Gay Patriot Header Image

Hollywood Producer Slams Albright, DemsAd Deemed “Too Hot” For GOP

YouTube Preview Image

Major kudos to David Zucker (of “Airplane” and “Scary Movie” fame) for having the guts to produce this outstanding political ad slamming the Democrats.   Key line: “We don’t need a party that treats America’s future like a game.”  Ouch.

I think it says more about the Republicans and their sense of “fairness” that they don’t have the spine to run this ad.  Maybe Drudge shining the light on it will change their minds.

I predict this video on YouTube will be viewed by many more folks than the Clinton meltdown with Chris Wallace.

Watch the whole thing!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

45 Comments

  1. Owieowieowieowie.

    This is definately going to be a popular clip. Yikes!

    Comment by Synova — October 10, 2006 @ 8:36 pm - October 10, 2006

  2. I think it says more about the Republicans and their sense of “fairness” that they don’t have the spine to run this ad.

    Unfortunately, the end product of Republican spinelessness is going to be Republican majoritylessness in Congress. That they are too timid to run this ad is just symptomatic on how the Republicans have been too timid to take on Democrats these last few years on a wide range of issues.

    Comment by V the K — October 10, 2006 @ 8:55 pm - October 10, 2006

  3. I would suspect the reason the GOP declined the ad has less to do with the content and more to do with the production quality. As a political ad, it’s not very good. It’s too sophomoric.

    Comment by Chase — October 10, 2006 @ 9:02 pm - October 10, 2006

  4. And if it’s going to get shown anyway…

    Comment by Synova — October 10, 2006 @ 9:09 pm - October 10, 2006

  5. This has to be one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. It’s like a live-action exposition of the point behind “Team America World Police”.

    I wish someone had the cajones to use this as a real political ad.

    Comment by CoolBreezeTX — October 10, 2006 @ 9:20 pm - October 10, 2006

  6. I started to laugh at the ad, the parady, and then I remembered it’s about nukes and a crazy guy. Bill Clinton and Madelline were such dupes. For 8 years they kicked all the cans down the road. Never seriously trying to fix anything.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 10, 2006 @ 9:33 pm - October 10, 2006

  7. If only ABC would have the “Path to 9/11” producer come up with “The Path to A Nuclear Korea.”

    Same Clinton players, same Clinton strategy, same tragic ending.

    Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — October 10, 2006 @ 9:52 pm - October 10, 2006

  8. Got a question for GP and fellow Conservatives. Ever get tired of always being the adults? Some mornings I get up wondering what it would be like to be a liberal and just shoot the breeze and not worry about trying to fix the messed up things. Trying to be logical and find solutions. Barbara Striesand for instance…having a hoot of a time ripping down the Prez when we are faced with such serious challenges, with no fear of looking like an idiot. Being a businessman I know how corrosive it is when you have half your team not with the program. It makes it very hard to accomplish anything worthwhile. Trouble is, this ain’t bean ball. It’s serious stuff. And liberals are having a gay ole’ time.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 10, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - October 10, 2006

  9. Actually, this is a stroke of genius on the GOP’s part. Here’s my analysis:

    1. View the results and “decry” the content of the ad. Swear up and down that nobody will watch it since it is too “hot” to handle. (That’s the surest way to gin up interest.)

    2. Give it to Drudge as an exclusive and link it to You Tube. Drudge gets approximately 15 million hits in a 24-hour span, so it is widely seen.

    3. People now start looking at the ad and it doesn’t cost the GOP a cent since it’s free advertising.

    4. It gets coverage in the media and the RATS get flustered.

    5. Since it is only seen on the web and not on any TV stations, the RATS can’t complain that it is sending out a “bad” message on them because it is not freely available to non-Internet users.

    And THAT is how you trap a RAT. Brilliant!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 10, 2006 @ 10:15 pm - October 10, 2006

  10. Best. Political. Ad. Ever.

    This is the stuff of legend. People will be talking about this “ad” years from now like they do the Lyndon Johnson anti-Goldwater “daisy” ad (which, if I remember my political history, was only shown once on broadcast TV before being pulled).

    And the Republicans are broadcasting it free!
    Oh wait, they’re not broadcasting it! It’s unavailable! No one can see it! Anywhere! Genius.

