In this case I think it would be more accurate to say “those few Democrats”. It looks to me like the only people making a big deal out of this are the media with a handful of Democrats reluctantly chiming in. As a Democrat myself, I feel your pain about being put in a position to have to defend GWB.
Sure, it’s insensitive and cynical to sell such a photo with such a context attached to it - unless the money were to be going to, for example, pay for college educations for the 9/11 orphans, or raise awareness about tolerance between religions, or to help pay for some sort of 9/11 memorial.
But, alas. The money is intended to help get Republicans into elected office. Once there, they will undoubtedly go about advancing their Republican agenda … surely you remember how all that goes … tax breaks for the rich, making abortions illegal, privatization of essential services, vouchers, no health care, mandatory school prayer, more prisons, big oil, etc. etc. etc. ad vomit. Connect the dots between the selling of the photo and the paying to advance the agenda, and we see why some people are offended.
Personally I’m not surprised - as Ace0Spades has already reminded us, it is Rove’s clear intention to use the “war” as a political football this fall and in 2004 (I believe the quote was something like “The American people associate war with the Republican Party”), so it’s been “anything goes” for quite a while.
As to the price issue - it’s nothing approaching the highway robbery the New York Times is charging for reprints of their photos! But such is the meaning of “kitsch” (kitschen, “to make cheap”).
I wonder what the reaction would have been from Republicans, had Clinton’s Democrats sold a similar picture of him talking on the phone after the Oklahoma City bombing. Actually, I think I know the answer.
“I wonder what the reaction would have been from Republicans, had Clinton’s Democrats sold a similar picture of him talking on the phone after the Oklahoma City bombing. Actually, I think I know the answer.”
Had he just been talking on the phone, my guess is Yassar Arafat would have bought one.
From The Guardian
In addition, Bill Simon, Republican candidate for Governor in California came out and said he thought this was a bad idea.
It is unfair to say that everyone against this is doing so for partisan reasons. I just gave three examples of non-democrats who were opposed to this fund-raising stratagy.
Hey, if you don’t have a problem with this, then we can just agree to disagree. But this “Don’t force me to defend Bush” crap is asinine. This post isn’t even about Bush, even though he will benefit from the decision to sell these photos. It was directed at the GOP in general for what I feel is a distasteful fund raising tactic.
Do you know what the word “publicize” means?
Do you understand the difference between a letter sent solely to members of and donors to the Republican party and a press release sent to media outlets throughout the U.S.? Apparently not.
Why, it wasn’t even intended for general release! Just a little token momento for a small circle of friends, couple hundred thousand, tops.
And, of course, the only reason this photo was used was only because there are no other photos of GWB being a hard-workin’ President on any other day besides 9/11/2001. :rolleyes:
I like it. It’s a classy photo. To me, it’s one of the many “people” photos from 9/11, along with the woman pointing and the other one covering her mouth, and the chaplain being carried down the street, and Guiliani looking stricken, and the exodus past the “Welcome to Manhattan” sign.
I’m not worried about why it’s being sold and whether or not it should be, because I’m not a Republican and I’m not going to buy anything from them. The Republicans never let up on Clinton, and now the Democrats are never going to let up on Dubya. This is not important enough to get bent out of shape over.
All I have to say is: if it were Clinton doing this, the Repubs would be hollering to high hell.
All I have to say is: if it were Clinton doing this, the Repubs would be hollering to high hell.
Similar to Godwin’s law, shouldn’t here be a formal name for the rhetorical technique of saying “If this had happened to Bush/Clinton then you know the Democrats/Republicans would be raising a huge stink over it”?
How 'bout “Being an asshole”?
Fenris
How 'bout “pointing out the obvious”?
Elucidator
All I have to say is: if it were Clinton doing this, the Repubs would be hollering to high hell.
[Binkley]“Tempest in a teapot” means "a big fuss over nothing.[/Binkley] Nothing to do with tea parties.
Yes yes and the Democrats would be defending him to their last breath. That’s how it goes. Can’t really use it to either side’s advantage though -it’s much to realistic.
It’s called politics asshole (OP); get over it. Nothin’ new.
Been done before; it’ll be done in the future by any/every party on the planet.
“Technician! Um, can you turn this guys sensitivity pot down just a tad?”
No, it’s called thinking something is in extremely poor taste. Thanks for playing though.
Really? Which other time was it that a political party tried to capitalize on a horrific event?
Have to turn it down a hell of a lot to reach your level.
No, no. Read the blurb again. The “gritty determination” describes his inaugural speech. The photo of his call to Cheney on Sept. 11 is described straightforwardly (is “straightforwardly” a legitimate word?).
I fail to see the big deal here. It was a mailing to Republicans, offering a few pictures of Our Leader being all Leader-like, and the September 11th photo (of Bush looking serious on the goddamned phone for the love of fuck, not standing on the rubble waving the Stars and Stripes, not weepily embracing a soot-covered fireman, just looking Presidential on the phone on Air Force One) wasn’t even played up. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned, that photo’s caption is the only one without glowing modifiers. It seems to me it was played down, even. For fuck’s sake, should Bush just never mention the defining day of his presidential term, when he’s trying to get re-elected? Should Republicans be foresworn from giving themselves a little pat on the back because their guy was the one who was in office to handle it when the shit went down?
Tempest in a teapot is right. You see all those Democrats on television making a stink about this? Guaranteed they’re either up for reelection this year, or looking to get their names on the ballot for the presidential nomination, and they’re just desperate to get their faces on television. I’d prefer these incompetent, attention-whoring monkeys spend their soundbite time formulating some sort of coherent alternative to what I consider to be the inept madness of the current administration, but that’s probably too much to ask of the Democratic party.
How about when the Republicans came up with the infamous “Willie Horton ad” in 1988 to nuke the Dukakis campaign?