Political Ads?

[bturk667]

What are your thoughts about Bush's reelection campaign using imagies of the 9/11 tragedy in their ads? One of the images is of fire - fighters carrying a casket adorn with an American flag.

[Chris]

I think they've got some nerve running an ad like that, but that's just me. Trying to use 9/11 to drum up emotion and anxiety. You can't tell me you're surprised by this type of ad? especially with the type of campaign he's planning to run. He will be feeding on fear and promising national security - trying to make his opponent seem as if he were unable to defend us from further attacks. His top supporters have already began preaching this. It's almost as if they want you to be afraid to vote for anyone but Bush... Hopefully people will see past all the fluff and just make an educated vote.

This election promises to be very interesting - that's for sure. You're gonna have to look deep into each candidate, find their character, what drives them, and whether or not you think they'll do what's right for our nation. Do you agree with what Bush has done in office? Do you think Kerry will do better? The ensuing campaign boxing match isn't going to tell you much except how dirty each one is willing to fight.

[bturk667]

No Chris, I am not surprised gy this type of ad. Both sides use shameless ads things like these. I was just hoping that this time aroung they wouldn't. Sadly, I guess I was mistaken!

It is going to be a brutal, and interesting election. This time I hope the courts will not have to decide the winner. Last time the people spoke, but the other guy won. This time I hope the one who gets the majority of the votes wins. Even if the system in place does not guaranty this!

[piece-it pete]

No Chris, I am not surprised gy this type of ad. Both sides use shameless ads things like these. I was just hoping that this time aroung they wouldn't. Sadly, I guess I was mistaken!

It is going to be a brutal, and interesting election. This time I hope the courts will not have to decide the winner. Last time the people spoke, but the other guy won. This time I hope the one who gets the majority of the votes wins. Even if the system in place does not guaranty this!

Haha we (the American electorate) have always been victrolic at election time. Have you ever looked at the old newspapers? They were partisan and made no bones about it! Personal insults, slander, the whole stinkin' mess, they make a modern election look like a love-in.

Kerry has bashed Bush repeatedly over the war on terror. Bush is responding.

Our election will look like this:

Economy:
Party A: Better!
Party B: Worse!
Wanker!
Slacker!
Yo mamma!
No, yo mamma!
Ptttthiibbbt!
Ack!

War on terror:
Party A: Better!
Party B: Worse!
Wanker!
Slacker!
Yo mamma!
No, yo mamma!
Ptttthiibbbt!
Ack!

Social Security:
Party A: Better!
Party B: Worse!
Wanker!
Slacker!
Yo mamma!
No, yo mamma!
Ptttthiibbbt!
Ack!

:confused: :p: :rolleyes: :eek: :D

You get the idea lol!! Nothing of real substance, either party, to speak intellegently is the kiss of death.

I hope it goes to Congress! It would be exciting, and a good, close race, though devisive, shows that our two party system is healthy, that we are indeed keeping each other in check.

My suggested mascot for both sides:

[JSE]

I don't really have an issue with them. He was our President during that time. He handled it well. Why would he not want to remind us of this before an ELECTION! Many people think Kerry is weak when it comes to Terrorism. Bush should capitalize on this.

Alot of people just seem to not want to be reminded of 9/11. Myself and many others want to be reminded of it everyday so we don't lose sight of the terrorist threat. The left on the other hand, would like nothing better.

It's politics. Get used to it. It's going to get much hairier (word?) between now and November.

JSE

[Chris]

Haha we (the American electorate) have always been victrolic at election time. Have you ever looked at the old newspapers? They were partisan and made no bones about it! Personal insults, slander, the whole stinkin' mess, they make a modern election look like a love-in.

Kerry has bashed Bush repeatedly over the war on terror. Bush is responding.

Our election will look like this:

Economy:
Party A: Better!
Party B: Worse!
Wanker!
Slacker!
Yo mamma!
No, yo mamma!
Ptttthiibbbt!
Ack!

