This ad is the political equivalent of a chick flick. It is supposed to convey sincerity and earnestness, if it conveys any stance on an issue, that’s fine, just so long as it doesn’t get in the way of the sincerity and earnestness. This isn’t Badass Bush, who kicks terrorist butt and takes names!..no, we have Defender of the Hearth Bush, loyal, faithful, fiercely protective, lays by the fireplace and licks his balls Bush.
And we have Laura on hand to testify that at least one woman looked upon George and found sufficient material to construct a husband, adequate quality, serviceable, if closely attended.
At any rate, an ad that emotive uses the speaking parts pretty much as libretto, one seldom finds rhetorical points in these sorts of ads. So one doesn’t really expect to be able to parse some cogent argument or advocacy.
Until this thread, I hadn’t really thought about it, but, yeah, it makes even less sense than this sort of thing calls for. It plucks on the parentanoia string, the urge in times of stress or threat to gather your children and keep them at hand. (Myself, I find that sort of fear-mongering repulsive when it is directed at my fears for myself, nudging the worry glands about one’s kids is extra special repulsive.)
So I think he’s talking about picking up your kids from school or some such, in the event of the terrible thing he’s protecting us from. Still, its kinda surprising that this ad was reviewed and edited by whole bunches of people and nobody seems to have noticed that it doesn’t really make sense. Must have been at least 20 different people saw this thing, over and over,…the elephant walked into the middle of the room, farted thunderously and left without anybody noticing.
Of course without the HAW! HAW! HAW! I got more confused…
Chick? oh, for girls! I thought for a moment you were referring to the ad as a Jack Chick flick!!!
Seriously: I am surprised why no one in this thread has pointed out to the equivocating maneuver of the administration, it is once again implying that Iraq was involved in 9/11.
While the ad does not mention it, the ad can be seen by some as saying just that, and it is a pander to the surprising number of Americans that still, to this day, think Iraq was invaded to take care of the evildoers of 9/11.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think the whole phrase is just a big psyche-out meant to convey tension in the mind of independent voters who haven’t made their minds up yet.
I kinda look at it like, yeah, which one would I pick, how am I gonna decide. Maybe the reason that line exists - it’s inclusion can’t be accidental or arbitrary - is to get under the skin and to kind of draw a line between Bush and Kerry. “I can’t imagine deciding to abandon one child (candidate)”
Forgive me not having this completely hashed out - it’s kind of off-the-cuff. But I think that Bush still is leading in polls indicating voter trust and voter belief in the candidates ability to be a strong leader. Maybe this line is an attempt to create in the mind of the viewer a type of stress that they are trying to exploit. Just an idea. Not diabolical, just clever perhaps.
Of course, holding the Republican National Convention in New York City one week before the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is entirely coincidental, I’m sure. :rolleyes:
Come, come. Not even Kerry is that evil.
You can choose one kid, to keep safe. If you can pick it up in time, come 9/11/04.
The rest of your babies will, of course, be sacrificed by the cabal of liberalcommunistlonghaireddemocratatheistfurrinerlovers that hates America and will use the residue to poison all the wells.
You folks are blinded by your hatred of this man. There’s nothing wrong with the ad. Maybe it’s a little confusing. I didn’t think so, but maybe it is. But, at worst, that is all it is.
It’s confusing AND stupid. If we’re too blinded by our hatred to see otherwise, maybe you’re too blinded by your love to see the truth. It can cut both ways, ya know.
On second thought, maybe he did “write” this. I once saw an outfit, brought in to make news promos for the TV station I worked at, use the technique of throwing out a topic and then rolling film while the talent blathered on until he said something that could be usable. Presumably this technique gives a ‘natural feel’ to things. If this is the spot I’m thinking of (I almost alway hit the mute button during breaks), it kinda looks like they did it that way.
However you parse it, GWB seems to be saying, in effect, “I have no sense of empathy.”
Colophon: Looks like you’ve been reading Maureen Dowd’s book.
No, he won’t share. If you looked at the Medicare Prescription Drug ‘benefit’ you’d see that he gets to bogart the good stuff at cost, while the rest of us have the standard 40% mark up.
I thought this would be in reference to another confusing ad I saw the other day.
It has Olympic style footage (in fact it wasn’t clearly a political ad at first) showing women swimmers…and then mentioning how many “democracies” are now competing in the Olympics this year, including two new democracies; Afghanistan and Iraq. But I still thought it was a promo for the Olympics themselves, until the credits for the Bush campaign appeared at the end.
