Ye gods! Stranger things have NEVER happened.
At what point did this become a “furor.” Don’t such things take time to develop.
Ahh, I do find the charged dialogue of election years tiresome.
Seeing as someone who lost a husband at 9/11 came out and felt this was disrespectful, I’d expect these ads to be pulled immediately, simply out of respect for that one victim. Obviously, Bush won’t do this. If he keeps pulling the 9/11 card, I’m not going to vote for my favorite third party candidate as I intended on doing today, I’ll vote for Kerry (albeit with my fingers on my nose).
Why does one person proclaiming to be offended mean that the ad has to be pulled? With all due respect to that woman, she doesn’t “own the images of 9/11” and she doesn’t get to decide what the rest of us do. I’m very sorry she lost her husband, but there will be someone or other offended by any political ad that anyone puts out there. They need to get over it.
Just remember, the campaign’s still young – and we’ve got that “Live! From Ground Zero, NYC!” Republican Nominating Convention coming in September as well.
If you think the Bush campaign isn’t going to flash more and more 9/11 and terrorism imagery between now and November, you must be new here. 
Funny, but I don’t remember the same level of calm platitude when these ads popped up. And these didn’t even appear on any airwaves…
As to the OP I would say political ads, like all ads should consider matters of taste and decency. So my take is that Bush can make what he will of 9/11 in speeches, debates, interviews and talk shows - any forum where there is the possibility of somebody taking him up on it - but ads need to think what they are pushing down peoples throats.
Actually though the whole concept of political campaign ads, on TV anyway, seems odd to us Brits who have a system of allocated 10 min campaign broadcasts for each party fielding enough candidates. Not the money does not buy UK power any more than anywhere else of course.
To sum up, I think it was in bad taste but did not surprise me and could well be counterproductive. Unfortunately I suspect it will be productive (altogether now, “Moooo!”)
Slight hijack though…
In the news article linked above it says:
Now surely the period after economic activity peaks is not the definition of a recession? I know it is defined differently in different countries but does it not have to be x-months or y-quarters of negative growth rather than just a fall back from a peak?
So is the President’s Report even claiming the recession started on Clinton’s watch?
9/11 was the single defining moment in our nation’s history, equal to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
It happened on President Bush’s watch, and I for one think he rose to the task admirably (a minority opinion around here, I know.)
These are not gratuitous images. They are very fleeting, and acknowledge this tragedy and its aftermath.
Bush is either damned if he does or damned if he doesn’t. If he acknowledges it, he’s insensitive and exploitive. If he doesn’t, he’s insensitve and out of touch.
Kerry can bring up his Vietnam service, where ten of thousands of American soldiers died, but that’s not considered exploitive?
Those ideologically opposed to Bush have to manufacture BFD’s to justify their continued righteous indignation. This practice will continue for the next eight months.
Those opposed to Kerry will be doing the same thing about his ads, of course. Speaking of Kerry in the context of the Bush ads, I’m wondering if Kerry will be seen as exploiting the Vietnam dead for his own political gain.
Considering the numerical advantage the Republicans have now, voting patterns and the advantage of incumbency, it’s the height of wishful thinking to assume that the Senate or the House will change hands to the Democrats.
Bush is a one trick pony… if he doesn’t keep pounding the 9/11 issue what would he put in his ads ? Only attacks on Kerry I venture.
The “War” president can only talk about war and death… and Iraq is a mess… so he can only put the 9/11 sentimental appeal.
It was a feint. A gesture, just enough of a mention to gauge the reaction. It went over like a Whopper McTurd, and will be withdrawn. In fact, it never happened. What in the world are you talking about?
Although your post is quite short, it raises several issues.
First, I should note that in the end I really don’t see a whole lot of difference between the Democrats and the Republicans at this point. One party may have rhetoric that is slightly more palatable to me, but at this point the center has moved so far to the right that it makes very little difference to the realities of my day-to-day life which king wears the crown.
Having said that, there are some differences that may be worth talking about. The events of September 11 are a recent event. An event that radically altered the way that we, as a country, interact with the rest of the world. Moreover, there is a great deal of fear and anxiety surrounding terrorism. It may be that you feel as though the Bush administration has risen to the challenge of dealing with this (that would be an altogether different debate), but it seems to me that there is a strong argument that this administration has not been at all coy about taking advantage of this tragedy for political gain. I see these adds as a continuation of that trend. Basically, it seems to me that there is political hay to be made by keeping us afraid and confused.
Vietnam, on the other hand, happened a long time ago. This is in no way a statement intended to dismiss the suffering of the people that it effected, but it is still more in the realm of history that that of current events at this point. I suppose that if Kerry started trying to whip up hysteria about the Domino Theory we might have a valid comparison, but at this stage both the tone and the nuances of the comparison do not seem valid to me.
Oh, I fully expect to see Bush draped in an American flag, with his foot planted firmly (but compassinately :rolleyes: ) on a Iraqi soldier’s corpse before the campaign is over. The fun has only started, to be sure.
Why do you think I said this ad was only mildly in bad taste? It’s sure to get worse.
The moment John Kerry puts images of dead people in his ads, I will condemn that too. How is Bush’s ad at all like reference to Kerry’s war record? His war record is a record of his actions. What he did, so to speak.
How is the image of firefighters carrying a dead body out of Ground Zero a record of George W. Bush’s actions? Answer: It’s not. It’s using the image of a dead body in an American flag as the Biggest Booga Booga ever. Again, keep in mind that these ads are put together very carefully. Why choose that image over the thousands of others?
One of the interesting things I’ve noticed is that very few people are willing to even be clear that the images contain shots of dead bodies. For example, MSNBC speaks of “images of firefighters working at Ground Zero” as the source of contention regarding the ads. I can’t figure out if the use of the images of a dead body in a commercial is either so insignificant that it is more important to talk about general “working at Ground Zero” or “shots of 9/11,” or if it is of such magnitude that it cannot even be directly referenced.
It’s because saying the words “dead body” and “Bush” in the same sentence will have them knocking down your door in short order.
What’s that n
Remind me to bring this up next time certain people well up with crocodile outrage over the Wellstone funeral. 
If I understand it correctly, Bush is pointing out (with some justification) that according to the data, the recession started late in 2000. The official date was March 2001, about two months after Bush took office (while, obviously, the last budget passed under the Clinton administration was in effect).
Later data examined by the NBER seemed to indicate that the official start date of the recession should be pushed back, but that the board was reluctant to do so for fear of appearing partisan.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow, still spinning this turd, huh? The NBER set a date, based on their data. Some members recently wanted to change the date to December, 2000, but didn’t for fear of appearing partisan? Apparently this one guy you keep mentioning and quoting, Zarnowitz, wanted to make a change, and started shouting about it.
So, please demonstrate 1) that the NBER methodology concludes that the change should be made, and 2) it is not being made out of partisanship, and if you are able, 3) that the calls to change it are not themselves partisan efforts.
Whether it was Dec 200, or March 2001 is irrelevant, because both dates happen to be under the last Clinton budget. You simply can’t blame Bush for this recession - any attempt to do so is disingenuous.
Now, you could make the claim that he made it longer than it should have been if you want, but there are serious problems with this - namely, that Bush’s policies were a textbook Keynesian stimulus. He cut taxes and increased spending - two things that goose an economy. If you want to claim that the recession would have been shorter had Bush not been in power, you need to show what another president could have done to shorten it.
The deficit isn’t going to cut it, because its effects aren’t being felt yet. The classical effect of a large debt is to cause interest rate increases - something that hasn’t happened yet.