War on terror:
Party A: Better!
Party B: Worse!
Wanker!
Slacker!
Yo mamma!
No, yo mamma!
Ptttthiibbbt!
Ack!

Social Security:
Party A: Better!
Party B: Worse!
Wanker!
Slacker!
Yo mamma!
No, yo mamma!
Ptttthiibbbt!
Ack!

:confused: :p: :rolleyes: :eek: :D

You get the idea lol!! Nothing of real substance, either party, to speak intellegently is the kiss of death.

I hope it goes to Congress! It would be exciting, and a good, close race, though devisive, shows that our two party system is healthy, that we are indeed keeping each other in check.

My suggested mascot for both sides:

Right on Pete - I have to agree.

[Chris]

It's politics. Get used to it. It's going to get much hairier (word?) between now and November.

JSE
No doubt.

I don't think the Bush camp should use 9/11 in his campaign fight though. It just seems a little inappropriate and distasteful - I know, I know, come election time, I know anything goes. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded so early on - we all remember clearly already... hell, some are are still mourning. That's probably why many of the victims' family members have already expressed their frustration with the ads. I don't know, I'm just a bit uneasy with the guy using the tragedy as a way of trying to get re-elected myself. From interviews I watched on the news last night, I'm not the only one.

[tugmcmartin]

No doubt.

I don't think the Bush camp should use 9/11 in his campaign fight though. It just seems a little inappropriate and distasteful - I know, I know, come election time, I know anything goes. I don't think anyone needs to be reminded so early on - we all remember clearly already... hell, some are are still mourning. That's probably why many of the victims' family members have already expressed their frustration with the ads. I don't know, I'm just a bit uneasy with the guy using the tragedy as a way of trying to get re-elected myself. From interviews I watched on the news last night, I'm not the only one.
Would you have the same feeling if FDR used Pearl Harbor or WWII as a campaign platform? What about Lincoln stumping from Gettysburg? What about Kerry using the tragedy of the Vietnam War in his campaign? Many people lost their lives during those wars.

Have we really gotten (as a nation) to a point where we're so PC and "sensitive" that we are we not allowed to talk about war or use war-related images during political seasons because some people don't want to be reminded of the loss of life that occurs (occurred) during them? What a crock of ****e! The above illustrations have all happened and have had a dramatic affect on the politics and policies of this country. Any student of history has to recognize this. 9/11 is no different. It must be a part of the dialogue during this election cycle. To pretend like it didn't happen and hasn't had an impact of politics and policies would be a big dis-service to all citizens. So bravo to the Bushies for reminding us of the threats that face this nation and trying to keep this as part of the election debate. I just hope that this won't be his only platform. I'd love to hear some more detail on the domestic policy front in terms of jobs, taxes and this gay-marriage amendment nonsense.

T-

[jack70]

Come on! They're (Bush camp) supposed to just ignore 9-11? To pretend it hasn't been at the heart & center of Bush's Presidency over the past few years?

BTW, Roosevelt NEVER mentioned Peral Harbor in his re-election either, right? Gimme a break.

It was done about as tastefully as one could hope for... no heavy handedness. I didn't see a THING "distastful" about it Chris. Funny, most of the complaining about this ad seems to go (percentag-wise) strickly on party lines... ain't that funny?



Alot of people just seem to not want to be reminded of 9/11. Myself and many others want to be reminded of it everyday so we don't lose sight of the terrorist threat.
Reminds me of this story: There was a caller on a local radio show who related the story she had at a gas station last week. She had a small photo inside one of her car windows of the towers, that was the result of 9-11 and some friends who had died there as a reminder ("never forget" kind-of thing). The guy at the gas station asked her what that was... when she said "you remember 9-11?" he looked confused and walked away. It's stunning how quickly people forget. What a country, huh?

I guess you all would rather have all Americans be like that moron... just pretend it never happened, and pretend it still isn't at the heart of Bush's priorities (whatever we think of the particulars... PS- I didn't vote for him).