    Comment by Rhodium Heart — October 10, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - October 10, 2006

  11. Gawd, I wish you guys were in charge of GOP strategy! Blame Clinton 24/7. Yeah that’s the ticket six years into Bushco’s rule. remind the folks how disasters always seem to occur under Bush but it’s Clinton’s fault.

    Comment by Ian — October 10, 2006 @ 11:32 pm - October 10, 2006

  12. I hear rummors that the ad is getting tagged “offensive” in an effort to keep people who want to see it from seeing it according to YouTube policy. What could there possibly be about the ad that would make it an “over age 18” clip?

    I seriously hope that conservatives wouldn’t go for the same sort of attempted censorship. If I ever found out they did I’d denounce it in as strong a way as I could.

    Comment by Synova — October 11, 2006 @ 12:02 am - October 11, 2006

  13. Don’t you find it a little sad you have to rely on the guy who made the Scary movies to be your propaganda hit man? We’re talking about someone who’s biggest accomplishment was a single Emmy nomination in 1982 for Police Squad.

    Gosh if only the Democrats could find someone as creative to prop up their falling poll numbers and restore a shred of credibility to their failing policies. Oh wait, that’s the Republicans.

    Well then maybe they DO need a funny commercial to help keep voters minds off real issues and problems. Dream big Republicans. Dream big!

    Comment by Just A Question — October 11, 2006 @ 12:13 am - October 11, 2006

  14. Holy crap. That’s worse than Baseketball (also written, directed, and produced by Zucker).

    Let me see if I get the premise correct… It’s Clinton and Albright’s fault that Lil’ Kim has nukes and basketballs; therefore we shouldn’t vote for their party in this election even though they haven’t really had any power for six years and the guys who have power have relied on F’n China to negotiate for us and Albright was kinda fugly so you really should vote Republican because if not Lil’ Kim will come after us with his basketball.

    Honestly, I would think this is a satire of a GOP ad if I hadn’t been told it was legitimate. (And in terms of comedy, this is what I would expect from a first year SNL writer. I bet Zucker could scrape up something funnier on a piece of toilet paper using a sideways wiping technique.)

    Comment by dfx — October 11, 2006 @ 12:46 am - October 11, 2006

  15. Here’s why the ad is great:

    One of the most critical issues facing the world is NorK nukes. Lil Kim might use them himself. He might them sell them, since his little sh*thole of a country doesn’t produce anything anyone wants to buy but weapons. Even the WhackJob Mullahs of Iran are less likely to sell nukes to a freelance terror group than Lil Kim.

    The Dems love to criticize Bush on NorK policy, but what’s their solution? I’m listening. I’m all ears. Feel free to jump in if you’ve heard the Dems put forth a real, legitimate policy proposal. Oh that’s right: talk talk suck-up talk. Not sure what we’re supposed to talk about; the Dems think gabbing is an ends unto itself apparently. We tried that during the Madeleine Albright years. Didn’t work. North Korea was on the verge of collapse in the mid 90s and G.D. Effin’ Evil B*st*rd Jimmy Carter goes there and saves Kim Jong Il’s porky pompadoured butt. And Clinton goes along. And Bush-Cheney has to clean up the mess left by America’s eight-year drunken gropefest.

    Funny thing about the Dems who continually criticize Chimpy McBusHilterburton “unilateralism” in Iraq (unilateral in conjunction with about 20 allies: what a concept!): they cry that we HAVE to act unilaterally vis-a-vis North Korea because that’s what Kimmy wants and what Kimmy wants Kimmy gets. Never mind we’d be kneecapping our allies Japan and China (an ally on this issue) and our pseudo-ally South Korea. But I digress.

    This ad perfectly captures the brainless Dem foreign policy with regard to the NorKs: talk and concede. I laughed at this ad. As Homer Simpson once said: it’s funny ’cause it’s true.

    Comment by Rhodium Heart — October 11, 2006 @ 1:52 am - October 11, 2006

  16. I think the premise is that Democrats think being nice *works*. But that’s not funny. The Albright character is representative of that concept so she moves from one situation to another being outrageous. If Democrats didn’t by and large insist, or at least fail to refute, that dictators and jihadists and whomever have their own agendas and own motivations the ad wouldn’t work because it would be too easy to think of counter examples.

