Skip

Hello Karl? This is GW. We need to talk......
September 2, 2003 9:56 PM   Subscribe

A SERIES OF ADS "Consider the following scenario: a series of TV ads begin to appear nightly immediately after the Republican convention is over next year. They will be negative ads. They will promote no Democratic candidate. They will therefore not be under the tight restrictions of the Federal Election Commission.

Each ad will begin with a video clip of President Bush's "Bring 'em on!" challenge. Then the screen will shift rapidly to the burned-out remains of a building or a Humvee. Underneath will be these words: a date, a location, and a death count. Then a black screen with white print will announce: America needs a new policy. There will be an ID of some kind: "Citizens for a Lasting Peace" or "Mothers to Stop the Bloodshed."

There will be no bodies on screen. There will be only bombed-out buildings and equipment.

Each ad will last no longer than 15 seconds. There will be a new ad every night
posted by troutfishing (49 comments total)

 
I'm imagining a world where any major network (or niche cable player, even) would entertain the thought of running one of those ads for five seconds before breaking out into fits of uncontrollable laughter.... nope. My imagination's not that good.
posted by jonson at 10:02 PM on September 2, 2003


Yeah, but what an idea.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 10:12 PM on September 2, 2003


It's a good idea, but I really don't see it changing a Bush/War supporter's mind..... but maybe I am misunderestimating the power of television.
posted by Espoo2 at 10:16 PM on September 2, 2003


It's a good idea, but I really don't see it changing a Bush/War supporter's mind..... but maybe I am misunderestimating the power of television.

Unless the poll numbers are completely baseless garbage (a reasonable possibility, to be sure) those people are changing their minds on their own. I think a TV ad would help them feel better and more "bandwagony," which while cheesy is probably important.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:19 PM on September 2, 2003


I still have somewhere a screengrab from CNN in which Bush's line is on the same page as a report about the rising number of deadly attacks on U.S. forces. The juxtaposition was too awful to not imagine in different ways like this.

But hell, do it now, in Flash. Metafilter to Blogdex to Wired to the CBS Evening News. It'd be nice to see an over-exposed meme cross over to the mainstream that actually meant something.
posted by pzarquon at 10:29 PM on September 2, 2003


shit pzarquon, i'd do it tomorrow. Any ideas on how we can open it up a little, i.e. make it episodic, so that it becomes something various people can contribute to? This would make it a bit more memey / blogworthy.

(you might remember me from other such stupid memes as the ashcroft terror alert)
posted by condour75 at 10:50 PM on September 2, 2003


pzarquon - now THAT's a good idea! Unfortunately, as much as I'd want to see both the TV ad AND the web-meme concept carried out, I think, however, they might both have flaws. The TV carries inherent "validity" for want of a better word, precisely BECAUSE it's so difficult to produce & air a spot. The web-meme runs the risk of being ignored because flash animators are a dime-a-dozen, and everyone seems to have an axe to grind. I dunno, maybe I'm being too negative. It IS a cool idea, don't get me wrong. This fucking administration has me beat down with their gall, it's too the point where fighting it seems like wasted effort.
posted by jonson at 10:50 PM on September 2, 2003


just blue skying here, but can anyone name some movies where the line is said? All I can think of is Han Solo and Kirsten Dunst. I'm thinking, maybe intersperse some John Wayne in there, have the phrase repeat and repeat and start cutting in various aftermaths. (also cut in his war record)
posted by condour75 at 10:59 PM on September 2, 2003


"anger is a gift" - if a spokesman is needed i nominate zack
posted by specialk420 at 11:01 PM on September 2, 2003


Zack Morris? Man he'd totally rule! During the convention he could go, "TIME OUT" then everything would freeze while he talks to the camera about voting for him to be Class President instead of A.C. Slater.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:04 PM on September 2, 2003


Anyone ever read "Pattern Recognition" by Gibson? Yeah.
posted by SpecialK at 11:06 PM on September 2, 2003


this is ez. new paradigms at play. mock up the ads- pitch them to the boys and girls moveon.org- and let the money to make it happen pour in. goodnight whistle ass.
posted by specialk420 at 11:09 PM on September 2, 2003


I nominate one of these 1200+ people - there oughta be a convincing spokesperson or two from that crowd.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:10 PM on September 2, 2003


bring them on
posted by specialk420 at 11:13 PM on September 2, 2003


condour75, I'd love to see your take. I'd go with the Kirsten Dunst utterance for best contrast.

