:dubious:
Okay. What I was saying was not that “Leftist leaders do not speak for the Democratic Party”, it was that the situations were not comparable*. Since Al Gore is not a spokesperson for the Kerry campaign, his use of Nazi reference is different from the campaign web site’s use of it. I included Al Gore != Democratic party as an additional piece of data. I’m *not * trying to say that party leaders do not shape the opinions of their party. I’m *not * trying to say that invoking Hitler or Nazis is okay for Democrats but not Republicans.
What I *am * trying to say is that manhattan’s suggested action
is not equivalent to MsRobyn’s original message, here quoted in full:
And yes, I am accusing manhattan of being (at times) a kneejerk apologist instead of a rational debater. I realize this is the pit, but having to scrape off the vitriol can make it hard to see the point of someone’s argument – as we see all too often here, with Reeder, **milum ** and others.
*If you prefer a more liberal definition of “comparable” (“can be compared” instead of “are reasonably equivalent”) then please substitute “similar” or “equivalent” instead.
Wow. If this is the strength of Bush’s campaign team, Kerry’s gonna have a walkover of McGovernish proportions, come November.
What a bad show. Suggesting Kerry had anything to do with a bunch of dumb Hitler-using ads submitted and rejected to some wacko website that has no official afiliation with the Democratic Party… and then editing it so poorly that a casual viewer might construe it as comparing the opponent to Hitler, rather than accusing the opponent of comparing you to Hitler. Which he didn’t, but that’s apparently besides the point.
So, tacky suggestion, poorly presented with backfiring possibilities.
We have nearly 5 months of pure fucking comedy gold ahead of us, my friends.
In the U.S., anyway, politics is the best form of entertainment there is. It combines comedy with drama and throws in a bit of pathos for fun.
See, one reason this commercial will backfire is that it’ll get the Dems motivated. It’s not enough to persuade voters to vote for you, you’ve also got to keep the other side from working against you. This commercial is heinous enough to light a fire under the ass of even the most apathetic voter.
I wonder if Bush/Cheney understands the Law of Unintended Consequences?
That’s a weird ad. Very badly produced. Are we sure that it isn’t made by thedems? Because what I see is several passionate rebuttals against Bush (and hey, Moore was right, in the specific comment of the speech), inclusing what seems to be a reminder of the prison scandals. You should stay awasy from that, Mr. President, it don’t come out too well.
And then Hitler, which is just odd. And then some more good reasons why we shouldn’t vote for Bush, if stated in an uncalm voice, then ole Adolph again, which still seems off. Then an incredible laughable shot of George W Bush, warhawk and fearmonger, telling us of optimiosm and calmness.
George, is this isn’t the time for pessimism and rage than stop pissing me off and giving me some good news!
:shrug: Let 'em pull this crap all summer and fall if they want to. Only the hardcore haters will even try to defend it, but they’re going to vote Bush anyway.
It should be obvious, but apparently it isn’t, even to people running friggin’ presidential campaigns - you need to *attract * the persuadables, not alienate them. You need to look presidential, not wacky. If you have the incumbent, you have to talk issues and accomplishments. These people are losing, and are showing us why. Their loyalists, even here, are contributing to that image among the persuadables, even here, by reverting to the schoolyard words that typify **manhattan’s ** political posts. One would think that a person literate enough to post here would be more articulate in his denunciations - but one would think that a presidential campaign organization would be, too. The more they keep it up, the more it helps doom their candidate, as it should. Kerry just has to say the words “Iraq” and “jobs” to look better now.
True enough. Though I can’t say I’m really enamored with victory by default. I wish the American people would more resolutely reject the principles underlying the Recent Unpleasantness, than simply reject the ham-fisted and incompetent manner with which was carred out.
Is it me, or have they dressed this up with a number of disclaimers since it first went online? When I looked at it last night, I don’t recall seeing anything explaining that the footage (especially the Hitler stuff) came from MoveOn.org. I just watched it again, and it led off with a description of the MoveOn ads and repeated references to Al Gore’s comments. There were also at least two more moments in the body of the commercial itself to remind us that the footage came from the MoveOn ad, and that the Republicans aren’t trying to call anyone a Nazi. Really. So don’t think it for a second!
I dunno. If they have to go to such an effort to explain that they aren’t really calling anyone a Nazi and that everything is a reference to these other semi-obscure ads that even the MoveOn people didn’t watch, shouldn’t they maybe just consider scrapping the whole thing? It’s like a joke - overexplanation just kills the whole thing.
In fairness, I’m guessing the Bush/Cheney campaign folks sought not so much to attract persuadables as deflect them away from Democrats by referring to some of the egregiously over the top stuff like the moveon.org bits. Unfortunately they just hightlighted every negative that’s been flung at them.
It was a suprisingly lead-brained move. Heck, these people aren’t amateurs at rough campaigns. Anybody who’s ever fielded a reporter’s questions knows better than to reply directly to provocation. When push comes to shove, just ignore the actual question in favor of the positive message du jour. Q: “So Senator, are you still beating your wife, children and dog?” A: “Well Tiffany, job creation is up due to the Senator Blowhard Memorial Pork dam project I sponsored.”