    Maybe there are Democrats who realize that everything that happens in the world isn’t a response to something we did or didn’t do, that dictators like Saddam would seek power through fear even if he never heard of us and Osama and Al Qaida would be every bit as convinced of God’s will if none of us had ever been born… but they’ve got a “base” problem that may even be more serious than the Republicans have with the religious right.

    A Democrat who, in fact, says something opposite the parody in the ad… that it’s *not* our fault and that being nice won’t change the minds of despots or terrorists… they’re screwed.

    Comment by Synova — October 11, 2006 @ 1:58 am - October 11, 2006

  17. Some mornings I get up wondering what it would be like to be a liberal…

    Nope. Then you’d be a quivering mass of arrogance, ignorance, hate, misery, depression etc. sans testicles with no regard to honesty or history which brings me to:

    Gawd, I wish you guys were in charge of GOP strategy! Blame Clinton 24/7. Yeah that’s the ticket six years into Bushco’s rule. remind the folks how disasters always seem to occur under Bush but it’s Clinton’s fault.

    and this:

    It’s Clinton and Albright’s fault that Lil’ Kim has nukes and basketballs; therefore we shouldn’t vote for their party in this election

    Who was it that gave the material to the dog eating dictator? If it hadn’t been for your lord and master BJ, Bush wouldn’t have had anything to worry about.

    Besides, what about the disasters that occured on Clinton’s watch? Were those Bush’s fault too?

    No. The premise is this: Don’t vote for the liberals who arm and appease our enemies, do everything they can to undermine their own country, criticize the president instead of the terrorists, concern themselves more about how our prisoners are treated while not caring a damn about theirs, and actively cheering for America to lose.

    So cram it!

    BTW, I am questioning your patriotism.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 11, 2006 @ 2:00 am - October 11, 2006

  18. And as America prepares to turn its government over to socialists, Euro-Socialism Racks Up Yet Another Failure

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2006 @ 5:33 am - October 11, 2006

  19. The only thing the ad is missing was Julie Hagerty saying, “Are there any DemocRATS on board who know how to run a government?”

    Comment by Julie the Jarhead — October 11, 2006 @ 7:43 am - October 11, 2006

  20. That’s one LAME ad! Maybe the RNC won’t run it because, after watching the ad, one comes away with the sense that the DIRECTOR thinks politics is a joke! As ‘Babs’ found out, having an impersonator turn a political figure into a parody for political reasons is:
    1) usually not funny, and
    2) tells people that you don’t take that person seriously.

    And, ahem, it also allows Dems to point out that ALL the nukes in N. Korea were produced under Bush’s watch. Hell, even Condi Rice isn’t blaming Clinton for this one. . . You can’t fictionalize and parody political figures in an ad without it backfiring. . . I mean, what if the Dems put together an ad where Bush (played by the SNL comedian) was as stupid as the Dems think he is? Would that work? What about an ad of a fictionalized Allen repeatedly using the ‘N’ word? A ‘fake’ Condi Rice shoe shopping while New Orleans drowned (which actually happened); then using that as a jumping off point to show how ‘callous’ Rice is (insanely laughing while she eats caviar, buys expensive clothing, and says ‘there’s nothing I can do to help them, why shouldn’t I enjoy the FINEST while those poor souls drown?’) Would THAT work?

    This is the stupidest political ad I’ve ever seen!

    Comment by NeoConNed — October 11, 2006 @ 7:51 am - October 11, 2006

  21. #20

    You’re right. Characterizing Condi as Mammy is a hell of a lot better.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 11, 2006 @ 8:34 am - October 11, 2006

  22. Scary Movie…

    David Zucker è il regista e produttore di alcuni capolavori dell’umorismo demenziale come Airplane (L’aereo più pazzo del mondo), The Naked Gun (Una pallottola spuntata), BASEketball (interpretato dai creatori di South Park, Trey Parker e Matt Stone)…

    Trackback by The Right Nation — October 11, 2006 @ 9:34 am - October 11, 2006

  23. I’ll be honest. I hate watching videos on a computer. But I must say this is the funniest thing I’ve seen in years (and I now need a new keyboard).

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 11, 2006 @ 9:57 am - October 11, 2006

  24. “Characterizing Condi as Mammy is a hell of a lot better.”

    Huh? Obviously you missed my point. Rumsfeld infamously shook Hussein’s hand and crowed about his ‘accomplishment’ of restoring relations with Iraq. But did he mow Saddam’s yard, change his oil, polish his car, etc? Isn’t that a bit absurd?

