http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/170291p-148587c.html
This is a totally inappropriate way of exploiting a national tragedy. Shame on them. :mad:
It is utterly tasteless, and it is exactly what I expected.
The Republican convention in New York should bold new standards for tacky grandstanding.
Well, the “Mission Acomplished” footage is pretty much out the window these days, and they had to use something. Footage of Bush calling off the predator drone search for bin Laden back in early 2001 would certainly been a more honest choice, but there’s no accounting for taste.
Certainly. Why wouldn’t it be?
OK, I haven’t seen the ad in question, but let me get this straight: someone in the RNC decided that the best way to promote a second term for Bush was to remind everyone that he was commander-in-chief, and thus presided over, one of the costliest intelligence failures in US history?
The leadership that Bush has provided this country since the terrorists attacks is what this election is going to be about. Bush has every right to defend his record and remind people of what is at stake in this election. I have seen the ads and their is nothing exploitative about them. The only reason the Dims are upset at them is that they might work.
Appropriate, schmappropriate.
Even though I’d love to hassle Bush about yet one more thing, political commercials are pretty much about what you can get away with.
Bush’s problem is, I don’t think he can get away with it.
(To watch the commercials in question for yourself, go here and click on Bush’s pic in the upper right.)
I just can’t see it working anymore. Playing the 9/11 card was a strong approach in 2002. By the time fall rolls around, it’ll be three years later. “Clinton left us with some problems, and then 9/11 happened” won’t cut it; after three years, people expect you to have done something about it. (Compare with a certain December 7, and where things stood by the next election.)
AFAIAC, Bush can play the 9/11 card from here to November. The more, the better. 
I would be interested in an expansion on this. I take it that you are saying that it is, indeed, appropriate for Bush to use the events of September 11 for political gain, and that you cannot understand why others would have a problem with this? Some clarification would be most appreciated.
After watching the ad in question I’m not as overwhelmingly offended as some people have said they are. The 9/11 related clips in the first ad from the link comprise less than 5 sec of a 30 second spot, and taken in context with the rest of the ad, the clips (with one glaring exception) are tastetful and appropriate.
However, I was appaled to see footage of firefighters carrying a flag-draped coffin for two seconds. It was totally unnecessary, because the point of the ad (that Bush is steering the country through a number of challenges) would have been made just as effectively without that image. By using that specific image, the Bush campaign is saying that Bush’s leadership through these past four year is analagous to the heroism of the rescue efforts of all the firefighters at ground zero. As far as I recall, Bush never put his own life on the line to help out at ground zero. And to try and make such a statement is flat out disgusting.
I am assuming that Democrats will forswear any mention of Iraq, which could be see as exploiting the death of Iraqis. In fact, they should avoid the topic of terrorism altogether.
Nor should they say anything about the (now past) recession, which would exploit people losing their jobs.
And so forth. Nothing should be said about any topic that might be seen as exploitative for political gains. By either side. Right?
Especially not Viet Nam. Or health care - exploiting sick people to get votes is just disgusting.
:rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
I seem to remember Bush claiming that he would never use the tragedy of 9/11 for political gains. Does anyone recall, or better yet, have a cite for any quotes to this effect? Maybe I’m just wishing he had said something like that…
(Of course, one could argue that the whole Iraq war was capitalizing on the tragedy of 9/11, but that’s a hijack for another thread)
Yes please. Seriously, I would love to see a race devoid of all of this opportunistic crud. The sad thing is that seems to not work. An interesting story that I heard on the radio was contending that one possible reason for the poor showing on the part of Edwards was his refusal to run an attack campaign.
And this just in: (courtesy of Mr. Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can hope to be informed)
http://www.ktok.com/cc-common/feeds/view.php?feed_id=135&feed=/local.html&instance=1&article_id=1559
Cole Claims a Vote Against Bush Is a Vote For Hitler
“Republican Congressman Tom Cole claims a vote against the re-election of President Bush is like supporting Adolph Hitler during World War Two. It’s what he said recently before a meeting of Canadian County Republicans…”
"…“If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election…”
We might just as well abandon this discussion of propriety and appropriatness right now. There is nothing, but nothing, that the Bushiviks will not resort to. Period. If Karl Rove believed that a photo op of GeeDubya stuffing kittens into a blender would ensure his election, you’ll see furry slurry in the Oval Office.