Now no one can deny that their new governments are far improved over the Taliban and Ba’athism (just as ampuation is an improvement over gangrene)…but to call them democracies is ridiculous - unless your definition of a democracy is an administration that is selected by a commitee of appointed dignataries.
Well I can see why George W. Bush would embrace that definition.
Plus, I doubt there are many Afghan women swimmers at this years Olympics…it makes little sense. All in all it provoked a “huh?” more than anything else.
Anyway, I don’t see why Bush bothers with advertising…I think nearly everyone has made up their minds at this point - the outcome hinges on whether the still undecided will vote for Kerry or stay home and watch Trading Spaces instead.
C’mon. Me saying that I didn’t have trouble understanding the ad makes me blinded from my love of Bush?
In can cut both ways. But, in this case it doesn’t. If I didn’t like the ad I would say so. Liseners statement about Bush saying that Kerry wants your kids dead is rediculous. That statement is a testiment to the hatred (or discust or whatever you prefer to call it) that some people have for Bush. It’s just nuts that anybody could interpret an simple campaign ad focused on terrorism as such an over the top accusation against Kerry.
It is a stupid ad, that tries to cash in on 9/11. I still want to know a few things myself. Where is Osama? I thought Dubya swore there would be no place to hide, Dubya would get him. I’m still waiting. Meanwhile, why did we invade Iraq and where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction and all the newkewlar thingamabobs? They were not there maybe? It is the usual crap - trade on fear, anyone who does not blindly follow Shrub is a traitor, etc. At least the Patriot Act protects us from all those liberal Commie book readers that infest our libraries. You can list me with the “disgusted” group. In November, I look forward to “outsourcing” Dubya.
Awww, man, this started out in IMHO. So much for that cool poll I’ve been building. snif
Seriously, though, I’d like to thank everybody who commented here, and I apologize for leaving this thread for so long. Our neighbors are trying to get in one more little grow before the end of the season and are too short-handed to clear their hay. It seems The Economic Recovery that Reigns Over Recession hasn’t quite dripped down to our neck of the woods just yet…
With that said, let me just roll through a few acknowledgements:
You know, that’s what I thought, at first. Now it seems like the ad was crafted that way. I’ve just seen it again – next time you watch it, pay close attention to the camera work, specifically the POV. In relation to the Bushes, where are we supposed to be sitting? Strikes me as a cozy, after-breakfast chat.
…
Since I’m of the childless variety, I have to punt. Is it possible that a parent might feel great agony over how to explain what’s just happened to our country? Might that be especially difficult in a multi-child household?
…
Not really Pit fodder, though. I think you’ve made an excellent point.
…
I don’t think so, since he said “on September the 11th.” To me, he’s trying to go back in time.
…
Will his decision to use September 11 as a stump affect your vote?
…
Now that’s interesting. I can’t imagine what that kind of agony feels like, and now I feel kind of lousy for not having empathized before.
…
Ouch. I think that would be monstrous. Effective, but monstrous.
…
I seem to remember the same thing, but I just haven’t the time to obtain this kind of cite. Do you have any handy, for both promise and trespass?
…
I can’t tell if it was intentional, but what you’ve just laid out sounds like agony to me. That’s a lot of questions to be bouncing around in a parent’s head.
…
Another excellent point. Makes me wonder what he’ll say if there’s another attack while he’s in office. Wouldn’t another attack impeach the very words in this ad?
…
Sheesh, you forgot the dungeons. And the Missile Defense System. And the time John Ashcroft covered up the boobies of Justice.
…
As Gaudere inferred, the President is set on some kind of “safety initiative” to stem the chaos in the event of another attack. As I understand it, general drills (terror/trenchcoat/tornado) will soon be in regular use. All the kiddies will be herded to a secured corridor or room, where they’ll be made to crouch with a World History book over their necks.
…
Good point. As with Otto, I’m not challenging your statement, but do you have any cites ready?
…
Wonderful, brilliant imagery. Thanks for that.
On September 11, did you feel that way about Weird With Words? Does that urge fade as the child grows older?
…
Interesting. Would you go so far as to say it makes the vacillating viewer ask himself “now how would Mr Kerry have reacted on September 11?” Perhaps this ad is pointed in stark contrast at Mr Kerry’s perceived woodenness?
…
I guess “12 years late” is better than never!
…
A little down-home scat from the President? Have you noticed, though, how Mrs Bush eyes him as he’s trying (a little too metronomic, if you ask me) to spit out the words?
I believe these two points of view touch the heart of President Bush’s message. Here sits a populist. You are in the presence of a man of the people, a man who feels for Americans but does not patronize. And he will do everything in his power to prevent such suffering from happening again.