    Comment by NeoConNed — October 11, 2006 @ 10:12 am - October 11, 2006

  25. Maybe there are Democrats who realize that everything that happens in the world isn’t a response to something we did or didn’t do, that dictators like Saddam would seek power through fear even if he never heard of us and Osama and Al Qaida would be every bit as convinced of God’s will if none of us had ever been born… but they’ve got a “base” problem that may even be more serious than the Republicans have with the religious right.
    There was one last Dem that fit that description, but the ‘Rats ran Joe Lieberman out of their party on a rail.

    One other point in seeing lefty reaction to this ad: there are few things in life funnier than watching a PC-leftist trying to prove that he or she is not completely lacking in a sense of humor.

    Comment by Rhodium Heart — October 11, 2006 @ 10:37 am - October 11, 2006

  26. To think that you cons are against Hollywood except if it meets your own ends…

    Comment by ljp — October 11, 2006 @ 11:19 am - October 11, 2006

  27. I’ll use langauage that those on the Left will understand. This ad illustrates the root cause of the current Korean crisis. Makes sense now, doesn’t it?

    Comment by BoBo — October 11, 2006 @ 11:52 am - October 11, 2006

  28. And as America prepares to turn its government over to socialists, Euro-Socialism Racks Up Yet Another Failure

    Good link. And I gnash my teeth every time I think about subsidizing public transportation …

    Comment by rightwingprof — October 11, 2006 @ 12:00 pm - October 11, 2006

  29. Hum Clinton “infamously” shook Arafats hand…but he only killed JEWS. Guess that doesn’t count.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — October 11, 2006 @ 12:02 pm - October 11, 2006

  30. The truth hurts, doesn’t it, NeoconNed?

    #27 — Thanks, someone at my Other Favorite Blog made a salient point:

    “I remember last year when I had a subscription to the Financial Times I was reading boring British story after story about how Airbus was wiping out Boeing.

    The proof?

    Well, Boeing had to lay off all these workers and move its headquarters and there was dissention on the board and all this infighting and they had to scrap two major airframe plans and put together last minute presentations for important international air shows and the shareholders were angry….

    …in other words: While Boeing was reacting to the challenges, and taking its lumps for bad decisions, it *seemed* like Boeing was in chaos while Airbus steamed serenly forward, but, in reality, Boeing was going through the painful thing we call “competition”.

    And came out on top! Go Boeing!”

    There’s also a good editorial on OpinionJournal today about the dynamism of the American economy versus the static Euro-socialist model. Let’s just hope congressional Democrats are too busy next year drawing up impeachment papers to screw with the economy.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2006 @ 12:36 pm - October 11, 2006

  31. I’ll use langauage that those on the Left will understand. This ad illustrates the root cause of the current Korean crisis. Makes sense now, doesn’t it?

    Really? Because Albright cleaned Bin Laden’s cave, N. Korea has nukes? Or maybe it was the gift of a basketball? Was there uranium in the basketball?

    And WHY does Rice disagree with you? And, does that mean that Saddam Hussein became a threat bacuse Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration sold him weapons to use in the Iran-Iraq war? I guess, by your own logic, that THAT is the reason Saddam ‘used WMD against his own people”?

    Comment by NeoConNed — October 11, 2006 @ 12:37 pm - October 11, 2006

  32. #20 #24 “the DIRECTOR thinks politics is a joke!”

    Well, yeah. And the problem with that is?

    Incidentally, I thought that actor who played Osama was brilliant.

    Comment by Synova — October 11, 2006 @ 12:44 pm - October 11, 2006

  33. To put a finer point on it:

    Insisting that politics aren’t funny doesn’t disprove or mitigate the unseriousness of the Democratic party’s attitude toward foreign policy.

    To put a less fine point on it with a bit of gratuitous snark:

    Babs’ tin ear concerning political humor has nothing to do with the subject and everything to do with the fact that *she* doesn’t think politics is funny.

    Comment by Synova — October 11, 2006 @ 12:51 pm - October 11, 2006

  34. So what if Zucker did a political satire commercial? I guess you libtards forget all the cozying up the Hollywood Left did in the Bubba White House, the sale of the Lincoln Bedroom, the hit pieces done by James Carville, the moobat howls from Alec Baldwin et al.

