Skip

Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations...
July 29, 2004 9:11 PM   Subscribe

In His Own Words -- just in time for FlashQuicktime Friday, Bush's own words, from 2003's State of the Union matched with more appropriate and now-historic imagery than a man standing behind a teleprompter and podium. (Warning: some graphic stuff inside.) Realplayer version available here. and perhaps because not everything deserves the lighthearted jibjab treatment.
posted by amberglow (46 comments total)

 
Oh, I get it.... Bush is Hitler.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:39 PM on July 29, 2004


You still have to prove that you provide a better alternative. Not just really good at making the other look really bad.

well, a better alternative was provided tonight and throughout the convention. (that's not what this post is about tho.)
posted by amberglow at 9:43 PM on July 29, 2004


oh, and this is an independent video thing--no party or group paid for it.
posted by amberglow at 9:44 PM on July 29, 2004


Don't worry, I've already reported this thread to UK resilience.
posted by snarfodox at 9:45 PM on July 29, 2004


While it was interesting to watch and listen to, I don't see it convincing either side that they're on the wrong side. And maybe, if the sides weren't already so polarized and distrustful of the other, maybe it would foster some discussion but as it is, its just some more grist for the each side to use to convince the already convinced.

login, have you been watching the DNC? I haven't heard much at all in the way of what Bush has failed to do and quite alot more of what Kerry will do as President.

Besides, I'll take an unknown possibility over a known failure any day of the week.
posted by fenriq at 9:46 PM on July 29, 2004


Here is a movie of another candidate in his own words as well: Windows Media & Real
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:51 PM on July 29, 2004


I'd put login's words to you, Steve, with that RNC-produced campaign material. You still have to prove that you provide a better alternative. Not just really good at making the other look really bad. (and I hope they paid to use the "Flipper" tv theme song, or they broke the law)

both, login--we vote for all sorts of reasons, some party-related, and some personal (Basically people know what the parties generally stand for in terms of pro-choice, equal rights, social justice, economic opportunity, etc, Personal feelings toward the man himself plays a large part tho too.) I'm emailing the guys that did the video to ask if they're associated to any org. I'll let you know the answer.
posted by amberglow at 10:04 PM on July 29, 2004


I'll take an unknown possibility over a known failure any day of the week.

Word.
posted by rushmc at 10:14 PM on July 29, 2004


"The opinions expressed in this video reflect the views of its creators and have not been approved by the Kerry/Edwards campaign."--posted on the website

I can slap a RNC logo on something too, it doesn't mean it came from the party. You can assume they are "for" the democratic party, but I don't see how you can fairly get mad at the democratic party for this ad if they had nothing to do with it.
posted by rhyax at 10:18 PM on July 29, 2004


Its funny but I went into this election year firmly believing that my motto would be Anybody But Bush in '04! but a funny has happened on the way to election day. I've learned an awful lot more about John Kerry and am no longer voting against Bush, I'm voting for Kerry because I truly believe he is a better and more qualified man to lead our nation.

He may not be perfect but he cares about the nation, all of it, not just the part that gives him money for special considerations.

His record is open, he isn't hiding anything (can you say that Mr. Bush? no, I didn't think so), he served his country honorably and has continued to serve his country honorably even after his military service was over. I know the Republicans in the house will snicker but John Kerry served his country when he protested against the war he'd just fought in. Not only was the war wrong, he showed incredible courage for standing up for his convictions.

And where was George Bush then? Getting shitfaced while AWOL from his National Guard duty in Texas. Oh wait, sorry that should be allegedly getting shitfaced while AWOL since those records have conveniently been lost.

I'm voting for Kerry, I'm voting for an America I can be proud of.
posted by fenriq at 10:21 PM on July 29, 2004


Another great screaming from the coalition of the wild eyed conservatives.

(Watched the antikerry video, good points but I will vote for anybody but George W. Bush because I want a president who is at least as smart as I am.)
posted by Keyser Soze at 10:43 PM on July 29, 2004


So what you're disappointed in is that the millions and millions of people who don't want bush to win the next election don't all speak with one voice and one message? Well, I don't know why you would expect that they would.
posted by rhyax at 11:07 PM on July 29, 2004


Two sites about John Kerry. For the past few weeks, both of these sites have offered articles about Kerry and seemingly none about George W. Bush.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:38 AM on July 30, 2004


Oh wait - after digging a little deeper, I understand now. There's not much to say about Bush.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:40 AM on July 30, 2004


on the video itself, interesting, and I believe there were a lot of great images there. Believe that is, because things edited down to 1/50th of a second are hard to watch.
posted by efalk at 12:44 AM on July 30, 2004


The 'in his own words' video was silly. Yeah, old game, about as much fun as editing his speech to make him say he will destroy freedom.

