransom and extortion. The Taliban, Albania and Al Qaida are notorious opium producers and Afghanistan is still a main world supplier. In Indonesia (among other places) dignitaries and their families are constantly under the threat of kidnapping for ransom. Saudi Arabia is purported to be "buying off" UBL to ensure he doesn't cause trouble at home for the House of Saud's regime.

The problem with curtailing oil consumption to fight terrorism is three-fold:

1) Our economy from utilities and manufacturing to shipping and leisure is heavily dependant on oil. Gasoline for personal vehicles is a fraction of the oil consumption of the nation. Also, we don't have the alternative fuel industry in place to replace it and won't have for many years even with a concerted effort. Many of our allies and even our own tax revenues are heavily bolstered by revenues generated by oil consumption. We would hurt ourselves and our allies to stick it to our enemies.

2) Aside from state sponsors like Iraq (and we're about to fix this little problem), most oil revenue for terrorism is indirect through extortion or third parties. If we cut the oil consumption, we can target the state sponsors like Iraq but the terrorists will continue to find new and creative ways to finance their operations.

3) You don't fight your enemies by giving in to their demands. They are after us to change our lifestyle and our freedoms. If we do so, as a direct result of their "encouragement", we have given them the victory they sought.

Giving in to the terrorists by altering our way of life could harm our national interests, our allies and ultimately give our enemies victory.

[colorado tanker]

The message to the American people from these ads, as well as the Democrat legislative assault on SUV's:

No owner or prospective owner of an SUV should ever vote Democrat.

[danelectro]

No, your post proves that some people don’t know Arianna Huffington’s stated agenda. She advocates for more government control of our purchasing decisions, and government policies to force car makers to meet her green objectives.

ms. huffington clearly understands that abject dishonesty of the logic that drugs=terrorism. see here.

In addition to setting new standards for illogic, the ads are also exercises in highly selective finger-pointing. We know, for instance, that bin Laden and al-Qaida used tens of millions of dollars in profits from the diamond industry to fund their operations. So how come we didn't see a commercial with a woman, say, a senator's wife, fingering the diamonds on her sparkling tennis bracelet and admitting: "I helped kids learn how to kill?" And, given the fact that 15 out of the 19 hijackers, and most of the detainees in Cuba, came from Saudi Arabia -- where the ruling family, glutted with oil profits, has coddled extremists for decades -- why no taxpayer-funded ad showing a soccer mom filling up her SUV and saying: "I helped blow up buildings?"

she knows this is bad logic, so you cannot argue that she is trying to make a valid argument. this is called satire.

[biblewonk]

I hope you're leading by example. I'm sure you own no cars, motocycles, boats, snowmobiles, &tc. You walk or ride a bicycle, correct?

I biked to work today. For most Freepers that alone makes me an anathema(sp). We use our 12 passenger van to haul our family of 10 to church.

[biblewonk]

I guess you didn’t see the Iraqis surrenduring to American journalist pools.

Yup I did. Iraqi's drafted to be bullet catchers. They were like the russian soldiers in ememy at the gate who had a choice, German bullets or bullets from their "leaders".

[dead]

she knows this is bad logic, so you cannot argue that she is trying to make a valid argument.

Yes I can. She is an idiot, so your demand that she be logical doesn’t apply.

this is called satire.

Perhaps she is trying to be satirical, but satire usually needs to involve wit.

Plus, I linked you to an absolutely non-satirical article where she explicity states that she agrees with the terrorism/SUV link, while she incongruously mocks the dope/terrorism link.

She’s a dingbat.

[dead]

Yup I did. Iraqi's drafted to be bullet catchers. They were like the russian soldiers in ememy at the gate who had a choice, German bullets or bullets from their "leaders".

In other words, they were terrified of the red, white, and blue bullets in front of them.

Thanks for seeing it my way.