[Chris]

Would you have the same feeling if FDR used Pearl Harbor or WWII as a campaign platform? What about Lincoln stumping from Gettysburg? What about Kerry using the tragedy of the Vietnam War in his campaign? Many people lost their lives during those wars.

Have we really gotten (as a nation) to a point where we're so PC and "sensitive" that we are we not allowed to talk about war or use war-related images during political seasons because some people don't want to be reminded of the loss of life that occurs (occurred) during them? What a crock of ****e! The above illustrations have all happened and have had a dramatic affect on the politics and policies of this country. Any student of history has to recognize this. 9/11 is no different. It must be a part of the dialogue during this election cycle. To pretend like it didn't happen and hasn't had an impact of politics and policies would be a big dis-service to all citizens. So bravo to the Bushies for reminding us of the threats that face this nation and trying to keep this as part of the election debate. I just hope that this won't be his only platform. I'd love to hear some more detail on the domestic policy front in terms of jobs, taxes and this gay-marriage amendment nonsense.

T-
I would never say we should pretend it didn't happen. I for one remember the tragedy very clearly, and I think everyone else does too - but to use those images for the purpose of hitting the emotional soft spot of the people for personal gain (to help yourself get re-elected) is something that kind of bothered me when I saw it. And yes, if FDR used Peal Harbor images in his campaign (which he probably did), I would probably have had the same feelings. I guess that's just me.

[Chris]

Funny, most of the complaining about this ad seems to go (percentag-wise) strickly on party lines... ain't that funny? Well of course - and those who have a problem with people who don't like the ads? You can easily point out what side of the party line they're on too, right? Come on, what about just a natural reaction? Or does every reaction have to be a Dem reaction or a Rep reaction? You can classify my reaction to the ad however you want. In my mind, it has little to do with party lines for me... I just thought it was a little inappropriate - but as I said, election campaigns aren't about what's appropriate - they're about doing what it takes to win. Pete already said that, and I agreed.

[tugmcmartin]

I would never say we should pretend it didn't happen. I for one remember the tragedy very clearly, and I think everyone else does too - but to use those images for the purpose of hitting the emotional soft spot of the people for personal gain (to help yourself get re-elected) is something that kind of bothered me when I saw it. And yes, if FDR used Peal Harbor images in his campaign (which he probably did), I would probably have had the same feelings. I guess that's just me.
Well, at least you're consistent. Gotta give you props for that. The intent of my post wasn't to criticize you for feeling the way felt, so i hope you didn't get that tone. I just wanted to know if you'd have had the same feelings in other situations. Thanks for the honest answers. As someone else said, you're one of the most level-headed folks in here. Though i still think you're a little too far left for my tastes ;) . Doesn't mean we can't get along though!

T-

[JSE]

"What about Kerry using the tragedy of the Vietnam War in his campaign?"

A very good point. I don't see one bit of difference except for the fact that Vietnam is done and over in terms of a threat to us. 9/11 however is still vey significant in the fact that we are still dealing with the aftershock.


And Chris,

"That's probably why many of the victims' family members have already expressed their frustration with the ads"

Funny, we all see and hear what we want. For example, I have seen many family members of 9/11 victims express that they feel the ads are appropriate and have no problem with them. There have been a few articles to show this as well as interviews on radio and TV. As I often say, you won't see this on CNN or ABC though. They want drama.

JSE

[Chris]

"What about Kerry using the tragedy of the Vietnam War in his campaign?"

A very good point. I don't see one bit of difference except for the fact that Vietnam is done and over in terms of a threat to us. 9/11 however is still vey significant in the fact that we are still dealing with the aftershock.


And Chris,

"That's probably why many of the victims' family members have already expressed their frustration with the ads"

Funny, we all see and hear what we want. For example, I have seen many family members of 9/11 victims express that they feel the ads are appropriate and have no problem with them. There have been a few articles to show this as well as interviews on radio and TV. As I often say, you won't see this on CNN or ABC though. They want drama.