However the RNC video that Steve posted was terrible. As a professional television editor, the out of context edits are extremely obvious to me. Taking something where someone poses a question and he starts to answer it by stating the gist of the question in his answer and then cutting before he actually answers is hardly an admission of anything.

Also, I do not live in the US, I am not intimately familar with the whole history of this, but this is what I got from this RNC produced video:

Kerry voted to pass the bill authorising the use of force if inspections were not effective. He did not vote for halting inspections and entering war without UN support.

It seems he then said in a number of cases that he voted for the threat of war, which I believe is what that bill was represented to be, but not the actual actions.

Then it seems he voted for a bill to provide funding to the way, in one form, but voted against it presumably with additions or alterations. I don't know what they were.

To me his story seemed pretty consistant, there didn't seem to be a lot of 'flip flops' there. But of course when an interviewer says "you voted for the war" and he says "no I didn't vote for the war..." and then you cut the clip before he actually finishes that can look like a flip flop.

I also noticed that he said he thought terrorism should be fought. And that Iraq was possibly cause for concern. But he didn't seem to say that Iraq and Al Quida were in bed together, or that Iraq was going to nuke Manhatten. Which I understand are the sorts of implications that people are complaining about with Bush.
posted by sycophant at 1:59 AM on July 30, 2004


my point was simply to state that the parties seem more interested in the other than them selves. And I include the "independent" organizations like moveon as party of a party. Because when you're in a 2 party system, if you're against someone, you're pretty much for the other.

At least in regard to the independent organizations, this is partly an artifact of the way the rules for political financing work. You can take endless amounts of money to work against someone, but there are limits and rules to how much money you can raise and spend to work for someone.

In other words, they're only doing what the law says they must do.
posted by anastasiav at 6:37 AM on July 30, 2004


Also...

Are Americans voting for a person, or a party policy?
posted by login at 9:59 PM PST on July 29


Lots of us are voting simply against a person.
posted by tr33hggr at 6:39 AM on July 30, 2004


millions of people would rather sit back and say "Bush is a moron", instead of saying what they should really be doing.

You're not paying attention. We're saying that what you should be doing is to vote against the moron.
posted by rushmc at 7:51 AM on July 30, 2004


Oh, I get it.... Bush is Hitler.

Nice music. Don't you have any idea how uttterly ridiculous and counterproductive this kind of garbage is?

Dennis Kucinich would be so proud.

Lots of us are voting simply against a person.

All of you are, because Kerry doesn't stand for anything.
posted by hama7 at 8:07 AM on July 30, 2004


sycophant: To me his story seemed pretty consistant, there didn't seem to be a lot of 'flip flops' there. But of course when an interviewer says "you voted for the war" and he says "no I didn't vote for the war..." and then you cut the clip before he actually finishes that can look like a flip flop.

You're spot on. The entire Kerry "flip flop persona" is a creation of Karl Rove and the Reupblicans' media manipulators. When examined on its own, there's nothing internally inconsistent about Kerry's positions or voting record. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not familiar with Kerry's positions and voting record; all the know is what the Republicans show them in 30- and 60-second chunks in between wrestling matches and talk shows. Sad, isn't it? I've often wondered if we, as a nation, don't actually deserve a man as braindead simple and media manufactured as George W. Bush...

(The links between Iraq and Al Quaida and the alleged possession of alleged weapons of mass alleged destructions occur in other parts of the speech; these filmmakers apparently chose not to open themselves up to the kind of criticism you make of the Republicans' manipulation by selecting an actual contiguous portion of Bush's address and responding to it.)

hama7, if you'd even bother to...

Oh, fuck it. Never mind. Just go back under your bridge.
posted by JollyWanker at 8:31 AM on July 30, 2004


hama7, you know what, I've given you a pass in the past because you occasionally bring something of value to the table but your wild generalizations are utter shit and you're a fucking moron for even saying them out loud.

Read my last comment, I'm not voting against Bush, I'm voting for Kerry. So there ya go, your little pet theory is bullshit and you are just another dumbass with your thumb up your butt.

Why don't you go post some lame art sites or something?
posted by fenriq at 9:02 AM on July 30, 2004


All of you are, because Kerry doesn't stand for anything.

God, you are tiresome. Could you at least make a claim that can't be brushed away with a simple link?
posted by turaho at 9:43 AM on July 30, 2004


Oh, fuck it. Never mind. Just go back under your bridge.

Mister "conservative". Bravo.

Why don't you go post some lame art sites or something?

