I read the link. I don’t see any direct quotes about Hitler, nor any references to supporting him.
What Cole apparently asked was, what Hitler would have thought had Roosevelt not been re-elected in 1944. Getting from there to “a vote against Bush is a vote for Hitler” is quite a step.
I am not always sure what you are talking about, and this is one of those times.
I am not the one complaining about unfair campaign tactics. The Usual Suspects are, by labelling every reference to 9/11 by Bush as a hideous affront to decency. I am hardly surprised by it. The surprise would have been for any campaign ad from Bush not to trigger screams of “No fair!”
Not during an election year there isn’t. As has been pointed out, two seconds out of a thirty second ad hardly constitutes “everything from 9/11”. Unless, as I suspect is the case, someone is all revved up in advance to greet any campaign ad by Bush with the same rant.
Under Clinton.
At least, according to Victor Zarnowitz of the NBER, who puts the start date in November or December of 2000. The chair of the dating committe of the NBER, Robert Hall, agrees with this, as does the President of the NBER, Martin Feldstein.
I am a Democrat and I have absolutely no intention of voting for Bush.
But I don’t see what the big deal is at all on this issue.
The point of the images is to point out the challanges Bush has faced, and to imply he faced them well. You may or may not agree that he faced him well, but that is what the ad is trying to convince you.
Why would this be offensive?
A big part of what is divisive about Bush stems from 9/11. It would be hard to talk about his presidency without mentioning it. Showing this image is the visual version of mentioning it.
I think it would be more offensive and dishonest to ignore it.
What makes the ads offensive is the fact that Bush refuses to testify under oath before the 9/11 commission and his administration has been stonewalling them at every opportunity. He wants the positive effects of his association with 9/11 but refuses to face up to any possible negative ones.
True respect for those who died in such a tragedy includes assuming any responsibility you might have had for it happening. Bush won’t face up to the demands of showing that kind of respect because he is a coward.
"We called the congressman’s office this morning for comment and confirmation. And now they’ve sent us this press release responding to the published accounts.
We’re publishing the press release in full …"
"…During the Canadian County Convention, Congressman Cole did say the following:
“I promise you this, if George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election, it’s that simple. It will be interpreted that way by enemies of the United States around the world…”
Congresscritter Cole has further clarifications, if you’ve the stomach for them.
Unless friend Shodan requires further clarification, the hi-jack ends here.
But is anyone surprised about this? I don’t mean that in the prim way, “I’m not surprised he has the audacity to do such a thing!”
I really mean in just as: Did anyone think that the political advertising for this presidential election would be devoid of images from the 9/11 tragedy?
No. What you will see is GeeDubya speaking with lachrymose patriotism before groups of returning soldiers, offered as though they were, in fact, a triumphant army coming home. Which will be true, as far as that goes, but will ignore the fact that an equal number of soldiers…less experienced soldiers…will be on thier way Over There.
He will present the image that the Troops Are Coming Home, and scrupulously avoid any recognition of the facts.
Appropriate is subjective in this case IMHO. The political correctness can’t be objectively stated to any accuracy because the term is inherently vague.
It IS culturally appropriate, IMHO, if it is more revealing of the intelligence level of the Bush administration, and may in fact cause more people to realize how manipulative, obtuse, and shallow the man really is, in spite of the attempts of the best handlers to make him appear otherwise.
Let it play ad nauseum and maybe it’ll wake some people up.
The ad is in mildly bad taste, in my opinion. Nothing to get one’s panties in a bunch over, but it makes one look at it and perhaps raise an eyebrow. However, I can understand why those closer to the tragedy (those who lost a loved one, for example) would feel differently – 9/11 is something that belongs more to them than it will ever belong to Bush, and Bush using it this way is a little bit of theft. However, it was predictable, if unfortunate.
Which is why, though I’m no Bush supporter, I think the ad’s inclusion of 9/11 images is a good thing.
See, the way I look at it, the more Bush brings up 9/11, the more I think people will look at it and realize just what happened that day, and how deeply Bush has failed us all since. I hope they look at it and see what is being presented to them (Bush the leader, Bush the Hero) and see how widely it diverges from reality. The differences are as dramatic as they are painful. What the Bush campaign wants us to see is Bush as a strong leader, the Uniter. What we really have is… the Smirk. The Obfuscator. The Divider.
