REMEMBER HARRY & LOUISE?

From Wikipedia:

“Harry and Louise” was the name of a television commercial funded by the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), a health insurance industry lobbying group, in opposition to President Bill Clinton’s proposed health care plan in 1993. The ad depicted a white middle-class couple, portrayed by actors Harry Johnson and Louise Caire Clark, despairing over the allegedly bureaucratic nature of the plan and urged viewers to contact their representatives in Congress. It was widely credited as being a major factor in the plan’s ultimate defeat, and is often cited as a landmark moment in the use of public relations techniques for lobbying. The commercial was created by public relations consultants Ben Goddard and Rick Claussen of Goddard Claussen.[1]

The couple made a brief return in 2000 in a TV commercial sponsored by HIAA promoting its “InsureUSA” campaign advocating the need to provide health coverage to uninsured Americans. [2]

Later, they returned in an unrelated 2002 ad, produced by Goddard Claussen Porter Novelli (Goddard Claussen was purchased by Porter Novelli in 1999), advocating human cloning for therapeutic purposes on behalf of CuresNow. The second ad was the subject of a lawsuit by the HIAA who claimed that they owned the characters; however, a court ruled that the characters were owned by Goddard Claussen, and it aired during a showing of The West Wing on NBC.[3]

This ad was one of several prominent political attack ads parodied in the 78th Academy Awards (March 2006). An older couple sitting at the kitchen table bemoans the “foreign-sounding names” of the best actress nominees, then praises Reese Witherspoon for having an all-American name.

Harry and Louise appear again in an ad that premiered on August 25, 2008, during the 2008 Democratic National Convention, urging that health care reform be made a top priority. The ad aired again during the Republican National Convention. The 2008 ad was sponsored by several organizations that have, in the past, advocated diverse views on health care, including The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Hospital Association, the Catholic Health Association, Families USA, and the National Federation of Independent Business. [4]

I only got through the first paragraph of Patterico’s Pontifications. His reliance on questionable “evidence” to “prove” his point makes me fear for the criminal justice system–assuming he really is a prosecutor.

If I made a videotape of myself dressed as a Nazi and had it played at a Bar Mitzvah, do you think this defense would fly?

Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Right Wing News, Hot Air, JammieWearingFool, The Strata-Sphere, Scared Monkeys, The Other McCain, Mother, May I Sleep …, Patterico’s Pontifications, Soccer Dad, Confederate Yankee, The Campaign Spot, Atlas Shrugs and Gateway Pundit

Do you blame it?

Like JFK…

http://www.occamsrazorjfk.net

Given the facts turned up by The Jawa Report in this must read post, it seems fair to ask if the campaign of Barack Obama funded a malicious and deceptive web-based smear campaign against Republican Vice Presidential nominee, Governor Sarah Palin. . . .

A false and misleading video of professional quality attacking Palin was uploaded to the web from an account that appears to be linked to a high profile, primarily Democrat-linked media consulting firm – Winner and Associates. . . .

These and other attacks not only appeared on the web, they seem to have been subsequently affirmed, though false, and supported with requests to “send this around” by other ID’s associated with the firm. . . .

From there they drove huge blog bursts on the Liberal side of the web and were picked up by the media for that reason. . . .

–Powerline 09/22/2008

The wingnuts’ recent claims of “conspiracy theories” with regard to Obama’s alleged media attacks are becoming excessively irrational and shrill–even for their obviously low standards. The idea that the liberal blogosphere is somehow dependent on “professional” PR hacks for fodder is particularly ironic.

PR firms are historically conservative. Most of the time, if a PR/marketing firm had what appeared to be an original idea, they probably stole it from a firm underling or some amateur; and released it on the conspicuously consuming public only after extensive testing in focus groups.

Some of the most creative materials appearing on YouTube are generated by amateurs, because the highly paid marketing firms are still largely staffed by “technotards” who view the Internet as some lesser form of alternative medium. And even if a firm’s members are technically savvy, they often don’t speak “snark.”

As an attorney, Reihl should also know that a copyright only protects an idea in a fixed format/medium. YOU CAN’T COPYRIGHT AN IDEA. So it’s more probable that a PR firm ripped off an unknown YouTube theme after watching the hit count soar.

IMHO, Riehl appears to be a few elements short of a conspiracy.

That’s Just What I Said

Also mean as mambas.

And neither was Napoleon, btw…(erm)

Alaska First, Alaska Always…baby.

Hitler wasn’t German, Stalin wasn’t Russian, and Napolean wasn’t French.

Jus’ say’n…