Why don't I post what makes MetaFilter a great site to visit, instead of an moonbat, wingnut, left-of-indymedia political pissing contest?

Great Idea.

God, you are tiresome.

John Kerry is an unrepentant liar, an open traitor, a crashing bore, and has nothing to achieve or contribute except for crashingly boring, traitorous, lying rhetoric about "two Americas", higher taxes and destroying the sovereignty of the United States by forcing submission to the feral den of lying lilliputians that is the U.N.

Screw him.
posted by hama7 at 3:35 PM on July 30, 2004


hahaha! Your op-ed pieces don't fool us. Go post a cox and forkum link next time, you disillusioned...... hack. Go read a little history of the United States and develop your intellect beyond the fear of change. Argue your own ideology, and see what is really going on.
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:32 PM on July 30, 2004


wow, five op/eds and blogs. nice "evidence". you're standards for proof are right up there with dubya.
posted by badstone at 4:32 PM on July 30, 2004


oops... "your"
posted by badstone at 4:34 PM on July 30, 2004


So i've been emailing the guy, and he made it with a friend...they're not associated with or being paid by anyone--a labor of love to help defeat Bush.
posted by amberglow at 5:09 PM on July 30, 2004


well hama7, you've completely changed my mind about kerry and bush!
posted by fuq at 5:13 PM on July 30, 2004


But what if what I expect from the government is someone intelligent and capable at the helm?
posted by rushmc at 7:04 PM on July 30, 2004


I think the decision of those guys to include the Kerry/Edwards logo at the end was silly - it implys authority or officialness, regardless of what the disclaimer says.

In fact when I first saw the FPP movie, I assumed, based on the cliche backlash nature of it that it was a republican supporter that made it to get a little knee-jerk response against the Kerry/Edwards campaign for 'making' a movie that juxtaposes Bush with Hitler.
posted by sycophant at 7:24 PM on July 30, 2004


There are plenty of intelligent and capable people that fit your criteria.

Certainly there are. The point here being that Bush is not one of them.
posted by rushmc at 9:24 PM on July 30, 2004


semi-related: a new Get Your War On
posted by amberglow at 7:11 AM on July 31, 2004


Login,

I am voting for Kerry for B:

B) Or is it because you want better public health care, affordable secondary education, and a government that's fiscally responsible?

Any argument as to why Bush would be better able to provide these things? As far as I can tell his record on each of these issues is terrible. I want to wake up from this nightmare.
posted by xammerboy at 9:31 AM on July 31, 2004


All of you are, because Kerry doesn't stand for anything.

which, we have all decided, is far better than standing for greed, corruption, non-acheivement, theft on a massive scale, deception, and spewing the entrails of our poor and minority youth across a foreign landscape littered with the pryed-open rectums of innocent children.
posted by quonsar at 10:18 AM on July 31, 2004


spewing the entrails of our poor and minority youth across a foreign landscape

How droll. Our "poor" and "minority" youth once included one non-poor and non-minority youth in the form of John F. Kerry, remember?

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry
.
posted by hama7 at 3:18 PM on July 31, 2004


Our "poor" and "minority" youth once included one non-poor and non-minority youth in the form of John F. Kerry, remember?

and in the form of Bush and Cheney....

um, hama? there was a draft then--it's not like it is now.

Kerry chose not to get out of it, unlike most of the people of his class (see Bush, Cheney, and Clinton). Didn't you even watch the convention? Clinton's speech was partially about just that.
posted by amberglow at 4:59 PM on July 31, 2004



How droll. Our "poor" and "minority" youth once included one non-poor and non-minority youth in the form of John F. Kerry, remember?


what the fuck does 1969 have to do with the largely poor, black and hispanic entrails currently being spewed? try to focus, asshole.
posted by quonsar at 7:11 PM on July 31, 2004


