Bush's campaign commercials feature footage from 9/11, but anger firefighters and families of victims. Is it disingenuous to defend the ads when you claimed just nineteen weeks after the tragedy that you would not use the disaster for politcal gain? If anyone should be able to use the event for political purposes, it would be Giuliani, who defends Bush's actions.
posted by archimago (177 comments total)
Forgot to include this link, from 2002, when Bush stated that the war on terror was not going to be a political point for him. posted by archimago at 6:14 AM on March 5, 2004
"His leadership on that day is central to his record and his continued leadership is critical to our ultimate success against world terrorism," Giuliani said. posted by madamjujujive at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2004
See, what we need now is for some rich person to take out ads in the right-wing papers slamming these ads as opportunistic, featuring quotes from all the families against them and Bush's own quote in large letters at the bottom.
It goes without saying these days, but the man is a monster. posted by bwerdmuller at 6:18 AM on March 5, 2004
I've never seen the ads until now, quick, first impression review:
"Lead" - a cavalcade of stock footage with a hopeful message. I do like that it's informal, with GW talking as if he's in your living room, not behind the desk in the oval office. Doesn't mention 9/11 and is probably what he should run with.
"Tested" - the 9/11 mention is just a flash and the core message mentioning "faith" was more distressing to me.
"Safer, Stronger" - wow, this one's weak. kinda seems like the message is "it was broken when we got here". The 9/11 mention is more significant here, but this is a really poor ad that doesn't help GW much.
(the "I approved this message" thing required by law sounds dumb) posted by mathowie at 6:22 AM on March 5, 2004
It is dishonest but part of what Giuliani says is true. His leadership on 9/11 is central to his record. To put it into perspective just about everybody I know will vote for Bush. I've talked to a lot of them or they've volunteered their reasons and the main reason is this: his perceived leadership on September 11th 2001. Other things, such as his stance on gay marriage and abortion, are just icing on the cake.
If you look at his actual track record it's abysmal but they don't care about it. His performance around that one event destroys any objectivity on their part. In their eyes anybody else, especially a liberal, would've just locked themselves in the closet and cried. posted by substrate at 6:35 AM on March 5, 2004
That's what you call "footage from 9/11"?
I was expecting something completely different after hearing about the "uproar" or whatever. Anything less about 9/11 and he'd be denying it happened... posted by techgnollogic at 6:37 AM on March 5, 2004
One other thing. He's more than just the president to a large percentage of the population. He's become their spiritual leader. He's not willing to let small things, such as the constitution, get in the way of spiritual righteousness. To those who've drank the koolaid this is good and just. posted by substrate at 6:39 AM on March 5, 2004
The linked article from 2002 doesn't say he would never use the fact of the attacks for political gain. It quite specifically referred to a spending proposal related to the attacks. And he really wasn't promising to not politicize the proposal, just observing that there was no need to, as there was no disagreement on the issue between him and Congress.
That said, I don't think it's prima facie wrong to refer to the attacks in ads. (in general) It's the elephant in the living room. You almost can't NOT mention it. 9/11 survivors would obviously feel differently. I guess it's a question of taste and degree. Tread carefully, admakers.
And mathowie, the "approval" tag might sound dumb, but it also might tone down the mindless vitriol in some of these ads, and that's a good objective. I say, let's give it a chance... posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 6:43 AM on March 5, 2004
Yes, but how about images of just Bush during the tragedy, instead of firefighters and the like? He's the one who's record is up for inspection, not anyone else involved with 9/11. posted by agregoli at 6:47 AM on March 5, 2004
I think Dems would do well not to focus too hard on this issue. There are much more egregious things this administration is doing than invoking 9/11 scenes in a political ad. posted by vito90 at 6:50 AM on March 5, 2004
The ads so angered the 265,000-member International Association of Fire Fighters that the group approved a resolution Thursday calling on the Bush campaign to withdraw them and apologize to victims' families. The union was the first to endorse Kerry last year
Also, if Bush using this tiny little bit of footage from 9/11 causes hurt to the families of the 3,000 killed... What does John Kerry's uses of footage from Vietnam, where nearly 60,000 where killed, say?
Jobs aside, 9/11 and the War on Terrorism are the issue of this campaign, if John Kerry likes it or not. Using what happened that Tuesday morning is not "off the table." posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:51 AM on March 5, 2004
Actually, it's not democrats that are focusing on this per se, but relatives of 911 victims. And I think, especially given Bush's stonewalling of the 911 comission and his reluctance to have one in the first place, they're perfectly entitled to cause an uproar.
I think these ads would be better if it showed what Bush was doing on 9/11. You know, running like hell. posted by lumpenprole at 7:09 AM on March 5, 2004
Also, if Bush using this tiny little bit of footage from 9/11 causes hurt to the families of the 3,000 killed... What does John Kerry's uses of footage from Vietnam, where nearly 60,000 where killed, say?
Christ, Steve.
This is an apple:
This is an orange:
Learn the difference. posted by jpoulos at 7:10 AM on March 5, 2004
The text of the ad doesn’t mention 9/11. The visuals – which I haven’t seen – apparently show a body being removed from the wreckage. And this is beyond the pale, I guess. It is now unacceptable for a president to remind people he was president during an attack on American soil.
Hmm. Well. It’s called running on one’s record. They get to do that. But now people who were secretly relieved that Bush was in the White House after 9/11 are complaining that Bush is reminding us . . . that he was in the White House after 9/11.
Politicizing 9/11! Wrapping himself in the flag! Implying his opponents are unpatriotic! Plastic turkey! Aircraft carrier landing! Mission accomplished! AWOL! French goodwill squandered!
By this logic, FDR should have run his 44 campaign on his domestic agenda.
The theme of the Democratic primaries was clear: Bush is the problem, not the war. Clarification: the “war.” The “alleged” war. The “war” is a smokescreen to keep us in fear while a few top-hatted plutocrats convene in Texas to complete their grand strategy: "we’ll invade Iraq for reasons we know will fall apart, and then we’ll turn the oil revenue over to the people under UN supervision, and the publicity will cause Halliburton stock to fall so we can buy it back at artificially depressed prices. Let’s all do the secret Mason handshake!" Right. Paging Oliver Stone: you’re needed to script-doctor the third act, where Karl Rove’s shocktroops put Bill Maher and Howard Stern in a trunk so they don’t blow the whistle on the secret code in the electronic voting machines that returns a 99.9% mandate in the 2004 election. posted by pardonyou? at 7:12 AM on March 5, 2004
These ads are nothing. All the complaints I've heard are coming from anti-Bush, pro-Democrat people--including those who are also families of September 11 victims--who will quibble with everything he does. I am not a Bush supporter in any way, ever, but these ads are hardly a manipulation of 9/11. Whether Bush did any of the right things after the attacks, and could be considered a "good leader" on terrorism, is another question altogether.
What the anti-Bush folks should be holding their anger for is the "October surprise." When the Chimp is down in the polls to Lurch, all the stops will be pulled and that damned organ will play a horrific tune...
Also, the families of the September 11th victims can shut up now. They remind me of the kid in school who tried to tell me about how girls work, and claimed expertise because his mother was a nurse. Knowledge is not conferred by heredity; death of a loved one does not make the survivors authorities, experts, leaders, or truth-bearers.
One more thing: Lileks can STFU now, too. posted by Mo Nickels at 7:15 AM on March 5, 2004
Politicizing 9/11! Wrapping himself in the flag! Implying his opponents are unpatriotic! Plastic turkey! Aircraft carrier landing! Mission accomplished! AWOL! French goodwill squandered!
True, true, true, true, true, false, true, true. posted by vito90 at 7:17 AM on March 5, 2004
Actually, it's not democrats that are focusing on this per se, but relatives of 911 victims...