    Typical libtards. They can dish it out, but they sure as hell can’t take it.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 11, 2006 @ 12:55 pm - October 11, 2006

  35. How about an ad about how Reagan ’caused’ 9-11 by funding and training Bin Laden’s organization when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2102243/

    Or, what if Pakistan or Saudi Arabia become big threats to the US? Would this mean that Bush’s ‘hand-holding’ with Saudi Royalty caused this to happen?

    Here’s what Rice said about N. Korea:

    RICE:…We have been through bilateral talks with the North Koreans in the
    1994 Agreed Framework, it didn’t hold. They…

    BLITZER: That was a mistake the Clinton administration…

    RICE: No. I will not blame anyone for trying. I just know that the 1994 agreement, of course, didn’t hold. The North Koreans cheated.

    The fact is that N. Korea had NO nukes when Bush came into office and now they have 13-15! There were inspectors in N. Korea and we had much more knowledge of their weapons programs. Furthermore, Iraq was contained and had NO WMDs during the Clinton administration, as we now know.

    The reason this ad won’t be run by the RNC is because it’s ridiculous and won’t work! Do you think an ad featuring a bumbling Reagan cleaning Bin Laden’s cave would be appropriate or would WORK?!??

    Comment by NeoConNed — October 11, 2006 @ 1:36 pm - October 11, 2006

  36. It works because the message “Democrats think being nice works” is *still* true. You can’t exchange Reagan for Albright or even, for that matter, point out past mistakes such as the US’s history of favoring supposed stability over justice, we love a strongman so long as he’s ours idiocy, because that’s no longer our policy.

    So, no, a satire or humor ad featuring Reagan supporting anti-Soviet forces wouldn’t work as a criticism of present Republican policies.

    Democrats *now* think that being nice works. So a clip making fun of “being nice” works.

    Comment by Synova — October 11, 2006 @ 2:22 pm - October 11, 2006

  37. Dude, the ad isn’t an ad. It’s a parody.

    You’ve been Drudged. Again.

    Comment by Davebo — October 11, 2006 @ 4:36 pm - October 11, 2006

  38. Ya know, you could probably make the same kind of film showing Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein from the 80s. what’s the difference?

    There is one similarity that all our leaders, democrat or republican could learn: It’s not a good idea to be friendly with the leader of any nation who wears a military uniform most of the time.

    Comment by Kevin — October 11, 2006 @ 8:04 pm - October 11, 2006

  39. How about an ad about how Reagan ’caused’ 9-11 by funding and training Bin Laden’s organization when they were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan:

    It would be the usual liberal douchebag lying points since he didn’t.

    The fact is that N. Korea had NO nukes when Bush came into office and now they have 13-15!

    Who here said NoKo did?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — October 12, 2006 @ 1:45 am - October 12, 2006

  40. Now *THIS* is an attack ad with some teeth

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 8:28 am - October 12, 2006

  41. 39: Liberal douchebag. Well, that’s certainly an adult addition to the debate on the American political landscape…

    Comment by Kevin — October 12, 2006 @ 8:35 am - October 12, 2006

  42. The ad is so extreme, I assumed it was parody of Republican-style propaganda. But Zucker indeed switched parties in 2004, mainly over Israel.

    Comment by JonathanG — October 12, 2006 @ 9:40 am - October 12, 2006

  43. The add is accurate in that it was the policy of the Clinton-Carter administration to reward North Korea for defying international law, with generous donations of food aid, fuel, and nuclear development. Yes, it is true that Madeleine Albright brought Lil Kim an autographed basketball. It is also true that she toasted Lil Kim with champagne, as did Al Gore. Basically, the message of the Clinton-Carter approach to North Korea was, “If you develop nukes, we’ll bribe you to stop. And if you don’t stop, we’ll bribe you some more.”

    Long story short: Liberals are stupid.

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2006 @ 9:54 am - October 12, 2006

  44. #40 LOL! And that’s not even a “joke” campaign ad. I especially liked “if Ron Kind had better priorities you wouldn’t have to be listening to this.”

    The part of me that wants to always be fair somewhat suspects that “study the masturbation habits of old men” was part of some other funding, but still…

    Comment by Synova — October 13, 2006 @ 4:41 pm - October 13, 2006

  45. #44 – Synova, I only have one thing to say about that:

    EEEWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Regards,
    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — October 13, 2006 @ 5:26 pm - October 13, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.