And if all of this shall cause poor, bereft friend Shodan to bewail the insidious tactics of the dastardly Dems, and flow the tears crockodilian, one would have to have a heart of stone not to laugh out loud. Crimea river.
It doesn’t surprise me.
But as disgusted and angered as I have been by Bush and his actions in office, I can’t say I’m much more impressed with the American electorate these days.
We have become Jerry Springer Nation. Whoever screams the loudest has the floor. The issues that interest the American people these days don’t seem to be what matters, so much as what draws our dumb, cowlike interest. Stuff like gay marriage and Janet Jackson’s right tit.
Can we, then, blame Bush for capitalizing on this? I mean, the one time in his presidency that he didn’t seem (to me) like an autocrat, an opportunist, or a jackass was when he made his first appearance and brief speech at Ground Zero. He almost seemed like a statesman, at the time. Admittedly, it was the least he could do, and it was totally appropriate on a variety of levels…
…but it was the one moment that even I could look at the man and say, “Good job, guy.”
Although I still find it kind of interesting that if the Democrats try to say word one about 9/11, the Republicans scream bloody murder about “politicizing a national tragedy.” I guess the incumbent president has a right to expect a sort of copyright on the event, huh?
I am also troubled by the use of the image of the dead body wrapped in the American flag. I believe that part of the message must be “You don’t want to vote for change because you might end up dead.” The overall theme is that poor Bush inherited such problems, but has had the steely leadership to guide us through the tough times. Bullshit.
When did the recession start?
The other thing that bothers me when I think about it is the specifics of the composition of the images. You know that these things are done with precision and great care (remember the “RATS” add that Bush ran last time?). So, it is highly unlikely that they just happened upon this one image and said, “Oh yeah, let’s put that one in.” It is more likely that they knew they wanted a dead body image, and then set about finding one. They must have reviewed many images of dead bodies at ground zero, winnowing down the field. I can only imagine that at some point, probably honestly only for a second or two, one of the people involved gave a thought to using images of jumpers falling or hitting the ground.
So, ultimately, after reviewing the field and selecting the best dead body image, they presented it to you, hoping that you would be both moved and scared, but also probably hoping that you didn’t stop to think about how callous the whole thing is.
These are some sick people.
Sure, I’ll clarify, but I don’t see what that’s necessary. Let he who invoked the ethical foul offer explanations. I’m no Republican and I’m no publicist, but as I see it, the purpose is to convey a message of reminder that the President was an effective leader in even the greatest crisis of his career and therefore can be trusted to lead effectively in any situation no matter how grave. I think he would be remiss to neglect it, and in fact, the same people who are so horrified now would likely sneer at him if he did and scream that he’s covering up something about it. From my perspective, the whole Republican-Democrat thing every four years is nothing more than a self-righteous pissing contest between two power-grabbing thugs.
Not to derail the debate, but this is tickling a memory for me and I can’t quite get all of it. What was this about?
I said it in the BBQ Pit, and I’ll say it here: There’s a difference between a discussion of fighting terrorism as part of national policy, and taking everything from 9/11 and sticking a “Vote Bush” sticker on it. The first is part and parcel of governing, and the second is crass exploitation.
Unfortunately, we’ve already known months ahead of time that the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign will be taking the second route – look at the plans to have the Republican nominating convention in NYC in early September, complete with plans to hold events at Ground Zero, for instance. But then, I expect nothing better from this crowd, and they haven’t disappointed me.
Disgusted at one TV commercial? Better have those vomit bags ready, kids – this is just the beginning…
I sort of had that theory, based on your username:). Seriously though, there are several ways that one could interpret “sure, why shouldn’t he” so thanks for the clarification on your take.
I think Shodan answered the question best. To re-state his point: EVERY politician, of necessity, must be exploiting some form of human misery - that they intend to (or, for incumbents, some past form of human misery which they did) solve, and that’s the reason to vote for them.
So essentially, what’s the BFD?