Well, actually, a subset thereof. And, on deeper examination, an interesting subset indeed. (And before you criticize the source -- which I found only because it was linked elsewhere -- pay attention to the facts, which are not in dispute). posted by pardonyou? at 7:17 AM on March 5, 2004
jpoulos: Learn that there is no difference. posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:19 AM on March 5, 2004
Vito90, you are right....there are bigger fish to fry. For example, the Plame thing looks like it is getting pretty hot - Airforce One phone records subpoenaed - yikes, this story has some pretty explosive revelations:
" The subpoena with the second production deadline sought all documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group. In August, the Washington Post published the only account of the group's existence.
It met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney. posted by madamjujujive at 7:20 AM on March 5, 2004
Learn that there is no difference.
It's like you're some sort of philosopher or something. Got any more juicy koans for us? posted by bshort at 7:22 AM on March 5, 2004
I'm George Bush, and I know exactly what I want to do with this country...
Stay at war, as it is great for the economy posted by catchmurray at 7:26 AM on March 5, 2004
I duno, bshort... why don't you ask jpoulos... maybe he/she has some more cute pictures that fail to make a point. posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:28 AM on March 5, 2004
Well, considering that Mr Kerry actually fought in said war and his beliefs came from that experience, vs George Bush who never fought for anything in this country except maybe the designated hitter rule.... I'd say those are apples and oranges, 2 different things. posted by Eekacat at 7:30 AM on March 5, 2004
Who knew MeFi could produce such accurate campaign slogans? posted by adampsyche at 7:30 AM on March 5, 2004
jpoulos: Learn that there is no difference.
- Perhaps apples are oranges, like little children we needed the veil to be removed from our eyes before we could truly believe. posted by johnnyboy at 7:31 AM on March 5, 2004
The ads so angered the 265,000-member International Association of Fire Fighters that the group approved a resolution Thursday calling on the Bush campaign to withdraw them and apologize to victims' families. The union was the first to endorse Kerry last year, but its president Harold Schaitberger, said the reaction would have been the same had the Kerry campaign done something similar. "We find this absolutely disgraceful and disgusting." Schaitberger, who noted that 343 fire fighters perished on Sept. 11."
The part Steve_at_Linnwood elected to leave out is the part I have added in bold. posted by terrapin at 7:33 AM on March 5, 2004
Bill Clinton continually used tragedy (i.e. Oklahoma City, Ron Brown, Columbine) during his term to enhance his own political standing. Remember, he was dubbed "the nation's mourner in chief" by the fawning media? Isn't it just a little disingenous for the Bush haters to express dismay that the president is "politicizing" 9/11? posted by Durwood at 7:37 AM on March 5, 2004
Hrm, politics as usual. If the Dems came out with a similar add, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republicans would be all over it. In other words for most people this has less to do with respect, than with scoring points in an election year. posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:38 AM on March 5, 2004
Ah, yes... Your clever use of photographs of fruit prove you are correct again! I can never match wits with you!
tarrapin, I left them out, because they are partisan lie. Plain and simple. OUTRAGE, OUTRAGE from a Kerry Union Supporter! I'm just shocked!
This is yet more manufactured outrage that outlets like CNN & Co. are more than happy to run with over and over again, conveniently leaving out that the firefighters who are outraged are partisan Kerry supporters. Over all a lame attempt by Dems to take this issue off the table, because they know that they are incredibly weak on it. posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:40 AM on March 5, 2004
Hi. My name's Mao L. Donald. I have larping ding shaps within a whole assortment of ling lunds.
If you would like to see me match wits with a walrus, press one now.
Kerry was in Vietnam. He fought bravely. He was a decorated war hero. This is indicative of who he is as a person and as a leader.
Bush was not in New York during the 9/11 attacks. The images in the ad say nothing about who he is as a person or as a leader. If the footage had been of him speaking at the WTC in the days following the attacks (a speech which, I think was the real turning point in the public perception of his presidency) I might give him a pass. But as it is, the footage is nothing more than emotional propoganda. It's pandering. And it fits well with Bush's modus operandi: play on people's fear.
Hence, the Kerry ad is an apple. The Bush ad is an orange. posted by jpoulos at 7:44 AM on March 5, 2004
You're right, Durwood. I, for one, won't vote for Clinton in this election. Hell, I pledge to never vote for him for President ever. posted by MrMoonPie at 7:44 AM on March 5, 2004
His leadership on that day is central to his record
True, true...
:::fades back to memories of Bush continuing to read to schoolchildren after being apprised of the situation, then of flitting about the country in Airforce 1 like a rabbit desperately seeking a hole...::: posted by rushmc at 7:45 AM on March 5, 2004
Hence, the Kerry ad is an apple. The Bush ad is an orange.
I contend the Bush ad is a prune. posted by terrapin at 7:46 AM on March 5, 2004
Yes, we should see Bush ads from his leadership on 9/11/01. But I doubt his handlers want an ad of him cowering in a corner, sucking his thumb, shitting his pants, and mumbling "mommy" over and over. posted by terrapin at 7:47 AM on March 5, 2004
partisan lie.
Hello, Detroit! We are Partisan Lie! Are you ready to rock?!? posted by grabbingsand at 7:48 AM on March 5, 2004
OK, so 'splain to me why when talking about Bush and Kerry people bring up Clinton? posted by Eekacat at 7:53 AM on March 5, 2004
Bush's not being in New York during the attack does not have anything to do with how he lead the country afterwards. Both events were profound experiences that changed both men (9/11 for Bush, and Vietnam for Kerry)
And both are perfectly valid issues to raise with voters.
Furthermore, the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's. His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc. posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:54 AM on March 5, 2004
:::fades back to memories of Bush continuing to read to schoolchildren after being apprised of the situation, then of flitting about the country in Airforce 1 like a rabbit desperately seeking a hole...:::
- In fairness I think the situation would not have been handled any differently by gore, clinton or whoever you might care to mention. In that type of on-going situation where it was far from clear what else could have happened then the president zipping aroung in airforce one was making the best of a bad hand. posted by johnnyboy at 7:56 AM on March 5, 2004
Are you ready to rock?!?
Give us five more minutes. posted by jennak at 7:57 AM on March 5, 2004
In fairness I think the situation would not have been handled any differently by gore, clinton or whoever you might care to mention.
Ah, but if those presidental administrations had lied and said that there was credible intelligence (ha!) that Air Force One was a target -- would they have gotten away with it?
The media is lazy. I actually agree with Steve on this point. posted by jennak at 7:59 AM on March 5, 2004
Also, if Bush using this tiny little bit of footage from 9/11 causes hurt to the families of the 3,000 killed... What does John Kerry's uses of footage from Vietnam, where nearly 60,000 where killed, say?
What footage is this, exactly? posted by mkultra at 8:01 AM on March 5, 2004
Steve is partially right on this issue in that talking up Kerry's war record isn't a different beast than Bush trying to score points with Sept. 11 footage. The difference is that the people likely to be offended by Kerry's usage of Viet Nam footage mostly don't vote in US elections.
But more broadly, why exactly is it that Bush is proud of his "leadership" on that day and in the time immediately thereafter? I don't necessarily think that he pooped his pants as has been suggested, but what did he do? The people that think he exhibited some enormous, almost indefinable aura of "leadership" during those days are seeing things. I don't know of anything he did that wouldn't have been done by anyone else who has held that office.
On preview, what rush said. posted by deadcowdan at 8:02 AM on March 5, 2004
Furthermore, the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's. His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc.
Why would Kerry cower when he's actually been in a war, has (sensible) foreign policy experience...and can actually say "nuclear"? posted by jennak at 8:03 AM on March 5, 2004
Sorry, what johnnyboy said. posted by deadcowdan at 8:04 AM on March 5, 2004
it's no wonder that Bush is trying to milk 9-11 for all its worth -- he barely has anything else to offer to undecided voters other than the "Freedom was attacked today" War President routine.
and even on 9-11, as pointed out already by others, Bush's lackluster deer-caught-in-headlights performance was dwarfed by Giuliani's.
he's right to milk the WTC attack. what else should he talk about?