And I hear you, jonson... Futility seems the order of the day, and yet I still feel anxious, like I have to do something. I was this close to registering bringthemon.org and redirecting it to this page for the time being while The Plan is hatched. You know, maybe a web gadget you can post to your website with an automatically updated fatality count (a la condour75's Ashcroft button), a Flash design contest and subsequent gallery, various remixes of Bush's speech, links to particularly grim stories...

Anyone fast on the refresh button and with $8 to spare is strongly encouraged to steal the idea! (I have bringthemon_org@yahoo.com if you want it.)
posted by pzarquon at 11:16 PM on September 2, 2003


I love this. But buying the media time would be incredibly, impossibly expensive. Very few PACs have that kind of cash.
posted by swerve at 11:32 PM on September 2, 2003


An interesting concept. I'd just like to point your attention to this very well-researched site, Iraq Coalition Casualty Count.
posted by nyukid at 11:49 PM on September 2, 2003


> What could the Republicans do to counter the graphic images of these ads?

They won't air them. Television is not the home of free speech.

>Very few PACs have that kind of cash.

I remember reading about many Iraq war ads that were turned down and one of Michael Moore's ads regardless of how much money they threw at the networks. If you're a Moveon.org member you've also seen this in action. How will this be any different? No network is going to allow something as "unamerican" as this to get mass viewership. They don't want to deal with the complaints or they don't like the message. Who knows, its our airwaves, their decision.
posted by skallas at 12:31 AM on September 3, 2003


hmm...
posted by delmoi at 12:37 AM on September 3, 2003


From pzarquon's link....
A dead soldiers last letter to his wife.
Brought me to tears. Whistle ass indeed.

/derail
posted by Espoo2 at 1:18 AM on September 3, 2003


It's going to be ever so gradual skallas. As gradual as the "putting of our minds around" what has occured the last few years has been.

I like to think that the media is some big burly nemesis. But in reality, as I do I "serve" in a restaurant setting, these people, they are specimens of as an anaemic a personality can be. My personal opinion is, from the one on one's I've observed and extrapolated their lifestyles, they're total carrot on a stick types. Pretty much like everybody else.

They have no desires or ideals other than what the system they represent and glorify provides them. The media are total putty. Of course it more or less goes without saying, but the anchor people in local television seem to be just as informed as any other American in the current consumerist cultural morass we're enduring, insofar as I've never witnessed a one express any outward concern about the world that they "report" about on the table in which they eat and talk over.

If I were as involved in the media as they are paid to be the media I most certainly would never be as cool, calm and garden variety consumerist as they seem to be. This is some serious shit the world is going through right now. But you wouldn't know it by the absurd feigned seriousness in their television spots.

In other words, the tide turns, the carrot at the end of their stick goes rotten, we'll begin to see a new sensationalism. What that is who knows. It's important that those of us who oppose to and are frankly sickened by this current insanity keep pressure on them that they are also reporting to us. As of now they do not speak a word of truth to me.

Don't get me wrong. America's finished. There simply aren't enough people who care versus the number of people who hate. The powerful Right is feeding off this hate that they built and they intend to use it until it's gone.
posted by crasspastor at 1:57 AM on September 3, 2003


why are your tv networks allowed to discrimnate against ads who's politics they don't agree with?
show one ad, show them all I say.
america is not the land of the democracy. its the land of bling bling
posted by Burgatron at 2:18 AM on September 3, 2003


>show one ad, show them all I say.

I was really hoping the newest round campaign finance laws would stop the discrimination, but it looks like TV can do anything it wants. This shouldnt be the case, if they're using the public owned airwaves they should legally not be able to turn down any group. Of course they can always play the "This goes against our censors policy," card, but political speech needs protection against that too.

Maybe if these get produced and there's enough anti-Iraq sentiment out there some smart politician could use them to push pro-free political speech laws (the fairness doctrine was supposed to be law but never made it past Reagan). But in a GOP controlled House and Senate, I'm not holding my breath. These are the same guys who killed the fairness doctrine. It wasn't perfect, but I have to disagree with the conclusion at the end of that link that the news does a good enough job covering different sides of issues. In fact, I would say ultra-right-wing dominated talk radio and unwatchable television newstainment more or less proves it.
posted by skallas at 3:44 AM on September 3, 2003


They don't air pro-life commercials either.

Where I live a good chunk of the populace is either deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. In harm's way. There's no mass uprising against Bush here.

