Why don’t you lumps of shit just sell pieces of the WTC for your fucking fund raising. Maybe throw in a presidentially autographed shoe of one of the victims. Is there anything lower than this?
If I had a friend or family member who was killed or hurt on 9/11 and I knew that the GOP was going to capitalize on this event to raise money so they could win a fucking election, I can sure as hell tell you who I wouldn’t vote for. Keep it up pubbies. With ideas like this, you won’t control shit after the next election.
The picture appears to be of the President sitting on Air Force One with a telephone to his ear. It could have been taken anytime–does it really make a difference that it was taken on 9/11? If it had been taken on 9/12, would it be OK then? How about 9/13? It doesn’t show the WTC site, the Pentagon site or the PA crash site. How is it exploitative?
Are you similarly outraged by Lisa Beamer’s attempt to copyright the words, “Let’s roll?”
Sounds like another tempest in a partisan friggin’ teapot to me.
If it was just Bush on the phone any other day they wouldn’t be that big a deal, but they have been publicized as Bush being on the phone with Vice President Cheney right after the attacks. Therefore, the Republican donors are paying for what is what musicguy is arguing are photos of part of the events of 9-11. Therefore, Bush is using 9-11 memorebelia [sp?} for political gain.
IIRC, Lisa Beamer is attempting to copyright that phrase for a non-profit organization that will benefit victims and survivors of 9-11, not for a partisan tea party. Set up another strawman whydontcha?
I wonder how people who honestly find this offensive make it through the day.
Is it more exploitive to give this photo to donors, or to run to the press accusing Bush of “exploiting the September 11 tragedy in this way” for political gain?
Well, at least he’s not renting out the Lincoln bedroom to Fat Cat doners, or scheduling daily rotations of “coffey chats” with foreign doners with checks in hand.
Mmmm… and at least he doesn’t go to fundraisers at Buddhist temples.
Actually, I’ve seen the photo. It’s quite a good one. I’m sure if it was of a Democrat president, that the mainstream liberal press would have shown it over and over. Thus giving the Democrat millions of dollars of free publicity.
Ya know, my rant is mostly at the GOP, not Bush per se, although the white house endorses this crap.
[quote]
How is it exploitative?
**
Well, if it was Bush taken any other day of the year, do you honestly think it would be an effective fund raising tool? No, it would not. Nobody would pay jack shit for a picture of Bush on March 3rd. The photo is worth something because of the date it was taken on and marketed as such. Is any of the money going to a charity. No, of course not. It is all going to finance the republicans. If that is not exploitive, what the hell is. It’s a far fucking cry from a stay in the Lincoln bedroom.
I agree that it is tacky. However, one has to ask oneself: who is more tacky, the GOP for marketing 9/11 in order to raise their bank balance, or the fuckin’ idiots paying $150 for three pictures of George W. Bush?
Mind you, this is not an attack on Republicans. I applaud people who are a member/contributor to any political party as long as it’s democratic. But if it takes an incentive like this to get you to fork over your dough, I’d say you’ve got some serious priority issues.
tacky? yes. but frankly, I don’t understand the whole ‘let’s display pictures of our Pres’ gig (except in gov. offices where they don’t have a choice or something like a restaurant who puts up pics of celebrities).
the price tag? sheesh. But I am grateful, had it been more like 5/10$ one of my relatives would have given me one for Christmas.
OTOH - the extremely tasteful ones I purchased from the National Archives for $5 each - “Priceless” (Nixon & Elvis in the OVal Office )
Erm . . . publicized by whom, precisely. The first time I have ever heard of this is when I clicked the link in the OP to the CNN story. Out of curiousity, this morning I checked the websites for the RNC, the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Committee Senatorial Committee, and didn’t see anything about this photo. You know where I did find it? Front and center on the Democratic National Committee’s page.
So who is publicizing these photos? Looks like CNN and the Democrats to me. Heck, look at CNN’s article. It quotes almost the entire DNC press release from Terry McAuliffee, and solicits quotes from Tom Daschle and Al Gore. Al Gore! Who doesn’t even hold a government position anymore! The only Republicans quoted are Ari Fleischer and Trent Lott. Oh, and one sentence from the letter about the fundraiser.
The DNC press release, and the link on their homepage to the release, refer to the photo as a “9/11 artifact.” As if it’s a piece of the WTC or one of the planes, or a body part. It isn’t–it’s a picture of the President on the telephone. What’s more, the CNN article mentions that the RNC purchase the photo from a commercial stock photography service, ]URL=http://www.corbis.com]Corbis.com . Their 9/11 photo section has three pages of photos regarding 9/11. Are they bloodthirsty mercenaries too?
Even given the premise that this qualifies as “using 9-11 memorabilia for political gain,” the fundraiser is organized by and to benefit the RNC, not Bush.
This all looks to me like the Democrats trying, once again, to portray the Republicans as Eeeeeeee-vil!!!
What is wrong about it is that the RNC is equating the events of 9/11 with contributing to the Republican Party. It’s 9/11 memorabilia because it’s a photo of the President’s first phone call to Dick Cheney after the attacks, his first reaction to the events. Musicguy, who seems to have a close personal connection to the events, believes that they are too. I guess it’d be OK by you if a picture of Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor giving his “today is a day that will live in infamy” speech was being sold by the DNC for $150.
So, raising money for the RNC doesn’t benefit Bush? If the money is used to try to get more Republicans elected, possibly helping to regain the senate, that doesn’t benefit Bush?
This rant is vapid - and boring. It lacks any useful substance, and seems to offer the thinly-veiled partisan opinion of someone who is anti-Bush, and likely, anti-Republican.
Well, big damn deal - you’re a Democrat! Stop the fuckin’ train, and let’s all pop a cold one! WAHOOO! Look everybody! It’s a Democrat with something important to say!
And now Al Gore chimes in and says that it is a horrible thing to do - to show Bush on the phone, being the president. TALKING ON THE PHONE ON 9/11! WELL I NEVER!!
Like clockwork, the politicians predictably respond, and the sheep start yapping.
Whatever happened to critical, independent thought? I know - it’s a lot to ask.
“Equating” how? Does nobody has any sense of proportion anymore, fercryinoutloud? It’s one of three photos being given to people who contribute $150 and attend a fundraising dinner. The other two are from the Inauguration and the State of the Union address. They apparently wanted to find a third important moment from the Bush presidency. What should they have used? Bush choking on a pretzel?
If people were not told, they would have NO idea when this photo was taken. The Democrats certainly appear to be “publicizing” it more than the Republicans. Given that, please tell me exactly, in detail, how offering this photo as one of three says, “The events of 9/11=contributing to the Republican Party.” Pretend that I am four years old, and explain it to me thusly.
No, this was his first reaction. His next one was to get on Air Force One and head for an undisclosed location. Remember? He took a bunch of shit in the press for it? His next reaction was to make a speech from a base in Louisiana. Then he headed back to Washington.
Leaving aside for the moment that you don’t know whether musicguy or I have a personal connection to the events, someone believing something doesn’t make it so.
It wouldn’t bother me a bit? Why would it? It’s a picture of a guy making a frigging speech. Again, has the world lost its sense of proportion?
Heck, I can go here and buy a replica of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin from Dec. 7, 1941. I bet that money goes to the Park Service or the Arizona Memorial Museum. Should I be disgusted by that, too?
)