Iraq? Saddam's in jail and that's really cool, but the insurgency has thrown the country into chaos -- 72 hours ago 181 Iraqis were killed and 573 wounded, almost an Iraqi 9-11 if you compare the Iraqi and US popolation. a chronology of attacks is here
Not to mention those pesky WMD's, still unwilling to appear.
so it's OK for Bush to do that, he and his handlers know that if Osama isn't caged somewhere waiting to be paraded in front of the cameras in case of electoral emergency, well unless he has that card up his sleeve Bush knows all bets are off. so let him milk 9-11. I actually expected much more crass ads. but there's still time for that, I guess
the most appalling part of the campaign will be in the negative ads, not in the run-of-the-mill firefighters-and-flags ads anyway.
and by the way, Giuliani himself appeared in a NYSE "every morning a bell rings" ad that wasn't much more tasteful than Bush's. and had "9-11! 9-11!" written all over itself as well. posted by matteo at 8:07 AM on March 5, 2004
If the Dems came out with a similar add, you can bet your bottom dollar that the Republicans would be all over it.
Spelling aside, this is a lame argument. They haven't, and that's the big issue, isn't it?
As a New Yorker, I find the add with the rescue workers and firemen pretty apalling. Those were brave folks who did what they did for their city, not Bush's political vision. To them, it was cleaning up a local disaster, not sticking it to "the enemy". Furthermore, this city came together without any help from Bush, thank you very much. The GOP's subsequent ignoring of rebuilding issues (capped off by the EPA's cover-up of air quality downtown) makes the ad nothing but shameful exploitation.
I can't wait for the GOP convention. I predict a most unwelcome welcome for them here. posted by mkultra at 8:08 AM on March 5, 2004
Bush's not being in New York during the attack does not have anything to do with how he lead the country afterwards.
Then show him leading the country afterwards! posted by jpoulos at 8:12 AM on March 5, 2004
If you guys think this is bad, just wait until they hold the Republican Convention in New York on the anniversary of 9/11. That'll be the time for outrage, boys. posted by crunchland at 8:14 AM on March 5, 2004
To them, it was cleaning up a local disaster, not sticking it to "the enemy".
not to mention, the governmentcovered up the very possible risks of poisoning from the WTC vapors. so they have already gotten sick because of their sacrifice to work there, and more will get sick in the future.
(the "I approved this message" thing required by law sounds dumb)
... puts in the Violent Femmes CD "The Blind Leading the Naked" posted by Eekacat at 8:19 AM on March 5, 2004
Furthermore, the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's. His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc.
Hilarious, Steve. As if the only people not desperate to make the campaign about 9/11 alone aren't the same people desperate to make everyone so terrified of the evil foreign people that they'd believe the only thing protecting us from them is a semi-intelligent ex-cokehead who clearly lost millions of jobs and stripped the nation of resources, credibility, and dignity only because he was so very, very hard at work hunting down Islamofascists with his bare hands, when he wasn't on vacation an average of half the year. But man, that union. They're so blinded by ignorant partisanship, aren't they Steve. posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 AM on March 5, 2004
Good thing for the administration that the situation in Iraq is going so swimmingly:
The scheduled signing of a previously approved interim constitution for Iraq was delayed indefinitely today after five Shiite members of the Iraqi Governing Council rejected wording that dealt with the Kurds and the proposed setup of the presidency.
The council unanimously agreed to the accord on Monday. But an official on the council said today that the changes being called for were necessary if they were to gain the acceptance of Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
It was unclear when the signing would take place, with officials standing around for several hours.
But it is clear that the Shiites want a charter that will reflect their position as the majority group in Iraq.
The Shiites are concerned that the Kurds are seeking to ensure that the permanent constitution, which will be put to a national referendum next year, does not encroach on their self-rule zone in the north.
The clauses say that if two-thirds of the voters in any three provinces reject the permanent charter, it will not got into effect. The Kurds' self-rule region includes three provinces in the north.
The Shiites want any rejection to be based on a simple majority...
Another cause of dispute was the makeup of the presidency. The draft agreed to by the Governing Council — including the Shiite parties — set up a single president with two deputies...
The Shiites want either a five-person presidency setup, on which they would have either two or three representatives, or they want a president who has a great deal of the power.
The council members who refused to sign were Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim of the Supreme Council, Ibrahim al-Jaafari of the Dawa party and the current council president Shiite cleric Muhammad Bahr al-Ulloom. posted by y2karl at 8:36 AM on March 5, 2004
This is yet more manufactured outrage that outlets like CNN & Co. are more than happy to run with over and over again
Manufactured? CNN manufactured my outrage? Is that how it got there? I thought I was pissed because a Bush-Cheney ad showed a bunch of images of a destroyed WTC and bodies being pulled from the wreckage. Thanks for clearing that up for me. posted by eyeballkid at 8:37 AM on March 5, 2004
It is inevitable that such a pivotal event as the 9/11 attacks should surface in the presidential campaign. The fact that President Bush did not hesitate to underline the tragedy in his new wave of campaign commercials puts voters on early notice that they must bring their considered judgment to the bounds of the debate. The mix of painful, familiar graphics and pared-down electioneering slogans will be a test of a candidate's good taste as much as the electorate's political leanings. We hope the media strategists of the president and Senator John Kerry will avoid descending into low-road treacle and claims of primacy on a subject that we all recall as a dark cause of fierce national unity.
The first Bush commercial, with its stark glimpse back at the smoking shell of the World Trade Center, speaks to people's natural fear of changing leaders in perilous times. But it is also a reminder that the great sense of unity and national purpose of those days was lost. How to weigh those two factors is only one of the issues relating to 9/11 that are bound to surface. To choose the next president, Americans will have to judge whether the country is safer now than when the tragedy occurred, whether the proper response to the attacks was the invasion of Iraq and whether the president has been fully cooperative with the independent commission investigating 9/11.
When we think of 9/11, we think of loss, and of the heroism of average people who reached out in ways great and small to help their fellow men and women. Any political candidate who attempts to piggyback onto those emotions deserves to be shunned by the electorate. Speaking of 9/11 in January 2003, President Bush told The Associated Press that he had "no ambition whatsoever to use this as a political issue." We applaud that sentiment. posted by y2karl at 8:40 AM on March 5, 2004
His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc.
Jesus Christ, Steve. The very ad we're talking about is Bush's attempt to make this election about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc. How can you say "the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's" with a straight face? posted by jpoulos at 8:41 AM on March 5, 2004
answer the families questions - then you can run ads featuring the terrorist attack on 9-11 you were warned about on august 6, 2001 and didn't do a damn thing about . and then you can run your ads karen and george. posted by specialk420 at 8:42 AM on March 5, 2004
Jobs aside, 9/11 and the War on Terrorism are the issue of this campaign, if John Kerry likes it or not. Using what happened that Tuesday morning is not "off the table."
As the links provided by archimago and madamejujujive remind us, what happened that Tuesday morning has yet to be put on the the table. Imagine the mainstream press finally going there... posted by y2karl at 8:48 AM on March 5, 2004
I don't mind referencing 9-11 as much as I do footage of someone's dead body being carried from the wreckage being used as a prop to promote Bush's political agenda. That's just shamelessly crass. posted by MegoSteve at 8:50 AM on March 5, 2004
there was no speculation about the use of an airplane itself as a bomb or a weapon, and no specific, credible information about the possibility of a hijacking of any sort.
OH Yeah, good one, specialk420 - you're so right on top of being full of shit. posted by techgnollogic at 8:51 AM on March 5, 2004
admittedly, these ads weren't as bad as I was expecting. it's still some of the slimy same old same old (terror terror terror, iraq, 9/11 terror terror goodnight).
what I'm not happy about are the cheezy photos and letters I keep getting in the mail from local republican parties. I got one yesterday that started out with Dear Friend, but then a very pixellated blue line was marked through the "friend" and just above that was the word "Robert" printed in a pixellated script style font.
at the bottom of the note, it says "Paid for by Bush-Cheney '04, Inc." which is one of the reasons why I won't be voting for Bush Inc. this year. posted by mcsweetie at 8:51 AM on March 5, 2004
Just a thought - how much outrage would there be from the other side if the Kerry team tried to make capital from 9-11.