I really think we are going to have to wait until the election to see how America really feels. That ad would only polarize the opinions people already have, in my opinion.
posted by konolia at 5:16 AM on September 3, 2003


Anyone got a copy of Bush's speech in a good video format? I've got some free time and some great video gear to play with...
posted by GhostintheMachine at 5:34 AM on September 3, 2003


If you really want to hit people where it counts, then perhaps it might be wise to launch a similar campaign emphasizing the flaacid economy and nailing the point home for working people. (Of course, we're all assuming here that the Republicans will be airing Willie Horton and Daisy ads.)

Air a one-minute spot during football games and Survivor. We see a mother desperately trying to scramble together some dinner for her family of four. Her daughter enters, face flushed. Her breathing is heavy. She's in desperate need of a doctor.

"Mom, I don't feel well."

CAPTION: This family has no health care.

Quick flash cuts of report card showing daughter's straight As.

"I know, sweetie. Just put this compress to your head. Bob, have you seen that can of tomato sauce?"

Mother opens cupboard to reveal nothing there.

"Honey," the mother calls to her husband in the other room, "can you go to the store?"

Husband is huddled over computer, feverishly typing up resume.

"In a minute, dear."

Camera pans past carefully prepared CVs and letters, open datebook, and a few stacks of paper that read PAST DUE, COLLECTIONS DEPARTMENT.

Husband breaks open a piggy bank, going through change in his hand, counting out seventy-nine pennies.

CAPTION: This man has been faxing 75 resumes a day.

Cut to lithe, rich man putting a ball across green, laughing with friends.

CAPTION: "The American Dream."

Cut to clip of Bush lauding how economic stimulus will help people.

Dissolve to family eating dinner in silence. We hear nothing but the clink of plates. The room is backlit.

CAPTION: "Where's your stimulus?"

CAPTION: "Bush. Putting families first."
posted by ed at 6:07 AM on September 3, 2003


Lithe rich man pays taxes. Lithe rich man employs caddy, supports country club staff. Lithe rich man buys expensive car from salesman who makes nice profit. Salesman and wife buy goods and services.

Lithe rich man buys house, built by contractor and subcontractor, who employ people. House inspectors-who get paid-inspect said house during construction several times.

Lithe rich man buys plane ticket. Ticket agents, stewardesses/stewards, pilots get paid. Planes are bought from Boeing. Boeing pays people.

Lithe rich man has wife. Wife has plastic surgery. Surgeons and nurses get paid. Nurse buys house. Realtor gets paid. Realtor gives money to me, his wife. I spend it on something. Poor man in commercial gets job in distribution because quite a few people bought what I did.

Shall I go on, or should we tax rich man into oblivion until the only entity that has money is the government? That entity we all trust SO MUCH?
posted by konolia at 6:50 AM on September 3, 2003


If we were taxing the rich into oblivion, they WOULDN'T STILL BE RICH. But they are.

And I could just as easily argue that the other way, konolia. Most of what the poor pay into the economy ends up in the hands of the wealthy.

For someone who claims to like Jesus so much, you sure don't think the way he did.
posted by jpoulos at 7:00 AM on September 3, 2003


That trickle-down shtick is great, Konolia, but while the Republicans were selling that to you, they've been stealth taxing your future earnings by saddling us with gargantuan deficits and debt. All while enriching the richest among us so they'll be insulated from the problems it will cause.

Don't get me wrong. America's finished.

If we face the dismal circumstances of the present with defeatism, it is. But times change. I fail to see how the political challenges facing Americans are anything close to some of the ones of the past, such as the Civil War and the civil rights movement.
posted by rcade at 7:05 AM on September 3, 2003


Apparently it's too early for me to read this thread. "Chickens for a lasting peace." "Bring the mon."

I'm not real thrilled with King George the Third either, but the villanization of the Bush administration is blinding people to a wider problems--like there's no backbone in congress, and the strongest opposition so far isn't appealing to the middle of the road conservatives like me and a lot of other people.

These ads are preaching to the choir. The reappearance of Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein (his voice anyway) in the media has done more to undermine support for the Bush administration than homefront agitating. A shame, really.
posted by wobh at 7:11 AM on September 3, 2003


All the opponents of this would have to do is produce *one* pro-war video, showing crowds of cheering Iraqis, happy, smiling people, soldiers waving at the camera with one maybe holding a "Hi Mom" sign, with the soundtrack of "I'm proud to be an American" playing.