Reminding the public of 9/11 and the aftermath of that tragic day only shows how deeply the Bush campaign needs to scrape the barrel to find something good to say, and even then, they’re treading thin ice. So I will demur from the majority opinion of this thread and say “Yes, please remind the public some more of your failed foreign policy, and your failed leadership. Please, make them consider who they’re considering voting for that much more closely. Yes, please, make them think about it.”
In the words of our Fearless Leader… ah, you know the rest.
An excellent way for Kerry to combat the Sept. 11 ads would be to film the people quoted in the article in the OP airing their objections to the Bush spin on events.
All in all, though, I agree with autz and cmkeller in that it’s not such a big deal. If this makes people angry at Bush for watching the tragedy unfold right after he spent a month at the ranch, it’s his own funeral. If people accept his interpretation of the events, then the ad will have been worthwhile.
I watched the ads, and I don’t find anything that really bothered me about them. Yeah, they showed a couple glimpses of the WTC, but nothing that I thought was gratuitous or anything.
What are supposed to do, just act like they never happened? I mean it a part of our history, don’t you think? Something that the Country is currently involved in, fighting terrorism, right?
Only if he wants to come across as a sniveling little whiner.
I’d like to hear specific things he will do differently than Bush, and how he’ll get those actions thru a Republican controlled Congress.
I’ve seen the comercials. Anyone who has a problem with a 3 second shot of the 9/11 attacks needs to get a life. There are so many bigger fish to fry in this election.
Pretty much everyone who has been forecasting this election. I forget the exact numbers, but the Pubs are expected to pick up 1 or 2 Senate seats, and quite a few House seats (due to redistricting in TX and the demographics creating new House seats in Republican states).
There was a Bush ad that showed the word “DEMOCRATS,” which zoomed up toward the camera (or the camera towards it, whichever you prefer). Did it end up passing through “DEMO”? No. “MOCR”? No. Some portion of top or bottom of the letters that wouldn’t have any meaning? No. It just happened to pass by so that “RATS” was featured.
So, apparently they were considering revising the numbers, now, for some reason. Although it was most expressly not a partisan revision. No! But they were telling everyone they were going to revise them. But now they are not.
So it apparently still started when they said it did before.
I had no doubt that Bush would wrap himself in the flag of Osama bin Laden’s work. I probably wouldn’t even be bothered to write anything about him doing that. What do you expect from a pig but a grunt? But it isn’t simply “shots of the 9/11 attacks”? Why isn’t it? Why isn’t it a shot of the towers falling? Why isn’t it a shot of the ruined buildings? Why isn’t it people in tears? Why for god’s sake isn’t it shots of Bush at Ground Zero?
They expressly chose a shot of a dead body being brought out. There’s a reason they did, and they must be called on it. I don’t give a shit about the rest. But if it was goddamned important enough for people to risk their lives to retrieve the dead, it must only be because the remains have that much importance to us.
They should not be fucking used in a commercial.
Stop saying it is simply 9/11 imagery. It expressly is not.
It’s apparently offensive to those who had people die in the tragedy to use actual footage of site itself.
I dunno, why is anything offensive? Doing this without considering that it might offend the national sacred cows of firemen and 9/11 familes wasn’t a brainy move, whether you think it was appropriate. Basically blowing them off in response to their complaints wasn’t exactly smart either. You’d think that courting the 9/11 victims would be priority #1, but he’s alienated them, blown them off, broken promises to them, and generally not acted in way that really well reflects the photo-ops.
Seems like a bad couple of weeks for Bush: a major slip-up on not getting Zarqawi blunts attacks on Clinton on not getting Osama. And a headline “U.S. to launch 24/7 hunt for bin Laden” isn’t exactly a great sound-bite either. Oh, did he do something bad? We’d better put some major effort into finding him then! And, most sadly of all, he’s lost Howard Stern’s vote.
But this could be a good sign: it’s soooooo early, and the press really likes to manufacture election dramas with some dynamics, so it’s better to be down early as long as you have the chance for a good comeback (like the capture of Osama could garner, irrationally and irresponsibly belated as it might be).
From watching the news analysis on FOX and MSNBC today, the pundits had nothing but good things to say about the first few Bush commercials. I thought they were a bit cheesy, but I think most political ads are cheesy.
I hope we (on this board) are going to do more during this election cycle than dissect the Bush/Kerry ads on a second by second basis. Sheesh…