Suppose they insinuated that since 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, far from being the hero for what he did after it he should be the villain because it happened in the first place....
I'm not sure 9-11 is a very clever place for either side to try and win votes, it'll be seen by some cynical and opportunistic either way it's played, by either side. Politics already leaves a bad taste in a lot of people's mouths, this kind of thing won't help. posted by brettski at 8:53 AM on March 5, 2004
The images are being used because some marting person said that images of the Towers and firefighters spark deep emotions within people, and they want to coopt those emotions of pain and suffering and associate them egtting better with Bush.
It's pure prostitution of the attack. As someone who was almost killed, I'm repulsed by it.
He can use September 11th.. I have no problem there.. but do so through some other method. A black screen, for example. If you want a comparison, imagine underwater cameras at The Arizona filming the destruction and the President voicing over "Hey - I helped the nation heal from this."
Clinton may have used Oklahoma City and every other tragedy, but he didn't do it graphically displaying the destruction to wrench people's heart strings.
It is base and disrespectful. posted by rich at 8:54 AM on March 5, 2004
Actually, it's not democrats that are focusing on this per se, but relatives of 911 victims...
Well, actually, a subset thereof. And, on deeper examination, an interesting subset indeed. (And before you criticize the source -- which I found only because it was linked elsewhere -- pay attention to the facts, which are not in dispute).
Good catch, pardonYou, but I'd still dispute their point. The first one is somebody who joined an anti-war group after losing somebody in 9-11. You know, like those Vietnam veterans who marched against the war after coming back. I think they're characterization as somebody who was left-wing anyway remains unproven. We have no information on what Ms. Kelly was like before the tragedy. Same with David Portori.
The fourth one is somebody who joined a group criticizing Bush for refusing to investigate 9-11. Exactly the hypocrisy she is criticising now. Again, no evidence of politcal leanings either way before or after the event.
I'd agree that it's quite possible that these are all Dems with lefty-liberal leanings, but there's no evidence for that. Furthermore, I don't think it matters. It's not like they're using 9-11 as a pretext to attack somebody they don't like. These are very real problems that the President has completely failed to address. I don't mean that everything they say is true, I mean that the president has treated the accusations like they weren't there instead of explaining his post 9/11 actions.
Anybody can cry 'liberal bias' but there's really not much evidence for it. Show me where the accusations are unfounded. This is a perfect chance for relatives on 9/11 victims who think the President did a great job to step forward. I'm not being snarky, I'd really like to see that debate. posted by lumpenprole at 8:54 AM on March 5, 2004
you're so right on top of being full of shit.
techgnollogic - dont make me bust out my long list of documented warnings the bush team had about the impending attack.
just answer me this:
a. why was ashcroft warned about possible highjackings so he got to fly around pre-9/11 in his own private jet? but the american public wasn't?
bush sucks - there is no getting around the fact - bigguy. posted by specialk420 at 9:09 AM on March 5, 2004
Sheesh, someone should keelhaul the ad campaign person that even suggested this. How could you not see repercussion coming from this?
that you would not use the disaster for politcal gain?
The wrong here, that one man's administration would point to themselves. The Presidential candidates whom held public office during the disaster and it's recovery made a contribution role too. Think Bush & Co. pancake themselves while pointing "look at us", because We as a nation recovered. posted by thomcatspike at 9:16 AM on March 5, 2004
You know this has to be bullshit when even MeFi has people calling this Bush criticism misplaced.
who clearly lost millions of jobs and stripped the nation of resources
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 AM PST on March
For the sake of fact-based analysis, can you tell me XQ what Bush *did* that lost millions of jobs?
Might it be possible that the economy started a recession prior to his inaguration including the tech bubble bursting which caused some jobs to be lost? And then an unprecendented terrorist attack on top of that? Can you explain what Bush did that cost those jobs or what resources he stripped?
he was so very, very hard at work hunting down Islamofascists with his bare hands, when he wasn't on vacation an average of half the year.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:24 AM PST on March
So is your critique that he shouldn't have been singularly focused on fighting Islamofascism? Or that he should have been fighting it harder?
Or is your critique that a Kerry or Gore would have been more dedicated to it?
Moreover is there evidence that Bush wasn't planning things in Crawford? Has any even-minded analyst argued that he was ignoring things whilst at his ranch?
a bunch of images of a destroyed WTC and bodies being pulled from the wreckage.
posted by eyeballkid at 8:37 AM PST on March 5
A bunch???
Did you even watch the commercial???
It was two seconds of images that most people would have missed if they weren't looking for it.
Obviously your outrage is completely manufactured because no sentient being would watch those commercials and then believe that Bush was showing a "a bunch of images of a destroyed WTC and bodies being pulled from the wreckage." posted by Seth at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2004
Bush has refused, citing "executive privilege" to produce specific documents that might tell us what intelligence he actually had. You have to wonder about that all by itself. More detail on this from John Dean at findlaw. (Also linked at the end of technologic's link.) Cue ad hominem attacks on John Dean in 5....4...3... posted by George_Spiggott at 9:19 AM on March 5, 2004
Of course Bush used the imagery. He's the Imagery President, the star of an action movie called "Mission Accomplished" scripted by Karl Rove and spookwritten by Cheney, Perle, et. al. It's not like Bush could possibly run on his record. He has bankrupted the nation, increased the chance of future attacks, and recently taken the moral high ground of inscribing the notion that gay people are subhuman into the US Constitution. Where's the Republican outrage that he has stolen the Grand Old Party, the traditional defender of state's rights, individual rights, and fiscal prudency, and handed it to his golf buddies?
And if you want a good hour's reading about everything that was rotten in Denmark the day all those thousands of people died, the 9/11 timeline is a must-read. If you haven't seen this yet, give yourself some time to scroll down the page and put it all together for yourself.
The worst thing about Bush using the imagery is that something very disturbing happened that day, and we don't know what yet. We'll have to read the Times in 2020, apparently. posted by digaman at 9:22 AM on March 5, 2004
"It goes without saying these days, but the man is a monster."
Hmmmmm....... He's getting 50% in the polls where he's matched against Kerry. Something which "goes without saying" seems to be missing half of the voters in this country. Take the maniac for granted at your peril.
"He's not willing to let small things, such as the constitution, get in the way of spiritual righteousness."
To hear that something so antithetical to freedom and liberty is considered a good thing fills me with dread. That such a thing could be true just fills me with panic. How can I stop this? I feel like space aliens have taken over the country or something. This should not be possible.
The ads? Who gives a rat's ass. Political ads suck. And distort. And pander. And use cheap emotional ploys. Are we going to call for reform of advertising? No one can pander or distort? [giggle]
"Spelling aside, [...] I find the add with the rescue workers........"
[more giggling] posted by y6y6y6 at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2004
So it's about apples and oranges....
Cue predictable new Bush political ad....
"Bush advertisement, take #1: Right before our footage of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier, we'll get Bush visiting 9/11 victims in the hospital (note: be sure to edit out Rove's whispered directions off stage: 'no smirking, GW, no smirking!"). Show closeups of wounds, add special effects as needed. Instead of a flight suit, Bush dons surgical scrubs and gloves to probe a victim's horrific wounds. He deftly sutures the wound with one hand while comforting a frightened mewing kitten with the other, singing "Star Spangled Banner" under his breath. Bush unfurls premade 'Mission Accomplished' banner (which we'll claim that nurses, overcome with patriotic fervor, made out of iodine and gauze) behind bed." ~Sousa marches~
Cue predictable and justified outrage over Bush's exploitation of suffering for his own political gain....