No contest. Hell, it would prolly be a top rotation MTV video.
posted by kablam at 7:12 AM on September 3, 2003


All the opponents of this would have to do is produce *one* pro-war video, showing crowds of cheering Iraqis, happy, smiling people, soldiers waving at the camera with one maybe holding a "Hi Mom" sign, with the soundtrack of "I'm proud to be an American" playing.

No contest. Hell, it would prolly be a top rotation MTV video.


Only because the media giants looking to curry favor with the administration know which side of their bread gets buttered.

And wobh, if these type of ads would only be preaching to the choir, I'd have to point out that the choir is getting larger. Are there really people out there now who think the occupation is going "well?" I am hearing more and more people who supported the war from the get-go on the fence now, who think the occupation has been tragically mismanaged, who wonder what in the hell we are doing. These ads would reinforce that fear, because the fear is real.
posted by kgasmart at 7:40 AM on September 3, 2003


Kablam: is Ms. Riefenstahl available to do consulting work for your ad?
posted by Space Coyote at 7:41 AM on September 3, 2003


crasspastor: don't bash the media; pressure them. Pick a few smart people in the media around you and start writing. Some feel defeated by the apathy they face, so give them something else, such as letters they can show their bosses.

I send a couple of e-mails a day to people I know in the media (and get indignant on the phone with one, poor man). It matters.

This isn't over.
posted by swerve at 9:00 AM on September 3, 2003


konolia

those things you mentioned aren't in the province of only the rich...

so think of it this way...would you rather have one lithe rich man doing it, or 10 obese working-class americans.

do the math.
posted by taumeson at 10:22 AM on September 3, 2003


(and get indignant on the phone with one, poor man)

That's kind of a special case, now isn't it, swerve. :-)
posted by jpoulos at 10:23 AM on September 3, 2003


By the way, I am a LOT closer to the poor man in that scenario than the rich one.

If you want to strangle small businesses by taxing them to death, or reduce the available spending money of Americans because of taxes, do you really think that would help the economy?

I don't begrudge people with money. The folks I know that have it worked darn hard for it, and employed a lot of people in the process. I have to agree with the far righties-there is such a thing as class warfare and it's stupid.

I remember once that a luxury tax was levied on the rich-luxury purchases like yachts and such. Put the yacht companies out of business. Doncha know their employees loved that.

As to Jesus, He was against hoarding money, not making it.
posted by konolia at 11:06 AM on September 3, 2003


I have to agree with the far righties-there is such a thing as class warfare and it's stupid.

Yea, it is stupid. But the funny think that it isn't just the poor that fan the flames of war. The rich do too.

As to Jesus, He was against hoarding money, not making it.

It's also against the bible to charge interest...
posted by Stynxno at 11:48 AM on September 3, 2003


By the way, I am a LOT closer to the poor man in that scenario than the rich one.

That's not surprising. America is full of people who want the rich to be treated well because they figure it will benefit them personally someday. Dope springs eternal.
posted by rcade at 12:00 PM on September 3, 2003


rcade, you sound a mite jealous. But you are entitled to an opinion.
posted by konolia at 1:34 PM on September 3, 2003


Ok, that's it. I'll host and update a Coalition Body Count thingie. If anyone would like to volunteer to create graphics for it, I'd appreciate it.
posted by Soliloquy at 1:47 PM on September 3, 2003


As to Jesus, He was against hoarding money, not making it.

Hmmm....

Matthew 19:21-22: Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

Luke 12:33-34: Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

1 John 3:17: If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him?
posted by Acetylene at 2:32 PM on September 3, 2003


One has to have possessions to begin with if one is to give to the poor. I am not saying that every well off person is doing God's will with the dinero, but it's the LOVE of money, not the money itself that is the root of all evil. (The problem of the rich young ruler in the first verse you quote.)

I just don't think it is fair to blame some folk's economic troubles on the fact that others prosper. I'm not struggling at the moment because someone on the other side of the tracks got a raise. Sheesh.

By the way, Jesus was laid in Joseph of Arimathea's tomb. Joseph was wealthy. (This was prophesied in the O.T.)
Since Jesus was resurrected I assume he got it back ;-)
posted by konolia at 5:41 PM on September 3, 2003


Konolia:

I am so fed up with Christian/American/Capitalist myth. How they were able to conflate all that into so many of your heads I'll never understand.

Again, working in a restaurant in a very affluent section of Seattle has afforded me some unbelievable opportunities to interact with some seriously interesting forces and personalities, beneath the glitzy media guise that "trust us. All is under control."

