posted
I was just reading that the Bush campaign has now launched some of their tv commericals. Some of these apparantly feature imagery from 9/11 - towers collapsing, firemen, etc.
Many family members of those lost in the tragedy have spoken out already against the use of this event for political purposes.
What do all of you think? Do you think that the Bush campaign is making a mistake by using these images?
Here is quote by a fireman from New York:
quote: "It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place," firefighter Tommy Fee of Queens Rescue Squad 270 told The Associated Press. "The image of firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics."
quote:What do all of you think? Do you think that the Bush campaign is making a mistake by using these images?
Probably. My guess, based on some of the coverage and reactions I've seen, is that people who already support Bush are likely to be OK with it.
People who are already don't like Bush hate it.
It looks - tentatively - like it might not play real well with swing voters. That's really the group that both sides need to care the most about. And I'm not sure it will help his case with people who aren't already on his side.
I could be wrong, though. It's happened once or twice before. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah because no one liked Bush before that, stupid bastard stole the white house from the real president Al "the robot" Gore. Who was really the president because he won the popular vote. Oh and don't for get that it was the damn judges that gave the whitehouse to Bush. Everyone hated him so much that he got elected.
______________________ I think I will wait till I see the ads before I let it bother me. The firefighter and everyone else can say that it should be used for politics till they are blue in the face that doesn't change the fact that it is going to.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
His main strength has been his leadership through times of crisis. If you already think he's horrible, of course you're going to spin this as a bad idea. You're already biased against him, and very few of Bush's detractors on this site (sadly enough) reserved enough cold, logical reasoning as concerns his actions to see that such ads are not any more pernicious than any other sort of political ad.
Posts: 5663 | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
W. won a lot of respect from a lot of people by how he handled the whole 9/11 situation. Why is it wrong for him to remind people of what he has done well? (in some people's opinions?) I don't see any rational reason why he shouldn't do this.
That said, it does bother me, but I am at a loss to explain why.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "Tested" one only had a very very brief flash, of an american flag standing in front of the debris. It has me going "oh that was all they were upset about?"
The "Safer, Stronger" one was the worst from the WTC exploitation and even it was a lot more low key than I was expecting it to be.
The "Lead" one, the first one with no images at all, and I actually found it the hokiest. I think I may vote for Kerry just becuase I'm sick of hick southern accents (and not all southern accents are hick don't get me wrong) on a President.
George and Laura graduated from Ivy League schools, the only reason why they talk with a hick accent is because they choose to.
2) He shows a flag draped coffing being carried by several fire fighters, even though the fire fighters union is anti-Bush.
3) It focuses our attention on his foreign policy, especially when his spokeswoman defended these images with the phrase, "9/11 was a defining moment in this country. It is why we are at war today." This makes people believe they are talking about Iraq, which has no connections to 9/11 and few to terrorists before our troops took over the place.
4) If he promotes the high mark of his presidency was a national tragedy, that is not the positive history American's want in a leader.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:George and Laura graduated from Ivy League schools, the only reason why they talk with a hick accent is because they choose to.
Personally, I like it. I kinda like the idea of having a hick president.
As a side note, I've noticed that I start speaking with a hick accent every time I read OSC's Alvin Maker books. It makes my wife laugh at me.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why are these ads any worse than the stuff moveon.org had, or any of other anti-Bush advertising? Of course they use charged imagery to generate an emotional impact for political purposes - that's what political ads always do. It's not very rational, but I suppose it works.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Banna- There's something wrong with the way I talk? I kinda like it. I'd much rather see a president with a southern accent than one with a northern accent. Ah cain't herdly understaind them folks.
posted
I guess I have to preface this by stating my own bias: I wouldn't vote for Bush under any circumstances.
As far as the ads go: I haven't seen them; I have read some of the reports surrounding the controversy.
I don't have a problem with Bush referencing what he sees as his ability to bring the country together in the aftermath of 9/11. What I do have a problem with is him using images of the destruction in the ads. I find that to be ghoulish, and would object to it even if it were coming from a candidate I otherwise supported.