Cue predictable Republicans defending the ad: "Kerry's resume lists his Purple Hearts, and, uh....those are 'wounds', too."
Obviously your outrage is completely manufactured because no sentient being would watch those commercials and then believe that Bush was showing a "a bunch of images of a destroyed WTC and bodies being pulled from the wreckage."
posted by Seth at 9:19 AM PST
And no sentient being believes Bush is doing anything but shamelessly exploiting the suffering of others to try to hold on to his job. posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2004
I've talked to a lot of them or they've volunteered their reasons and the main reason is this: his [Bush's] perceived leadership on September 11th 2001.
Say what? I distinctly remember Bush did sweet fuck all on the 11th.
Guiliani was the hero of the hour. Bush was a bust.
And what the hell is it with people who bring up Clinton all the time? That ass is out of office and won't be returning. Why on earth would anything Clinton did justify anything Bush does? Man, if that sort of thinking is indicative of the quality of political thought in America, the country is doomed. posted by five fresh fish at 9:26 AM on March 5, 2004
For the most part....Christ, what a bunch of whiners.
Would the primary complainers about the ads be some of the same people who got paid hundreds of thousands and millions each in compensation?
I, for one, am looking forward to election time. I can't wait for Kerry to be exposed. The media has given him a free pass for far too long on far too many issues. Oh, and by the way, Kerry asked for a deferrment of military service to study abroad in France. When it was refused, he joined the Navy. Conveniently neglected in many reports. posted by insulglass at 9:31 AM on March 5, 2004
I don't necessarily think that he pooped his pants as has been suggested, but what did he do?
He told us to go shopping. posted by rocketman at 9:31 AM on March 5, 2004
Seth;
Bush contributed to the economic decline by warmongering against Iraq and introducing over 9 months of uncertainty into the marketplace, which hurt currency exchnage and the stock market in the face of good economic news from top companies.
The economy also was not bouyed by the war, which is in contrast to what war usually does to an economy, because the people in charge of th money all knew that America was going to end up footing the bill, costing the economy billions in military and infrastructure rebuilding to Iraq, instead of being pumped back into the flagging US economy, further weakening the dollar and delaying the meager recovery.
Because of cuts made to education and social services, job prospects and hiring were additonal curtailed.
Finally, buyig power through his 'tax rebate' program did nothing but give a taxable benefit to everyone who received it - if you filed your taxes this year, any money you expected to get back was reduced by what you go in your rebate.. so if you got $600 in September '03, and should have gotten $500 back after filing your '03 taxes, you eneded up paying $100 in taxes instead. posted by rich at 9:32 AM on March 5, 2004
And no sentient being believes Bush is doing anything but shamelessly exploiting the suffering of others to try to hold on to his job.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:26 AM PST on March 5
Please explain how on earth could this NOT be discussed?
With the exception of a few people who are single-issue advocates, 9/11 and the reaction to it was the most important event of recent memory.
How on earth could this campaign NOT address the issue?
You are being extremely disingenuous if you are suggesting that Bush can avoid the topic.
After all, isn't a first term relection a referendum on the president?
Of course the most important thing must be discussed.
Foldy, I know you think that everything Bush does is, ipse dixit, EVIL.
But you shouldn't sacrafice intellectual integrity to impress your belief by trying to suggest that Bush could avoid this topic. posted by Seth at 9:34 AM on March 5, 2004
I agree at least in part with insulglass: Bush-Cheney, Inc are a bunch of whiners.
Oh and Seth, that whole 'recession started early' meme comes from where exactly? Your potent grasp of economics, or did you just open up and swallow the party line in which they cooked the numbers? You might be interested in knowing that the National Bureau of Economic Research disagrees, more than a little. posted by hank_14 at 9:38 AM on March 5, 2004
Rich,
Interesting analysis.
It's a shame that it has no factual basis.
The recession began prior to Bush's inaguration. The tech bubble busting and its devastating effects had nothing to do with Bush's policies. 9/11 happened, and specialk420 notwithstanding, no one suggests that Bush caused that.
However, the recession was short lived and the economy started growing well before Iraq was being talked about.
So your argument is a bit flawed because Iraq did not cause economic decline... the economy was growing well before that.
There is plenty of fertile ground to criticize Bush about the long term effects of tax cuts and massive spending.
So why attempt to criticize him for something that occurred prior to his tenure? Why attempt to say that Iraq caused economic decline when the numbers don't indicate that? posted by Seth at 9:39 AM on March 5, 2004
I can't wait for Kerry to be exposed.
hahaha... kerry isn't the one with a long list of pending investigations. bush has 100 million plus and a lot of zealots who don't give a shit about: the environment, the poor, the elderly, children, the budget deficit, social security, the rest of the world ... for starters ... on his side, which will keep him competitive. on the other hand - the polls aren't looking good for the fearless leader. posted by specialk420 at 9:41 AM on March 5, 2004
Hopefully this will help to remind us all that the biggest terrorist incident in American history occurred on his watch, while he was mobilizing armed resources against this civil war called the "war on (some) drugs" and doing nothing to protect the US against the very real terrorism about to strike, despite some (admittedly vague) warnings that such a thing was coming.
"Tested"? Yes. Tested, and failed. posted by clevershark at 9:42 AM on March 5, 2004
It was two seconds of images that most people would have missed if they weren't looking for it.
Which left me with the impression, our Fire Departments are to sacrifice their lives defending our nation. I appreciate the risks they take, but 911 was murder as it was planned. posted by thomcatspike at 9:45 AM on March 5, 2004
the only reason i can imagine that anyone would vote for the man (bush) or support his use of 9-11 imagery is:
and they think george bush is going to protect them from the terrorist bogeyman ... come out from under your bed people, take a breath of fresh air, quit being consumed by your fear and realize that george bush is making you less safe, not more ... and move on. posted by specialk420 at 9:48 AM on March 5, 2004
I usually ignore trolls, but the lies about when the recession started are getting old. From today's Washington Post, in an article titled "Experts Date it to Bush; Bush says it was Clinton's" (emphasis mine):
"A new Bush campaign ad released this week proclaims: 'January 2001. The challenge: an economy in recession.' This backs up the claim often made by Bush and top aides that they "inherited" an economic recession.
The only trouble with this assertion is the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research, which does the official dating of recessions, says the downturn began in March 2001 -- early in Bush's presidency. NBER is examining revised economic statistics to see if the official date should be moved earlier, but spokeswoman Donna Zerwitz said there is 'nothing imminent.'"
[snip]
"The NBER may, someday, endorse the Bush view, but Zerwitz said it will not be pressured. 'For us, this is an academic exercise, not a political one,' she said."
So STFU about how every damn thing is Clinton's fault. If there is one thing this Administration does well is pin blame on others... whether they deserve it or not. posted by terrapin at 9:49 AM on March 5, 2004
on the other hand - the polls aren't looking good for the fearless leader.
posted by specialk420
Are ye daft, Man?
We are in the top half of the first inning - the Democrats have been riding a surge of media attention where the only publicity for them are primarys (for which Bush doesn't even have any competition).
The Republicans haven't even brought out the bats yet. Kerry is about to learn what a whompin' is as Bush starts focusing on Kerry's senate voting record. Yeah, I think Bush has some performance issues he needs to improve upon. But Kerry as a replacement? I'm laughing over here. posted by insulglass at 9:52 AM on March 5, 2004
So STFU about how every damn thing is Clinton's fault. posted by terrapin
Yeah, like refusing being handed Osama Bin Laden. Let's forget that and 3000 lives on 9/11 that could have been prevented. Let's totally ignore that.
(*%$(^%#(*ing Clinton. posted by insulglass at 9:55 AM on March 5, 2004
I'm laughing over here as well, but it's because of that whole "-ies" rule when pluralizing words like primaries.
You're not whining about media attention, are ye, insulglass? posted by hank_14 at 9:56 AM on March 5, 2004
But I do agree with you. I am definitely not voting for Clinton this time.