I'm telling you there are some real clueless buffoons out there with a lot of clout and power. Business people who sit on government boards. Rich corporate lawyers who secretly fund unadulterated, unfounded, counter-intuitive to common sense right wing tripe. (I'd give links, but it could potentially triangulate me)

Truly, they are idealists. Perhaps a new breed of Victorian tough lovers. But deep down, I do not see that they have any concept at all about the real world of the unmoneyed and underclassed. Everything is looked at as a business or investment opportunity. Everything.

I don't think they're necessarily hateful people, one on one. But the great myths about the unwashed masses they believe cause them great anxiety when they are alone in their disinfected spheres decorated with classy hood ornaments. Through passing conversations with some, I've found that they actually believe that being pro small business is next to godliness and then with the next breath they berate the foolish state of Washington for being insufficiently friendly to Boeing or Microsoft. They want it both ways.

Frankly, the only method to their madness I can surmise is that they assume once you get enough small business owners thinking like they do (read: "fuck the local shit I'm really a mini corporate juggernaut in the making") then they have them on the side to be lapped up by the transnationals. It's a mixture of unchecked greed and a heartfelt feeling that there's nothing wrong with that.

Except some of us disagree. Enter politics.

They hate our politics because we don't believe in not playing fair. I'm accused here and elsewhere of being a Marxist or a commie or whatever. Dhartung once called me a commie in fact, here at metafilter, in some long forgotten thread about the economy.

To which I replied: It's this "commie's" economy too.

Sorry about the long disjointed off-the-top-of-my-headedness.

But why you make excuses for them konolia, and attach it to your religious beliefs is yet another thing I will never understand.
posted by crasspastor at 6:08 PM on September 3, 2003


You want scary? It's not the Christian/American/Capitalist myth that's a scary--sure, they're wacky, but you know where they are coming from. Optimally, they want for the world to be destroyed so they all get to heaven. Good for them.

What gets me are the Agnostic-Atheist-Machiavellian/American/Capitalists.

I'm stretching the analogy, because the latter are typified by their Byzantine complexity, and don't label easily.

Remember during Bush I, the catch phrase was "linkages"--attempting to interconnect events around the world not just as cause and effect, but through time. Schemes that may last years, decades, or even centuries.
And it's surprising how disconnected these 3D chess games can get from humanity.

"First we'll invade Afghanistan, so that we can advance oil development in Central Asia; afterwhich we invade Iraq to break up Saudi domination of OPEC, using it as a base to pressure Iran and the other Middle East hostiles, all in preparation to a war with China that both sides have been preparing for for 15 years now. Etc., ad nauseum."

In other words, if you remove the stupid superstition from the equation, things don't get simpler or more honest.

And it definitely applies to national politics, too, not just foreign policy.
posted by kablam at 6:57 PM on September 3, 2003


I think the ad is a great idea, troutfishing. It's the power of images and silence combined.

I was under the impression that tv stations had to make room for "public service" ads/ messages.

jonson, it isn't that difficult producing a spot. I have some experience in that [the rest is set dec]. You do need to readjust your attitude and not give up what you believe in. Now is the time to step up to the plate.

As for buying media time, find a cable channel running an advertorial [say some slimming device] and slot it there. There are many late night insomniacs that'll watch anything. Air time for commercials is cheap [comparatively speaking] late, late night and cable.

konolia in response to crasspastor's post, a little song by Handsome Ned [Robin Masyk] "Wrong Side of the Tracks"

On the wrong side of the tracks
Where the sun never shines and good girls never go
They're rockin' and swayin', shakin' the floor
With their juke joint pallor and hillbilly soul
On the wrong side of the tracks
It 'aint much but it's my home

On the wrong side of the tracks
You got high steppin' fools, they don't play by the rules
They're cussin' and fightin', drinkin' home made booze
Yeah throwin' it back to rockin' rythm and blues
On the wrong side of the tracks
It 'aint much but it's my home

Well everybody rocked and somebody rolled
A drunk in the alley laid him out cold
On the wrong, wrong side of the tracks
posted by alicesshoe at 8:44 PM on September 3, 2003


I wonder if Bush fils is going to regret "Bring them on" as much as Bush pére regretted "Read my lips."
posted by alumshubby at 10:44 PM on September 3, 2003


Aliceshoe steps in with the practical suggestion there - while the major media networks might ( and probably would ) refuse to air such ads as the one imagined in my link, SOMEWHERE down the media chain, someone WOULD agree.