I would also have a problem with it if there are identifiable individuals (firefighters, for exmaple) in the images. Anyone who can be recognized in such ads should be able to decline to have their image used in a partisan campaign ad if they do not support the candidate using it. This is because there is an implication that a recognizable person appearing in an ad endorses what that ad is saying. I would not take to kindly to my picture appearing in an ad for a candidate that I do not support.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually rather bewildered why people are so intent on believing Bush was something remarkable after September 11. Exactly what did he do? A trained monkey would have known to declare war on Afghanistan for harboring Osama bin Laden. The country was united by fear and paranoia, not by some inspiring speech or plan of action from Bush. What "leadership" did Bush exercise, exactly?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm actually rather bewildered why people are so intent on believing Bush was something remarkable after September 11.
I agree completely. I'm inclined to think virtually any president would come out popular after an event like that, even if they did absolutely nothing beyond call the attacks bad. Political popularity is, to some extent, a matter of chance timing.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I watched the videos, and well, umm... that was what you were squawking about?
Look, I'm no supporter of Bush, but folks, if that's what he does and you point accusatory fingers at him... then you're looking much worse than he is.
I didn't find anything tasteless in them, and for political ads, they were quite dignified and reserved. Perhaps you should quit trying to make tempests in every teapot and actually point to real issues.
As a swing voter, you're swinging me more towards Bush's camp than Bush himself is... Really, the more liberal fringe of the Democratic party is coming off as a bunch ninnies here of late. Perhaps they should really concentrate on discussing HOW the economy could be improved, HOW foreign policy SHOULD change, HOW we should protect both our freedoms and our lives...
Please, I really want to hear how it can all be made better. Isn't that what the voting public NEEDS to hear if they are to switch their allegiance away from an incumbent president?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As a swing voter, you're swinging me more towards Bush's camp than Bush himself is..."
You know, Sopwith, you've never actually struck me as a swing voter; you've always seemed like someone who's firmly pro-Bush, but just in denial about it for some reason.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Tom, I've never voted Republican above the state level in my life, and I have been a big supporter of John Edwards and supported Bill Clinton through both of his terms and have praised him since on a regular basis.
I have, in recent years, become disenchanted with the Democrat party on the national level, however, because of the party's public persona being dominated moreso by the fringe elements.
If I might ask, Tom, why do you view me as a Bush supporter? Is there some template that I fit neatly in?
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps because your eyes tend to pass over my longer postings, Taalcon.
Inre fluff, such as what I posted above, explaining the link beforehand just ruins the joke.
I don't type for fun. If a webpage is sufficiently non-misleading, I'll just quote the portion most relevant or interesting and leave it for the reader to mine the rest of the data. If a poster asks for further clarification, and I catch the question (threads often scroll off the frontpage quickly, or degenerate into squabbling that I don't bother to click back into), and I feel that I can provide a differently clearer answer, and I have the time, I'll usually answer.
In the case of the Gospel according to DeSade thread, I got pulled away by several 16+hour workdays in a row. Though frankly I may not have chosen to respond anyway: I tend not to answer the purely rhetorical "when did you quit beating your wife?" variety of "questions".
posted
[aside to aspectre] First, you seemed to consider Saving Private Ryan a 'snuff film', since you seemed to link it in with other films you thought you had no merit whatsoever. I was trying to find out exactly what your 'definition' of Snuff Film was, and clarify your stance on this.
Second, it was asked (by others as well) what about the film seemed to take personal offense to you, since your only posts concerning it had been cyncical and/or hate filled. Mostly the latter. There was no discussion of your points or why you held opinions, werely pseudo-clever narrative with links dispersed within that sometimes (but not even always) seemed to just state the same things over again, neither of which seemed to clarify your position of 'why'.
I'm all about a good discussion to the contrary if you're going to make a point. But you didn't - you just spouted out baseless generic insults. I was giving you the opportunity to give your opinion - perhaps after you've calmed down. Your'e obviously not going to see the film, since you consider in the same league of FACES OF DEATH, but, in light of most of the other Hatracker's reviews, I was wondering what your response was. So yeah, maybe I was a little harsh in my above post. I apologize. But I'm not a fan of mudslinging with out at least letting people know why I'm slingin' the mud. [/aside]
Posts: 2689 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So does distaste for exploiting painful moments of American history apply only to Bush? Or does it only apply to recent events in American history? Or does it not apply at all?
I mean, Kerry's espousing his Vietnam war record and uses imagery and comrades to that effect frequently. I guess he's exploiting those dead Americans to win votes, huh? (While managing to leave off many of the things he said and did after Vietnam, incidentally)
I'm not surprised he did this. Anyone who acts outraged and in particular who suggests their man wouldn't do something similar is selling something.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the main concepts Mr. Bush will be pushing is that the world has changed during his presidency, and that a strong leader is necessary. Images of 9/11 illustrate that very effectively, and I can't fault him for using them.