[How that affects the Kerry-Bush race is still unexplained...] posted by hank_14 at 9:57 AM on March 5, 2004
It was two seconds of images that most people would have missed if they weren't looking for it.
And Ms. Jackson's nipple was exposed for less than a second...and look at the outrage about that. Apparently, microseconds are enough to be destroyed by a boob...so why should the Executive Boob need more than a few seconds to rape the corpses coming out of the towers?
(And for the record, I'm not one of the 911 families, but I did lose a friend, and I think this administration's handling of the attack is beyond negligent and bordering on criminal.) posted by dejah420 at 10:03 AM on March 5, 2004
I for one am disgusted. I disagree with Steve_at_Linnwood:
Jobs aside, 9/11 and the War on Terrorism are the issue of this campaign
I think that Bush is trying to make this the issue of this campaign. I think he's doing this because right now it's seen as the only this his administration can identify with as having handled well. This is sad because this was a group effort. Our country rallied together to help everyone regardless of politics get through a very terrible event. He was not the only one who was affected by 9/11 at a political or personal level. I also think this is sad because every other measure of his tenure to date comes up way short. Economy, Jobs, Environment, Energy, War, and Intrusion into our personal lives he has yet to come close to meeting expectations much less his promises on the matters.
Personally I think he's taking a big gamble. He is hitching his campaign to 9/11 as his sole accomplishment. This may prove to be a baseless claim if by November we still don't have Bin Laden or Mohammed Omar.
Furthermore, the only person's fear involved in using September 11th, is Kerry's. His campaign is going try to do everything in it's power to make this election not about National Security/Terrorism/September 11/etc.
I don't think so at all. The whole point of Kerry's Vietnam ads is that he would be a superb leader in wartime that he has seen combat and has had to make real life or death combat decisions. By the traditional presidential measuring stick this is how you define a candidate who is fit to lead during war time. posted by aaronscool at 10:08 AM on March 5, 2004
Yeah, like refusing being handed Osama Bin Laden. Let's forget that and 3000 lives on 9/11 that could have been prevented. Let's totally ignore that.
Sorry, but that dog don't hunt. The Bush Administration ignored the warnings of the Clinton Administration and instead jumped right into their plans to invade Iraq (before 9/11/01!), as well as negotiating with the Taliban so they could get more oil for their campaign contributors.
You're not whining about media attention, are ye, insulglass?
posted by hank_14
Yes and no. I'd like to consider myself (even if other MeFites do not) intelligent enough to look at the issues with a grain of salt and make an informed decision on my own.
But I do believe that the media is biased and that it's not exactly fair and balanced. It doesn't take a genius to realize that, and I have a lot of liberal friends that agree. Wasn't there a study performed somewhere that determined that a significantly higher percent of college journalism majors classified themselves as Democrats than Republicans? Seems like I remember such a study.
For example, the media has been reporting a lot recently about Bush's National Guard work, but they have been silent on Kerry's activities during roughly the same period. Kerry himself - when discussing Clinton - said that issues of 30 years ago were old history. But now he brings up Bush's record and touts his on Vietnam experience while not mentioning his post-war activites and affiliations. The press, IMHO, has given him a free pass on this issue.
Once again, I think Bush has plenty of domestic issues to deal with that he needs to address. But as bad as I feel about some issues under Bush, I firmly believe that Kerry would be an even worse disaster for the future of this country. posted by insulglass at 10:09 AM on March 5, 2004
Yeah, like refusing being handed Osama Bin Laden. Let's forget that and 3000 lives on 9/11 that could have been prevented. Let's totally ignore that.
Now if it wasn't for that being compelte bullshit you might have a point. I suppose Bush completely restructured the army in nine months in time to invade Afghanistan after Clinton's "failures" too.
Not to shine Clinton here as if he didn't often employ stupid military policy- keep in mind that as of today Bill Clinton ordered twice as many countries bombed as Dubya- but the collective picking-and-choosing, and of course as noted above lying, about how it was Clinton's fault is just asinine.
I did not argue the economy was in recession well before Bush, or that he was the one who caused the recession.
As for my factual basis.. I am in the finance world and have a little bit of knowledge about global markets and the economy.
"the recession was short lived"
This is a statement with no factual basis. You can say all you want that we are no longer in a recession, but the majority of economics professionals will agree that a recovery with no job gains, and in fact job losses, is not a recovery.
Additionally, key indexes either show meager gains, or none at all. there are no economic factors you can point to that will support saying that the economy is in a positive upswing, and has the ability to fuel continued growth unaided.
If you bother to read what I said about Iraq is that the uncertainty Bush caused through his policies towards Iraq during a critical recovery period negated any positive items that would have normally fueled a more spirited economic revival.
Key companies that had lost money for two years running posted better pofit and revenue figures than expected (and indeed, some showed 10-20% increases over revenue from their last profitable quarters). However, stock prices moved down* instead of up. Every top financial analyst specifically pointed to the uncertainty around Iraq that Bush had fostered as the single key reason.
This, of course, reduced cash availablity and borrowing power, forcing companies to continue to shelve growth projects, limit or curtail hiring, as well as continue layoff policies.
Bush is directly responsible for this, and the economic woes his policies directly caused.
As for campaigning about this issue of September 11th.. again, I think you are missing the point. No one is saying that Bush should not use September 11th as a campaign piece. However, prostituting the images of the Towers (not to mention an ad about firefighters when he has gone and cut their federal funding) is improper. It is gross pandering to invoke high emotional response from the images themselves, not anything he has contributed. A more fitting way could be to have a black screen instead, or just the flag, with the same voice over. The use of the images is the issue, not his use of his services during the crisis. posted by rich at 10:12 AM on March 5, 2004
"can you tell me XQ what Bush *did* that lost millions of jobs?"
- Fueled fear of continuing terrorist attacks, thus increasing costs for business, and chilling an already conservative outlook for new hiring, infrastructure improvements, and investment in new businesses.
- Increasing debt, which led to a weaker dollar, which led to poor trade, which led to more layoffs.
- Reduced consumer confidence which led to more conservative buying patterns. This was a direct result of his fiscal irresponsibility, funneling hundreds of billions into a foreign country, protests against America from allies, and the hyping of the terrorist threat.
- Failure to use creative bail-outs, tax relief, etc to head off runaway layoffs. Tax cuts for upper income individuals could have gone towards tax incentives for companies who were laying off millions of tax payers. posted by y6y6y6 at 10:15 AM on March 5, 2004
NY Daily News:
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."
Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission.
"I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11. "But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat."
Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots.
"How heinous is that?" Kleinberg asked. "That's somebody's [loved one]."
Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled.
"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.
These people obviously hate America.
Why would anyone be so upset about AWOL presiding over the worst attack in United States history, and flat-out lying about not using 9/11 for political purposes?
Can't they just get with the program? Don't they know that if Republicans have to spend all their time backpedaling over 9/11, they're not going to have any time to bask in the glow of their fabulous jobs program:
Back when the last round of tax cuts were passed, they were sold as a jobs program. The Bush administration claimed that if their tax program passed the economy would add an average of 306,000 jobs per month. By now, we should have had an additional 2,448,000 jobs. There are actually only 294,000 net new jobs, and so we're 2,154,000 behind what the Bush administration had promised.
Also, the families of the September 11th victims can shut up now.
Yeah. Them and the blacks. I mean hey, that Jim Crowe thing was like 200 years ago, and I never owned any slaves. posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:28 AM on March 5, 2004
so back to the subject insulglass ...
aside from still being scared of the "evildoers" and thinking AWOL is going to protect you ... can you tell any of us why you intend to vote for george bush? posted by specialk420 at 10:35 AM on March 5, 2004
specialk,
Why would any sane person attempt to justify their vote to you?
You are so bitterly partisan that you think Bush is so evil and nothing good could ever come of such a devil.