How far down the media chain? Well, I think late night cable TV would be very viable ( and cheap, to boot ), and would have the possibility of causing a ruckus that would attract media attention and powerfully leverage the ad money.

I was privy to a fairly high level brainstorming session, a few years ago, concerning how to get environmentalist messages out to the public; One suggestion which has stuck in my head was - rent ad space on the sides of trucks. You could do no more than paint giant black three word memes and have a great effect. Imagine:

BRING THEM ON

IRAQ BODY COUNT

OSAMA RUNS FREE

And so on. You could even go CRAZY and use MORE words:

"4 million jobs lost, record deficits, Iraq fiasco, Osama runs free"

Get creative.

Meanwhile - though I'm very supportive of MoveOn.org - I'm not sure that they are thinking in these sorts of terms: that if you can't get messages out on the major networks, you still can put them on cable TV, on the sides of trucks, billboards, private cars, WHEREVER. Have messages tattooed on the sides of your damn shaved head! Whatever gets your message out. Think Adbusters.
posted by troutfishing at 2:47 AM on September 4, 2003


Aliceshoe steps in with the practical suggestion there - while the major media networks might ( and probably would ) refuse to air such ads as the one imagined in my link, SOMEWHERE down the media chain, someone WOULD agree.

How far down the media chain? Well, I think late night cable TV would be very viable ( and cheap, to boot ), and would have the possibility of causing a ruckus that would attract media attention and powerfully leverage the ad money. So is Jonson wrong about the media lock on even cable TV? I don't know. But I think it's worth a try.

I was privy to a fairly high level brainstorming session, a few years ago, concerning how to get environmentalist messages out to the public; One suggestion which has stuck in my head was - rent ad space on the sides of trucks. You could do no more than paint giant black three word memes and have a great effect. Imagine:

BRING THEM ON

IRAQ BODY COUNT

OSAMA RUNS FREE

And so on. You could even go CRAZY and use MORE words:

"4 million jobs lost, record deficits, Iraq fiasco, Osama runs free"

Get creative.

Meanwhile - though I'm very supportive of MoveOn.org - I'm not sure that they are thinking in these sorts of terms: that if you can't get messages out on the major networks, you still can try cable TV ads or messages on the sides of trucks, billboards, private cars, WHEREVER. Have messages tattooed on the sides of your shaved head! - whatever gets your message out. Think Adbusters.



Although my fears align with Kablam's gloomy assesment that any ads critical of Bush or the War in Iraq would be hit with the withering counterfire of "Hi Mom!" ads from troops in Iraq ( which brings up, by the way, the inverse - "Hi mom - I got hurt. Sorry." ( pan to amputated limb ) ) this sort of thinking amounts to a sort of psychic death: "It's all hopeless. We're doomed! Why bother with anything. I think I'll just creep into a hole in the ground and hide."

But public opinion on Iraq is shifting as the war drags on and casaulty toll and cost of the operation mount ( amidst apparent futility of the effort ). kgasmart is on target -"Are there really people out there now who think the occupation is going "well?" I am hearing more and more people who supported the war from the get-go on the fence now, who think the occupation has been tragically mismanaged...." - Recent polls support this:

"Public Opinion: Surveys Show Conflicting Results on Key Issues in Iraq: Public opinion surveys are returning conflicting results on how long the U.S. should stay in Iraq and under what conditions. Answers to poll questions change depending on whether the question emphasizes casualties, the risk of disorder, or more aggressive tactics by the U.S. That's a classic warning sign that public attitudes are unsettled as surveys find greater doubt on basic questions involving the war.

For example, Gallup found only 37 percent willing to keep troops in Iraq regardless of casualties, but the ABC/Washington Post poll found 72 percent who said U.S. troops should stay if the alternative was civil disorder. Newsweek found a slight majority opposed to sending more troops, but also 53 percent willing to take "more aggressive action" against pro-Saddam insurgents. The number saying the war was "worth it" has gone up and down and more than four in 10 told Newsweek recent events had raised doubts for them about the war.

Results like these suggest the public is reconsidering the Iraq war, but hasn't come to grips with the tradeoffs needed to succeed there."

Of course the above commentary begs the question of whether success is even possible within the framework of the Bush Administration's current approach. Futhernore, it ignores considerable shifts in public opinion since the initlal invasion - Americans who supported the invasion are having doubts as they see the occupation being tragically mismanaged.

So, back to advertising........
posted by troutfishing at 4:05 AM on September 4, 2003


« Older Think globally, act strangely   |   Rainbow Farms revisited Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post