I don't like Bush, his ideology, his tactics, his appointments, or his attitude. But I can understand why his people would include the images and why it makes sense. Bush didn't kill the firefighters; showing a valiant man fallen is an excellent icon of the event. Now if he took credit for firefighter support afterwards, that would be a mistake.
What would bother me would be graphic images of 9/11, or images from the Iraq war.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush's platform and administration is completely based on idealism. What would go better, really? I mean, what did people expect?
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
nother take from the Bush camp. NOTE: Since its a NYT article, I'm posting it rather than the link as it requires subscribing to view
Bush Campaigns Amid a Furor Over Ads By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and JIM RUTENBERG
Published: March 5, 2004
ANTA CLARA, Calif., March 4 — President Bush completed the second day of a campaign swing through California on Thursday, with pointed emphasis on his credentials as commander in chief and a robust defense of his tax cuts.
But throughout the day his aides were scrambling to counter criticism that his first television commercials crassly politicized the tragedy of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The criticism — from a firefighters union, relatives of victims and allies of Senator John Kerry — put the Bush campaign in an uncomfortable position at a time when it had hoped to begin defining the incumbent in contrast to his challenger. Mr. Bush's father had followed a similar strategy, flying into Bill Clinton territory in Arkansas in March 1992, before Mr. Clinton had nailed down the nomination.
On Thursday, the Republican counteroffensive began with Mr. Bush's former communications director, Karen P. Hughes, who appeared on all the major morning news programs and defended the commercials that were first broadcast that day. Two of them show the charred shell of the World Trade Center, and one also shows firefighters removing shrouded remains from ground zero.
Discussing the campaign on CNN, Ms. Hughes said: "I think it's very tasteful. It's a reminder of our shared experience as a nation. I mean, September 11th is not just some distant tragedy from the past; it really defined our future."
The complaints were amplified on cable news after The Daily News in New York put them on its front page. The cable and broadcast news networks featured a series of victims' relatives who thought the spots were inappropriate and others who did not.
On MSNBC, Andrew Rice of Oklahoma, whose brother David died in the south tower of the World Trade Center, said he thought the image of "a real dead body," was "irresponsible to use in such a context."
But Deena Burnett, whose husband, Thomas, was killed on United Airlines Flight 93, said of the images: "I'm glad to see they're being used. I think it serves as a great reminder of those that died."
By day's end, the Bush campaign had issued a statement from Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York City, supporting Mr. Bush's right to invoke the attacks.
The current mayor, Michael R. Bloomberg, who like Mr. Giuliani is a Republican, told reporters that he had not seen the spots, but that he did not "have a problem if people remind the country and the world about the sacrifices that the New York City fire department and police department and civilians made."
Late Thursday afternoon, the International Association of Fire Fighters, which supported Mr. Kerry in the primaries, called on the campaign to stop showing the commercials, as did Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey.
Mr. Kerry kept mum on the brewing controversy, though his staff sent an e-mail message to reporters that included a quote from a 2002 Associated Press article in which Mr. Bush, in seeking more money from Congress to fight terrorism, vowed, "I have no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue."
Mr. Bush's aides said that they would not pull the commercials and that the battle over them could even work to their advantage by focusing new attention on what they said was the president's forceful response to the attacks and the continued threat from terrorists.
They said the controversy had been expected and was serving their aim of changing the debate from Democratic turf like health care and jobs to Mr. Bush's strongest suit, national security.
"Are we on the Democrats' issue of health care, or are we on the Republican issue of national security?" said one Republican official with ties to the campaign. "On Wednesday we rolled out the spot — we changed the tone fundamentally. They missed the opportunity to tell the American people what the campaign is about. This is how the president has framed the question before the American people."
But Democrats said they did not believe that the president's aides had expected this much furor.
"We're not debating national security — we're debating tastelessness and a willingness to offend stricken families for political purposes," said Jim Jordan, Mr. Kerry's former campaign manager and a spokesman for the Media Fund, a Democratic advocacy group. "Being accused of insensitivity by the widow of a 9/11 victim is a bad thing — no matter how you slice it."
What strikes me is the quotes from Bush's aides. Its almost like this was intentionally set up to cause a rukus.
Posts: 986 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