JSE Hey, you can't fault me for not seeing everything in one evening - I flipped on the TV last night (most likely NBC) and saw them interviewing victims who didn't like the ads. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "many" in that statement, as it could imply "most" victims.

Hey Jeskibuff - I really don't care who is on what side of the line. As long as they can think for themselves and use good fair judgement, I can deal with em.

[JSE]

"Hey, you can't fault me for not seeing everything in one evening - I flipped on the TV last night (most likely NBC) and saw them interviewing victims who didn't like the ads. "

Dangit man! What are ya good for! :D

JSE

[piece-it pete]

It's bad for right wing business :) !

It shows how an occasional bipartisan bill slips through, though.

I never really said one way or the other how I felt about these particular ads.

I think it's prefectly legit, while understanding those who don't like it (I'm sounding more like a politician all the time lol).

9-11 has been of course the defining issue of this century. I believe Bush has every right to point out that it was he who lead us through it, and that but for some elderly Floridians it could have been ....... someone else. He's fine showing that we might have had the perfect team at the helm during this kind of crisis. People haven't changed much, we're still three meals away from revolution, panic can do bad things. Having his calm, measured response was about the best we could have asked for.

So no, the commercials don't bother me at all, and I think he has every right to mention that there has been no successful attacks since then, and that he's got something big to do with it.

What I don't expect in sound bite election bits is complete honesty, intellegent discourse, or any kind of real civility.

The response to these ads is hardly spontaneous. 2-3 Years ago, a bunch of high-level Dem policy wonks sat around and said "how are we going to sabotage Bushs' 9-11 ads?" at the same time the GOP was thinking about how to exploit it.

Pete

[jeskibuff]

we (the American electorate) have always been victrolic at election time.Does that mean that we break out the old Victrola and cue up some vintage vinyl?? Should we all gather around it and break into a chorus of "Yankee Doodle Dandy"?? :D
http://website.ubuilder.com/chryspage/library/25040-victrola.gif
I think the word you were looking for was "vitriolic", but on an audio website I'd consider it to be a perfectly valid substitution! ;)

Kerry has bashed Bush repeatedly over the war on terror. Bush is responding.With the Democratic primararies mainly behind us now, suddenly it's not the lopsided "punch Bush and not get punched back" routine anymore, is it? Now they're starting to whine and wail when the Bush camp responds. Something tells me we're going to be hearing A LOT of whining and wailing over the next 8 months!

Party A: Better!
Party B: Worse!
Wanker!
Slacker!
Yo mamma!
No, yo mamma!
Ptttthiibbbt!
Ack!VERY funny, Pete! :D I especially love the "Bill The Cat" cartoon! What a sad time it was that Breathed, Larson and Watterson decided to no longer bless us with their comic genius!

The above illustrations have all happened and have had a dramatic affect on the politics and policies of this country. Any student of history has to recognize this.BINGO! Hit it square on the head, you did!
I look at it like a car restoration. During most of his 8 years, Clinton rode a nice shiny car that was given to him. At times, it looked REAL shiny as the dot-com bubble kept a glossy sheen on it! He was real proud of it, but he really didn't contribute a lot to its upkeep. He didn't change the oil, the tires, the plugs or the belts, but he DID keep it shiny! It served him well, but in the last year of his ownership, it showed signs of deterioration. The tires were bald, the engine was billowing blue smoke and there was rust eating out the floor pans. But for the most part, everyone saw Clinton riding around in this nice shiny car.
Then Bush got handed the keys. The car was rapidly decaying at this point and the rust was starting to eat through the visible sheet metal. Then some vandals took a sledgehammer to it and torched it. It took a long time and a lot of effort, but Bush got the car looking and running good again. He got it to a certain point and was ridiculed: "It doesn't look NEARLY as good as it did when Clinton owned it". This was true. The car still had a long way to go:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/1968mustang/RedShl02.jpg
So, how does Bush defend himself against this truthful accusation? The economy still isn't as robust and the unemployment figures are still too high.