Knowing what a completely irrationally partisan person you are, why would someone try to explain their politics to you? posted by Seth at 10:42 AM on March 5, 2004
All this whining and griping -- well, it's practically treasonous. See you in Guantanamo, you Commies. I know we're a safer, stronger country now. I saw it on TV!
In what would be a highly unusual action for a president, George W.
Bush is apparently giving the White House seal of approval to a
television series, D.H.S.--The Series, a drama about the Department of
Home Security being introduced Thursday night to prospective networks
at an industry gathering...
...it is virtually unprecedented for the White House to endorse such a
fictional representation....When asked to elaborate on Bush and
Ridge's involvement, show representatives told E! Online, "They love
it. They think it is fantastic"... The show is billed as a realistic
action series following the exploits of Special DHS Agents Andrea
Bacall and Jack Callahan, portrayed by actors Alison Heruth Waterbury
and Timothy Patrick Cavanaugh. The characters venture from the halls of
Washington, D.C., to war-torn locales as they fight fanatical
terrorism. posted by digaman at 10:43 AM on March 5, 2004
Knowing what a completely irrationally partisan person you are, why would someone try to explain their politics to you?
"Hello kettle? It's Seth. You're black!" posted by terrapin at 10:52 AM on March 5, 2004
We wish that order of things where all the low and cruel passions are enchained, all the beneficent and generous passions awakened by the laws; where ambition subsists in a desire to deserve glory and serve the country: where distinctions grow out of the system of equality, where the citizen submits to the authority of the magistrate, the magistrate obeys that of the people, and the people are governed by a love of justice; where the country secures the comfort of each individual, and where each individual prides himself on the prosperity and glory of his country; where every soul expands by a free communication of republican sentiments, and by the necessity of deserving the esteem of a great people: where the arts serve to embellish that liberty which gives them value and support, and commerce is a source of public wealth and not merely of immense riches to a few individuals....The protection of government is only due to peaceable citizens; and all citizens in the republic are republicans. The royalists, the conspirators, are strangers, or rather enemies. Is not this dreadful contest, which liberty maintains against tyranny, indivisible? Are not the internal enemies the allies of those in the exterior? The assassins who lay waste the interior; the intriguers who purchase the consciences of the delegates of the people: the traitors who sell them; the mercenary libellists paid to dishonor the cause of the people, to smother public virtue, to fan the flame of civil discord, and bring about a political counter revolution by means of a moral one; all these men, are they less culpable or less dangerous than the tyrants whom they serve? . . .
How am I hypocritcal?
I am not really partisan. If you looked at my voting history over my life, you wouldn't be able to pigeon hole me at all. I never have come here and posted my beliefs; I have only questioned others' claims.
I post here at times for the sake of balance in order to keep place from becoming something other than an echo chamber lefty version of the LGF---to keep it from becoming a blue version of the DU.
I don't know how questioning people who are being ridiculously partisan makes me a partisan.
specialk is hyper-partisan. He calls the other side evil (which I never have done because I don't believe it and I don't see things as two-sided). Then he asks someone to explain themselves.
I can think of no greater excercise of futility than trying to explain a contrary viewpoint to specialk, foldy, or the ilk. posted by Seth at 11:01 AM on March 5, 2004
Is it disingenuous to defend the ads when you claimed just nineteen weeks after the tragedy that you would not use the disaster for politcal gain?
No, it's a lie. But what else is new?
I'm not surprised that Bush is using 9/11 in his ads, but I am surprised at how clumsily they're using it. Why not show footage of his "the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon" speech? That was a great moment for him and pretty much the only "presidential" thing about his response. posted by kirkaracha at 11:14 AM on March 5, 2004
I don't know why 9/11 is relevant - Afghanistan and Iraq are the things Bush's record is based on. I'm pretty sure that the 9/11 families should "shut up" although it might be put more politely. victims are, if anything, less qualified to dispense justice and evaluate outcomes.
The main thing these kind of adds illustrate is that there are people that want to watch these kinds of adds, who think that Bush has done a good job, that he's honest, and that he's been good for this country.
And we aren't talkin' Haliburton, baby... posted by ewkpates at 11:15 AM on March 5, 2004
I think he's doing this because right now it's seen as the only this his administration can identify with as having handled well. This is sad because this was a group effort. Our country rallied together to help everyone regardless of politics get through a very terrible event.
As the link and quote above from the NYT editorial page notes as well, aaronscool--a reminder that the great sense of unity and national purpose of those days was lost. Except it was not lost but squandered. posted by y2karl at 11:16 AM on March 5, 2004
I am not really partisan. If you looked at my voting history over my life, you wouldn't be able to pigeon hole me at all. I never have come here and posted my beliefs; I have only questioned others' claims.
Any yet you see no irony (or hypocracy) in claiming to know someone else is a partisan right? Because you know their voting record? I call bullshit. What I know is your posting history on MeFi, and that is enough to tell me that you are as partisan as ANYONE, so quite pointing fingers. posted by terrapin at 11:17 AM on March 5, 2004
Why would any sane person attempt to justify their vote to you?
seth - let insulglass answer his own questions.
i asked the same question (why do you support bush? give me examples of how his presidency has been a success) of a very smart friend of mine (in most areas), who is also a wavering bush supporter. he was only able to come up with a kind of tortured answer that bush was tough on terrorism, and does what he says he's going to ... on all other fronts the fellow in question conceeded bush is a failure (especially the environment).
i'm open to some rational justification for why anyone would support bush - i just have'nt seen it.
ps. answering questions with questions and calling me "hyper-partisan" doesn't do much for your position ... posted by specialk420 at 11:21 AM on March 5, 2004
Well here's a question for everyone:
Will this election's most important issue to you be how we handle the events of 9/11? If so compare and contrast the differences and/or similarities of the two candidates positions on this topic.
Sorry if this is book report format but everyone here seems to want to make political hay of 9/11 and my question is quite simple: How would Bush or Kerry differ on this? I have yet to see from either candidate a stated difference on the matter. What we have seen from both sides is a fair amount of fearmongering i.e. these 9/11 ads but no real substantive policy or position statements. posted by aaronscool at 11:24 AM on March 5, 2004
than trying to explain a contrary viewpoint to specialk,
it's not what you do. it simply isn't.
you just provide shaky talking points that get regularly destroyed by a hurricane of links other users here are more than happy to provide
if you really think of yourself as MetaFilter's fair and balanced savior, first learn some manners (even the wise languagehat lost his cool because of your usual venom and cruel bullshit). then try to come up with links to effectively prop up your comments. posted by matteo at 11:31 AM on March 5, 2004
... it sure got quiet in here all of a sudden ...
almost too quiet. posted by milovoo at 12:03 PM on March 5, 2004
OK, Seth. I'm apparently not on your hit list. Explain it to me. I honestly want to know. posted by mkultra at 12:05 PM on March 5, 2004
Sorry if this is book report format but everyone here seems to want to make political hay of 9/11 and my question is quite simple: How would Bush or Kerry differ on this? I have yet to see from either candidate a stated difference on the matter.
This is all conjecture, but the general consensus is that we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq. If nothing else, it would have enabled more resources to go toward capturing bin Laden and rebuilding Afghanistan. We also would not have had the draconian Patriot Act rammed down our throats, nor would we have pissed off the entire international community through unilateral aggression. posted by mkultra at 12:09 PM on March 5, 2004
Will this election's most important issue to you be how we handle the events of 9/11?
What is there left to handle? posted by archimago at 12:13 PM on March 5, 2004
Many people vote republican because they don't want government to expand and spending to increase. There are good arguments why these things shouldn't take place. These people don't care about a lack of personal liberties, because theirs aren't really ever threatened. They have worked hard for their huge pile of money, they really have, and they want to keep as much of it as possible, which is fair. If you work 80 hours a week, you deserve to hold onto the cash...
