Missy Smith Reilly 2010
 

This was a journal entry, but I figured it'd get more discussion if I posted a thread.

Missy Smith Reilly is the Republican candidate for D.C. Congressperson. She ran unopposed in the primary, and stands absolutely zero chance of actually winning in an incredibly Democratic district. Since the people who have the least chance of winning often are the most outlandish, it shouldn't be too surprising that she did something weird.

What shocked me was just how blatantly she went for scare tactics.

YouTube Video

This is the least graphic of the two ads she's made.

Embedded in her site on the left is the ad that nutty, Tritoch and I saw on TV last night.

It was buffered on both ends by warnings. "The following political ad may contain content that will offend viewers; however, due to federal law, we are required to air this ad unedited."

Firstly, I was surprised by this; I wasn't aware that that was on the books, but apparently:

[ Source ]

So that means we're subjected to seeing pictures of [s]aborted[/s] miscarried (aborted babies DO NOT LOOK LIKE THAT) on TV during primetime.

And no less, from a lady who, among other things:



Please give the largest gift you can to run the following ads on TV in Washington DC. EVERY PENNY you give will go toward these! This is YOUR CHANCE to have YOUR VOICE heard in OUR NATIONS CAPITAL for the BABIES who are being murdered across America. Go ahead; poke Obama, Pelosi, and Reid in the eye right here in their seat of power; they support the murder of babies, and we must expose their murderous agenda!

I'm curious, though, and forgive my ignorance; does this mean a candidate could make a blatantly pornographic ad, show up at the end of it, and force stations to show it as is? Apparently the bit about stations not being liable results more from a lack of judicial comment on conflicting provisions more than a specific exemption from getting in trouble.

Also, what does this pissing into the wind even do? She has no chance of winning the election. She's basically just throwing money away to scream about abortions.

At least we can't say the network didn't warn us. So maybe they're required to air the ad unedited, but don't they have some say on when it airs? We saw it towards the end of SNL, but Missy's site says it's scheduled to air during sitcom reruns in the early evening, when kids could be watching. The network isn't responsible for the content, but surely the FCC could step in. Otherwise, a candidate could just make an ad where he yells profanity or has sex on camera with no consequences. If this were the case, why hasn't someone already done this to prove a point?

Umm, wait, so you're against anti-abortionists but you're screaming about graphic content on television?

I'm confused.

So am I. What do the two have to do with one another?

P.S.

I think he's more upset about the emotional manipulation inherent in what this woman is trying to do than about the misshappen corpses on tv.

That makes more sense when you put it that way.

As every red-blooded U.S. Citizen knows: if it doesn't involve misshapen corpses or gratuitous scenes of gore and violence, it's not good television.