I got another email from one of the guys that made this--he's been following the thread:
1. The John Kerry/John Edwards super at the end of our video is a call to action and not the DNC logo. The DNC logo does not appear anywhere in the video. This video is the expression of two people, not an entire party. There is room for many messages out there. If you pay attention, you will hear a lot about John Kerry, John Edwards and what the Democrats have planned. That doesn't mean that criticism of Bush should be excluded from the dialogue. He is the President of the United States and that is a position that invites, if not demands criticism.
2. Our video is not intended to Bush-bash, but to point out the hypocrisy of his administration. When he delivered the State of the Union, he was warning Americans about the dangers of leaders like Saddam Hussein. Judging by your comments, I must assume that some of you would categorize Bush's speech as merely a cheap assault on Hussein's character ("Saddam-bashing"), but I took his words very seriously. Now, due to Bush's decisions and actions, his dire words could just as easily apply to his own administration. This is not trivial Bush-bashing, like when people say he is a moron or that Kerry has a big chin. If the fact that an American president is behaving more like a dictator than a democratic leader is not an issue worth addressing, then I don't know what is.
3. Please, do not equate criticism of Bush's handling of the unilateral war on Iraq with calling John Kerry a "flip-flopper". Changing one's mind based on new information and new facts is called learning. It's why most of us now believe the world is flat. When you actually do research, you will learn that John Kerry often changed his mind because he had learned something new. And other times he did it based on principle. For example, when he voted against the proposed budget for the war on Iraq (the favorite example of the RNC), it was because it was being presented along with yet further tax-breaks for the rich. He only voted in favor of it once the tax breaks were removed. The label of "flip-flopper" is based on half-truths and relies on the hope that the American public will never actaully do the work required to look beyond the label. To say that Bush has severely jeopardized our security and standing in the world is not a cheap label, because the facts support it. If I am mistaken, then please, dispute the facts with me.

posted by amberglow at 7:15 AM on August 1, 2004


Well said. Give this guy a membership!
posted by rushmc at 7:45 AM on August 1, 2004


The Case Against George W. Bush

By Ron Reagan

Oddly, even my father's funeral contributed. Throughout that long, stately, overtelevised week in early June, items would appear in the newspaper discussing the Republicans' eagerness to capitalize (subtly, tastefully) on the outpouring of affection for my father and turn it to Bush's advantage for the fall election. The familiar "Heir to Reagan" puffballs were reinflated and loosed over the proceedings like (subtle, tasteful) Mylar balloons. Predictably, this backfired. People were treated to a side-by-side comparison—Ronald W. Reagan versus George W. Bush—and it's no surprise who suffered for it. Misty-eyed with nostalgia, people set aside old political gripes for a few days and remembered what friend and foe always conceded to Ronald Reagan: He was damned impressive in the role of leader of the free world. A sign in the crowd, spotted during the slow roll to the Capitol rotunda, seemed to sum up the mood—a portrait of my father and the words NOW THERE WAS A PRESIDENT.

The comparison underscored something important. And the guy on the stool, Lynndie, and her grinning cohorts, they brought the word: The Bush administration can't be trusted. The parade of Bush officials before various commissions and committees—Paul Wolfowitz, who couldn't quite remember how many young Americans had been sacrificed on the altar of his ideology; John Ashcroft, lip quivering as, for a delicious, fleeting moment, it looked as if Senator Joe Biden might just come over the table at him—these were a continuing reminder. The Enron creeps, too—a reminder of how certain environments and particular habits of mind can erode common decency. People noticed. A tipping point had been reached. The issue of credibility was back on the table. The L-word was in circulation. Not the tired old bromide liberal. That's so 1988. No, this time something much more potent: liar.

Politicians will stretch the truth. They'll exaggerate their accomplishments, paper over their gaffes. Spin has long been the lingua franca of the political realm. But George W. Bush and his administration have taken "normal" mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. On top of the usual massaging of public perception, they traffic in big lies, indulge in any number of symptomatic small lies, and, ultimately, have come to embody dishonesty itself. They are a lie. And people, finally, have started catching on.

None of this, needless to say, guarantees Bush a one-term presidency. The far-right wing of the country—nearly one third of us by some estimates—continues to regard all who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid (liberals, rationalists, Europeans, et cetera) as agents of Satan. Bush could show up on video canoodling with Paris Hilton and still bank their vote. Right-wing talking heads continue painting anyone who fails to genuflect deeply enough as a "hater," and therefore a nut job, probably a crypto-Islamist car bomber. But these protestations have taken on a hysterical, almost comically desperate tone. It's one thing to get trashed by Michael Moore. But when Nobel laureates, a vast majority of the scientific community, and a host of current and former diplomats, intelligence operatives, and military officials line up against you, it becomes increasingly difficult to characterize the opposition as fringe wackos.

posted by y2karl at 7:58 AM on August 1, 2004


Changing one's mind based on new information and new facts is called learning. It's why most of us now believe the world is flat.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaa....?
posted by kindall at 9:01 AM on August 1, 2004


He made a little mistake, kindall--i was gonna change it, but then figured i shouldn't. You know he meant "round", no?
posted by amberglow at 9:06 AM on August 1, 2004


Y'know...
posted by homunculus at 1:10 PM on August 1, 2004


You can change people's comments now, amber?!?
posted by rushmc at 2:55 PM on August 1, 2004


He emailed it to me, rush. He's not a member.
posted by amberglow at 2:59 PM on August 1, 2004


« Older Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful...   |   Happy Sys Admin Day! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post