ANYONE can look like they're doing a good job when there is no adversity to deal with and all the cards just fall into place. The mark of a REAL leader is one who is challenged with adversity and responds to it accordingly. Bush has had major adversities to deal with: the Clinton recession, 9/11 and the resulting airline crisis, Enron & Arthur Anderson, the dot-com bubble burst, H1-B visas exporting American jobs, etc. But despite all that, THINGS ARE IMPROVING. The Democrats don't want to admit that they are. When Bush was wildly popular right after 9/11, they focused the attention on the economy and tax cuts, boldly saying that it would NEVER improve under Bush's "risky scheme". As soon as the economy began an undeniable upwards swing, they had to switch their attacks to the loss of jobs. But jobs are the last thing to recover from in a recession, and that will eventually change too. With the changes in an economy that are becoming ever more global, things will never be exactly the way they were before, but THEY'RE GETTING BETTER.
Bush is doing the right thing and has a vision for the future:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/1968mustang/HoodSripe1.jpg
The Democrats will complain that it's not like it was before, and Bush admits that yes, there is still more to be accomplished. Using 9/11 in political ads is just saying: "Look what we had to deal with!", and that's a FAIR defense!

http://www3.sympatico.ca/1968mustang/68shel-f.jpg

[jack70]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jack70
Funny, most of the complaining about this ad seems to go (percentag-wise) strickly on party lines... ain't that funny?

Well of course - and those who have a problem with people who don't like the ads? You can easily point out what side of the party line they're on too, right? Come on, what about just a natural reaction? Or does every reaction have to be a Dem reaction or a Rep reaction? You can classify my reaction to the ad however you want. In my mind, it has little to do with party lines for me... I just thought it was a little inappropriate - but as I said, election campaigns aren't about what's appropriate - they're about doing what it takes to win. Pete already said that, and I agreed.

Chris, I wasn't saying you, or any specific person would express views solely along party lines... just that the national polls I saw on this topic broke down ALMOST EXACTLY this way. So I don't necessarily think EVERYONE would fall in line here... just the more general observation that MOST people choose sides on these type of issues. I've seen happen ALL the time when THE SAME thing happens to one party's candidate vs the THE SAME thing by the other party... it's hypocrisy that drives me crazy. Too many of these types go along with their party affiliation's thinking AFTER they see their party's talking points & "propaganda" amplified in the media, et al.

I'm a libertarian, and I credit far-left people on occasion, as well as far-right people, when they give sensible opinions and make sensible legislation. But the real die-hard partisians of either party NEVER do that. It's that kind of thinking that makes me (and a growing majority of voters) so cynical of politics. It's not the issue, it's only the team they're most interested in. It's weak, lazy thinking of the worst kind. It's partly why we continue to avoid major future problems like social security reform and major tax reform (IRS & the beauracracy from hell). I blame partisians from BOTH sides equally.

I can understand some having those opinions on 9-11... and I guess it's a fine line as to exactly what images should be used... but you have to admit SOME image HAD to be used? I just didn't think it was an "in your face" type ad at all. If you had 90% of people in the polls I saw saying that, you might have a point.

[bturk667]

Maybe the reason Bush should not have used the image of the firefighters carrying the casket, is because he clamped down on the media in doing so. He extended and expanded a policy that bannes reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soilders killed in combat. The White House said the policy was enforced to "spare the feelings of military families." Now I understand that those who died in the 9/11 bombing were not soilders, but the principal seems to be the same. Should not the White House want to spare the feelings of the families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 boming? Maybe the answer is YES, except when it is used for political gain. Just a thought!

[bturk667]

Justifying what one does by bringing up things that never happened, interesting. Did FDR or Lincoln? I did not agree with Kerry. Funny, I think Bush reminds us about the terrorist threat almost everyday, and now he is doing so in a political ad.

One question for you: Did you agree with Kerry's tactic of using the Vietnam War? I am assuming you did since you agree with Bush's taticts of using 9/11.

