Comments on: Santorum Pwns “Santorum”

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:13:10 +0000

I heard a story on NPR about this ad – there were speculations that the true intended audience was the media (um, like NPR!)… who are so desparate for more “fight to the finish” news stories that they would cover the “negative campaign” story aspect, and thereby give His Frothiness a free publicity boost.

I’m with MattNYC – I think someone in the production company made sure the “mud” would look like, well, santorum. And they are totally laughing their asses off…after assuring the wise souls of the Santorum campaign that this was a “surefire winner”.

Kudos, ladies and gentlemen of whatever company made this little gem. I keep hearing about all the millions/billions of dollars spent on the campaigns – it’s awesome to see that SOME of it paid off, if only for the comedy.

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:52:19 +0000

I’m with straight grandmother on this. It may be a paintball gun, but to me, it’s a large automatic weapon which on politician is shooting at another.

I’m not anti-gun. I support the Second Amendment. But I was raised with the understanding that you DO NOT point a gun at another human. And this pushed all the wrong buttons.

That being said, it’s still a confusing ad. In a campaign you “fling mud” at an opponent, you don’t “shoot mud”. And because the mud didnt resemble mud, i was lost I couldn’t figure out at first what was supposed to be happening.

Between all of that discomfort and confusion, whatever message they were trying to send was lost. I was so annoyed and disgusted that I didn’t even care that sanatorium was dodging a frothy mix.

By: mikeksf

mikeksf — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 17:15:10 +0000

Thanks for the reminder to Google Santorum

By: Blake

Blake — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:56:03 +0000

It’s just so… so… meta.

By: janet montgomery

janet montgomery — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:39:02 +0000

clueless.
however it’s a highly unattractive ad on other levels and were I he, I wouldn’t have used it.

By: MattNYC

MattNYC — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 05:23:45 +0000

Holy Santorum, Batman!

I vote for clueless–he and his closest advisors.

However, the gays who did the production work for the ad firm are laughing their asses off as they down their Cosmos in Chelsea.

By: Lindoro Almaviva

Lindoro Almaviva — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 01:12:44 +0000

And with the overture to Carmen nonetheless. Romney as some sort of Escamillo battling Sartorum “the Bull”

By: Hyhybt

Hyhybt — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:59:42 +0000

Even if the reference is intentional, it’s still a stupid ad.

By: Petrockmi

Petrockmi — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:56:55 +0000

StraightGrandmother, please be at ease as the big assault weapon that he was holding at the 22 second mark was just a paint ball gun. They try and make them look impressive but when you have a CO2 tank and a big hopper they are easily identified.

By: StraightGrandmother

StraightGrandmother — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 00:16:53 +0000

The use of a gun in the political ad really shook me up. And a BIG assault gun at that. I don’t care if it was shooting mud, it is still an awfully big weapon. It’s unnerving. And Santorum is claiming the high moral ground? If I were in his shoes I never would have approved this commercial.