I can’t fathom why the Bush/Cheney folks thought this would serve them well. It was an adverstisement starring their most vociferous critics. Spectacularly stupid move from a pramatic viewpoint, if no other.
FWIW I think Al Gore is pretty much a cipher as real force either way in this election. Increasingly he’s coming across as a frothing nutjob, out for belated revenge over the last election. He really should go back to being embalmed.
I don’t blame Bush/Cheney for being furious over some of the bitterest slam tactics. I do blame them for pure stupidity by importing those tangential slurs right into the forefront of their official campaign. Great way to give credibility and exposure to critics.
Yes, they have changed the ad to add the disclaimer at the beginning. It is also interesting to note that the disclaimer mentions several individuals who have compared Bush to Hitler, but the rejected MoveOn.Org ad is the only one quoted. I know the Gore thing was just yesterday, but the Sporos (sp?) accusation has been around for a while. Was that a printed quote? That would explain why it wasn’t used. And surely they should be able to find tape of Moore calling Bush names, so why not use a clip that shows what they are accusing he and the rest of the Dem’s of doing?
Of course, as far as I’m concerned, everything said by an individual Democrat is true, so the ad just makes me more certain of my vote.
Sauce for the goose. Bush/Cheney have long since lost any possible claim to the moral high ground when it comes to attack ads or sleazy campaigning. So has a huge chunk of the Republican Party.
I don’t know if it’s really related to the last election. Consider the message that the Dems’re running with about Iraq. Senator Kyl described the allegations that something other than just national interests was the impetus behind the invasion of Iraq as “close to an allegation of treason”.
Dire charges are levelled at the current Admin.
If someone believes or is even only acting as if he believes, (arguably, it could be hard to distinguish between the two w/ professional politicians, yet, of unexpectedly little consequence), that just some of these are true, then he should be at least a little loud.
There aren’t many things more serious than war. Intentionally making a dishonest case for war is an extremely grave charge. The Dems 're running with not only an idea that the 10,000+ deaths are the result of an ill-conceived and badly bungled, elective, WH, foreign policy, military venture, but also with the premise that the WH knew it could not both present an honest case for the invasion of Iraq and receive the electorate’s consent.
If I accused you of “slander of the highest order” for “suggesting that person X committed war crimes on Adolf Hitler’s level” (all your words), and it turned out that I was completely incorrect, I like to think I’d be decent enough to apologize, not just say “well, you didn’t do it, but I won’t take it back cause you’re just rotten in so many other ways.”
I take your point but honorably disagree on the “possible claim” part. IME neither party has the remotest claim for occupying a nebulous high ground. I’m speaking from a slightly extended historical perspective, mainly because there’s no political grudge too old to be left unanswered–wisely or not. It truly is a matter of perspective.
I came of age during the late sixties/early seventies and watched this whole nonsense unfold then over the 'Nam “conflict”, shifting economy, energy shortages, etc. Sick deja vue. Paranoid bunker mentality vis a vis patriotism and core values vs. radical “degenerate” backlash. It wasn’t remotely fun or cartoonish. That was superficial media idiocy. It was painful. Neither “side” had the absolute historical, moral high ground. Talk about a conflict of honors. The pendulum swings slowly but it doesn’t encompass anything beyond the same old tired, bloody crap.
Sorry. I’m not making sense. Too tired, too old, too riddled by sinuses.
Neither “side” caused this, save endless tit-for-tat back through time. It would be nice (she said with awful understement) if either “side” could actually stand for principles for a change. As it is, it’s not too removed from pro wrestling: poisoned by money, driven by ratings, staged and ultimately shallow.
Which I’ve said, on enough occasions that even an idiot such as yourself should have seen it, was a bad thing.
When you nod, does your brain rattle or slosh? Science must know!
See, here’s the thing. If the DNC invites Gore to the convention, it will be an endorsement of his Nazi-baiting. You (or the Democrats) wanna invite a Nazi-baiter up to Boston, be my guest! Shit, give Gore and George Soros matching prime time spots for all I care. All I was suggesting was that MsRobyn, someone allegedly disgusted by such a tactic, might want to make her feelings known to the Democrats about something which is factually correct just as much as she did to the Republicans about something which was factually incorrect.
That said, I was apparently in error. MsRobyn apparently only believes that Nazi-baiting “defies description” and rates an email from her when it is Republicans who are doing it. Alternatively, she’s used to it from Democrats at this point and is inured to the tactic when it comes from them. I’m confident she can speak on her own behalf in this regard.
Son, your very first post on this subject to me quenstioned my rationality, called me a “kneejerk,” compared me to Reeder, for shit’s sake, and used a Star Trek reference (you got beat up a lot as a kid, didn’t you?)
Don’t be getting all flustered when someone responds in kind to shit like that.