[tugmcmartin]

Maybe the reason Bush should not have used the image of the firefighters carrying the casket, is because he clamped down on the media in doing so. He extended and expanded a policy that bannes reporters from photographing flag-draped caskets of soilders killed in combat. The White House said the policy was enforced to "spare the feelings of military families." Now I understand that those who died in the 9/11 bombing were not soilders, but the principal seems to be the same. Should not the White House want to spare the feelings of the families who lost loved ones in the 9/11 boming? Maybe the answer is YES, except when it is used for political gain. Just a thought!
Wow. I didn't realize there was a policy banning media from showing flag-draped caskets of soldiers killed in combat. If that's the case, then that would be a huge double standard deserving of some questioning. Funny though, i remember seeing several images of flag-draped caskets when the Denver media covers Fort Carson soldiers killed in Iraq returning home for funerals.

T-

[tugmcmartin]

Justifying what one does by bringing up things that never happened, interesting. Did FDR or Lincoln? I did not agree with Kerry. Funny, I think Bush reminds us about the terrorist threat almost everyday, and now he is doing so in a political ad.

One question for you: Did you agree with Kerry's tactic of using the Vietnam War? I am assuming you did since you agree with Bush's taticts of using 9/11.
I think this post was directed at me, since i originally brought up those points.

FDR did in fact campaign on WWII and had a campaign button that read "I remember Pearl Harbor". To me, there's not a whole lot of difference between FDR doing that and Bush using 9/11 images during campaign commercials. Can't say if Lincoln ever did make a campaign speech from Gettysburg, but i wouldn't have been upset if he did. I do know that the Civil War was a central issue in his reelection bid in 1864. His campaign slogan was something to the effect of "Don't swap horses in midstream". Though i haven't seen Bush's ad, from what i understand the message is similar. I just don't see a problem with it if its done tastefully.

And yeah, i didn't care that Kerry was using Vietnam as an issue. I just couldn't believe that someone who didn't want it to be an issue during Clinton's election's all of a sudden wanted to use it as an issue now. I've always felt someone's military service (or attempt's to get out of it) are legitimate issues during a presidential campaign. After all, these people want to be Commander-in-Chief's of our military. But military service (or lack thereof) shouldn't be a primary issue, especially when there's a 25 year congressional voting record that would better demonstrate one's ability to oversee national defense than a 4-month stint in Vietnam. Military service is only a small part of the equation and it doesn't make someone immune from questions about world-views and policies one would likely take with them into the White House. Military service also doesn't automatically make you an expert in foreign affairs.

T-

[bturk667]

It is strange that the Denver media had such images. None the less, it is a White House policy.

[bturk667]

I get your point, I just do not agree with it. Once, just once, I would like to see and hear an intelligent election. One that had no name calling, one that was civil!

[JSE]

" Once, just once, I would like to see and hear an intelligent election. One that had no name calling, one that was civil!"

Maybe one where "Bush is a Liar" is not the sole platform and one where a president is not compared to Hitler and one where people do not call Past and Current presidents A-Holes all the time. Sound familiar?

JSE

[Chris]

Dangit man! What are ya good for! :D

JSE
:) stirrin the shiznit I guess.

[bturk667]

What do you mean by "Sound familiar?"

[JSE]

What do you mean by "Sound familiar?"


Does it remind you of a person or persons?

JSE

[JSE]

:) stirrin the shiznit I guess.


WORD! (old school)

JSE

[bturk667]

It was a simple question, wasn't it?

[Chris]

I know, I know, this is beating a dead horse at this point, but I just found this quote which sums up the way I feel about the ads exactly:

“I have a problem with exploiting death for political gain,” he said. “I’d have the same problem if Democrats used images of body bags coming back from Iraq in one of their ads.”

It came from a guy who lost his son in the 9/11 attacks. I'm not saying all victims' families feel like this, but this was my initial feeling when I saw the ads. Okay, I'm done with this subject now....

[bturk667]

I could not agree more!