These people aren't bad, and their perspective is an important one. I worry about the people who can't give good reasons... posted by ewkpates at 12:52 PM on March 5, 2004
a semi-intelligent ex-cokehead who clearly lost millions of jobs and stripped the nation of resources, credibility, and dignity only because he was so very, very hard at work hunting down Islamofascists with his bare hands, when he wasn't on vacation an average of half the year
I'll take a bumper sticker, a baseball cap and 3 T-Shirts, please. posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 12:56 PM on March 5, 2004
The Bush ads are politically manipulative.
The response is politically manipulative.
Neither is the act of anyone's "desperation" to save a doomed campaign, just business as usual.
As one of the few members of MetaFilter who has actually been an "intended terrorist victim" (Wendell's anecdote #73: 1989, an attempt to blow up an IRS office that, if it had gone off as intended, would've destroyed the office I was in nextdoor), I have a strangely different perspective than most everybody here.
When I saw the buildings that usually held 100,000 workers fall, I was actually relieved that the earliest "casualty estimates" were under 20,000. And as they steadily dropped to about 3000, I stood up and cheered. New York's rescue workers had shown what I could ony call "mass heoism" (after all, more than 10 percent of the casualties were rescuers who entered the buildings after the first attack). And the "evil genius terrorists" of Al Queda had fallen so far short of a true bloodbath (they should've known nobody in NY is ath their desk at 9AM... the pentagon was a horrible target, and the fourth plane never got close to where it was going). When the Afghan strongholds of Bin Laden & Company were cleaned out, I considered the "mission accomplished" and everything Bush & Co. has done militarily since than has accomplished nothing to make us safer, just a sad, sick effort to promote perpetual warfare against terrorist boogeymen in order to take and hold power. Game plan taken from "1984". Not even Bush's "toughest critics" will dare say what I believe: there are several hundred issues our government has to deal with that are more important and a greater threat to our way of life than these straw-man terrorists. Period. Exclamation mark.
(and one of those greater threats is the MeFi world's reaction to this comment) posted by wendell at 12:58 PM on March 5, 2004
Many people vote republican because they don't want government to expand and spending to increase.
This is a fair and valid concern. In many ways I share this sentiment however when you look at the fact that Bush has increased the size of government and spending to unprecedented levels (and was planning to do so well before 9/11 happened) I don't understand how people can support him for these reasons any longer...
I don't have any historical figures in front of me but it sure seems that Bush's tax cut and spend policies are the most fiscally irresponsible from an American President. posted by aaronscool at 1:03 PM on March 5, 2004
What makes an otherwise sane person vote republican?
I'll bite:
Democrats are hypocrites.
Democrats are untruthful.
Democrats are in favor of social welfare.
Democrats are in favor of murdering children, er um ... a woman's right to choose.
Democrats are in favor of more governmental programs, which equate to more wasted tax dollars.
Democrats villify any objecting opinion.
Democrats suck up to unions
Democrats want to limit the rights of citizens
These people don't care about a lack of personal liberties, because theirs aren't really ever threatened
It's funny you think Republicans are trying to take away personal liberties [see gun control], becaue I see it just the opposite.
Frankly, I wish there was a third party that I could connect with. I don't agree 100% with either party, but my beliefs are more in line with republicans. posted by jlachapell at 1:04 PM on March 5, 2004
If repubican = not expanding government, how is it that you've ended up with the DEA and DHS and etc? I'm pretty damn sure those are all republican creations. posted by five fresh fish at 1:07 PM on March 5, 2004
"What makes an otherwise sane person vote republican?"
i can honestly understand some of the old main street republicanism of yesteryor ... and if there was ever a beast that needed to be starved through reduced taxes(income) it's the pentagon ...
but to answer my own question
why anyone would support bush?
i neglected the caveats - unless you are in the top 1% tax brackets, the owner of company that profits from war, the owner of an energy company, the owner of a major polluter, the owner of a timber company, or a right wing religous zealot that wants to push your religious views of the world on the rest of america/the world ...
now where did insulglass and his sidekick from west texas run off to? posted by specialk420 at 1:07 PM on March 5, 2004
Democrats are hypocrites.
Democrats are untruthful.
are you going start building your house with those two glass blocks? talk about fish in a barrel. posted by specialk420 at 1:17 PM on March 5, 2004
jlachapell, you're kidding, right?
Democrats are hypocrites.
This is, effectively, an unanswerable charge that could just as easily be brought against Republicans.
Democrats are untruthful.
Ditto, but there are really severe Bush Administration lies that bear pointing out- the Saddam/al Qaeda link, and pretty much any other justification for invading Iraq.
Democrats are in favor of social welfare.
The GOP is in favor of corporate welfare.
Democrats are in favor of murdering children, er um ... a woman's right to choose.
An opinion you're perfectly entitled to have, as long as you don't phrase it so obnoxiously.
Democrats are in favor of more governmental programs, which equate to more wasted tax dollars.
Spending under the Bush Administration is higher than any in recent memory. The Pentagon is a hotbed of waste.
I wouldn't call this a bad thing, better than sucking up to CEO's. But, it's opinion in the end. Fine.
Democrats want to limit the rights of citizens
See abortion comment, above, as well as the proposed Gay Marriage Amendment, and the Patriot Act. posted by mkultra at 1:19 PM on March 5, 2004
Oh, and
Democrats are untruthful.
Hello, White House economic forecasts? posted by mkultra at 1:20 PM on March 5, 2004
specialk420,
I'm not saying republicans are any different ... I think our political system sucks.
One could just as easily ask, "Why would any sane person vote Democrat" posted by jlachapell at 1:20 PM on March 5, 2004
specialk420,
I'm not saying republicans are any different ... I think our political parties suck.
One could just as easily ask, "Why would any sane person vote Democrat" posted by jlachapell at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2004
An opinion you're perfectly entitled to have, as long as you don't phrase it so obnoxiously
Sorry, I just thought the question was obnoxious.
"You're either with us or against us." I'd even call attention here to your comments on the issue.
Not sure what you're trying to call attention to.
See abortion comment, above, as well as the proposed Gay Marriage Amendment, and the Patriot Act
You see abortion as a right?
I won't comment on gay marriage.
I am not in favor ot the Patriot Act, but Dems and Repubs alike voted for it, so I don't see it as a Repub thing. "The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357–66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum." posted by jlachapell at 1:29 PM on March 5, 2004
Unfortunate, because I've been wondering that for a while also
do you wonder much? what do you specifically wonder about. is this wonder more of a question or a preconceived idea of seeing your words "wonder", despite this wondering is a 'conversation killer'.
as to the candidates little 'approved by bugs bunny for president in 04', you people need to open a book because your as...o.k. restraint.
I saw the ad, found little wrong with it other then promises that most likely will not happen, also some home spun everything is on track...with no data or even examples. But it is early and we in the G.O.P. have many months to destroy the bush-lite kerry.
and why would someone want to exchange one S&B from Yale for another?
the first lady is the prezs secret weapon. I would love to see her debate Ms. ketchup pack.
and i wonder whom may be behind this little smut
(via previous mefi thread posted by troutfishing)
As one of the few members of MetaFilter who has actually been an "intended terrorist victim" the pentagon was a horrible target, and the fourth plane never got close to where it was going).
ms. clavs brother was having a nice squirrel feeding at the capitol building on September 11.
i need not say more, oh, the pentagon is not a good target? Hmmm, wendell, i think your mad. reverse the mindset and you will see that the pentagon is a 'good" target for terrorists, what better way to "get your message out"
Game plan taken from "1984". Not even Bush's "toughest critics" will dare say what I believe: there are several hundred issues our government has to deal with that are more important and a greater threat to our way of life than these straw-man terrorists
1984?, what about Mein Kampf, you like that one?
oh your sooooo brave for what you believe. straw man terrorists huh.
hmmm, these same people who kill hundreds and on a holy day at a holy site in order
Subscribe
posted by archimago at 6:14 AM on March 5, 2004