George Bush starts his re-election campaign

Remove all ads!

Well, I knew someone was going to do this, so I thought it might as well be me.

Take a look at GWBs schnappy new commercials to woo the American public into thinking we're, ehm... "stronger, better, and something or other."

I love that they take the stance that our economy is in good shape...

Edit: interesting development, evidently the ad that shows the wreckage of the trade center in the background has drawn a lot of heat from victims families and the firefighters union.

[ March 04, 2004, 18:05: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]

 

Consider me one them as of now!!!!

 

Everything in the commercial is from 2001. I guess nothing important happened in 2002 and 2003!

 

They played [part of at least] a radio add for the Bush campaign on UK radio yesterday on the way home.

Let's just say it was appalling. It was nothing about policy, all about how We are 'stronger', 'better' etc, etc, and how Bush is 'proven leader' All done in some soft paternal voice. YUK. I dare any politician to try that in Europe. I could think of no greater turn-off of the electorate than that.

I'll look at the TV adds later, but if they reflect the same sort of utter garbage, I have to say real politics in the US is as dead as the Dodo. Perhaps I knew that anyway.

 

From the way you describe that radio ad (I haven't heard any yet), don't bother with wasting your time downloading the tv ads from the website, more of the same, except with schnappy visuals of old people and firemen, and stuff.

I've been more than a little suprised at how much negative attention the 9/11 reference has gotten though, its all over the news here. The only problem with this is, with television, any attention is good attention.

 

ArtEChoke has hit the nail on the head.

It's all part of a diabolical plot. People are flocking to see the commercials to determine for themselves whether they are offensive, never realizing that they are then subjected to a devious and undetectable form of "mind-control" due to subliminal images...For no good reason, after seeing the commercials, people feel like voting Conservative and wearing grey.

If you play them backwards you can clearly hear Bob Dole's voice saying "Kerry takes Viagra."



[edit] It is my understanding that those who object to the commercials are a rather vocal minority...most people who suffered personal loss due to 9/11 seem to be fine about it.

[ March 05, 2004, 16:15: Message edited by: Hacken Slash ]

 

I knew it.

 

I must say I hate Bush and America's anti terorist plan. 9/11 is no reason the thread the rest of the world as places you can't trust with people you must keep your eye on!

Bush just needed 9/11 to justify his war for oil! I hope America gets brains soon and will know the meaning of: Thou shall not reelect!

 

Today's Wall Street Journal editorial makes two good points:

1) Given that 9/11 is considered one of the most (if not THE most) significant political events of Bush's term; given that Bush has justified his entire foreign policy on 9/11; and given that Bush's opponents (foreign and domestic) have attacked Bush precisely for acting inappropriately vis-a-vis 9/11; then wouldn't it be irrational for Republicans and Democrats to NOT mention 9/11 in their political ads?!?

It was even used in the 2002 Superbowl pregame show, for goodness' sake!

2) If it's wrong for Bush to exploit 9/11 for political advantage...then is it all right for Kerry to exploit Vietnam for political advantage?

[edit: Actually, this says it a lot better:]

[ March 06, 2004, 00:44: Message edited by: Grey Magistrate ]

 

The WSJ hired a great sophist. What's the name? Max Boot? Charles Krauthammer? Bleh.

They compare Bush exploiting 911 with Kerry 'exploiting' Vietnam and suggest as both do that it is legitimate in the end, even more as Bush's whole policy circled around 911 - as it is all interparty biased, and all 'exploit' something, all positions are as legitimate, right?

Well, no.

To suggest that Kerry's 'exploiting' of Vietnam is comparable with Bush's exploiting ot 911 is dishonest.

Why? Kerry went in the line of fire and got his three purple hearts in Vietnam; Kerry's courage is a personal merit. The only thing that can be, and consequently is, compared with Kerry's Vietnam service is what Bush did in that time, and that concentrates iirc basically on having fun while keeping his minibar well supplied. That is a question of character, a thing Americans put quite an emphasis on in the election campaign. So, Kerry refers to his own achievements, and does not 'exploit' his merits.

What merits did Bush exactly earn on 911? He happened to be president at the time, a job he did not quite take serious until then (maybe someone remebers his extended holidays only a little before 911). And after? The war on Iraq, the big focus of Bush's foreign policy, didn't have much to do with 911 too - no link between Al Quaeda and 911 (just in case someone missed that). And insofar, Iraq as a war was not at all justified by 911.

No problem for the authors it seems.

But then, what personal achievement is Bush referring to with 911? The till now quite successful stonewalling? Or his honest grief at Ground Zero?

Hardly, he instrumentalises the emotional moment of 911. That is abuse.

 

Sorta like making a stink over National Guard Pay stubs from 1972?

George W. Bush as President will always be associated and defined (at least in part) by the events of 9/11. It is not wrong for him to use them as part of his campaign message.

All you have to do is look at his approval ratings in the months following the attack to see that the connection between the two is valid and hits most Americans on a very intrinsic level. It is only because of a growing sense of disapproval withing many Americans that this is an issue anyway.

May you all should just give credit that at least it isn't negative campaigning. As I have said previously, the Americans who actually don't like the ads are in the minority.

 

My point - and the WSJ's point, too - was that both pro- and anti-Bush politicos are not only fully within their rights to bring up 9/11, but they'd be crazy NOT to. You, Ragusa, spent a valid post bashing Bush about his response to 9/11. Great! That's the nature of a political campaign - you take the issue at hand, and the two (or three, or seven) sides duke it out. No one profits if we decide that such-and-such an issue is off the table because it would be "exploiting" the issue - whether we're discussing 9/11 or Vietnam.

To quote from the article I linked to (wow, I think this is the only time I've ever linked more in a thread than you, Ragusa!):

 

For me the jury is still out on the 911 reference. I think he may be crossing the line using that imagery for the following reason:

The idea behind the ads are that because of Bush's administration, the US is "stronger, better, etc."

Flash to a shot of the world trade center, where 2000+ people were killed. Yes, it was the focal point of his entire policy, and without it, where would he be, but in a commercial that emphasizes "better" and so on, perhaps that's a bit inappropriate.

Anyway, again, I'm not sure where I stand on that, and I'm not sure where Hacken Slash got the idea that I was drumming up a conspiracy theory.

I do however, find it interesting that instead of his gung-ho attitude he's clearly trying to take a paternal stance in the commercials.

Who is he trying to get through to? The conservatives like hardcore cowboy routine, so is the "Pa and Ma America" act trying to woo the soft bellied liberals over?

 

That is not a universally accepted opinion. I've heard this from every Vietnam Vet I know.

Go Here

 

I think the Bush ad's ARE exploitive and disturbing. Bush did not do anything to help prevent 9/11 and he did nothing in the wake of 9/11 to help our country to recover or prevent future terrorist attacks(unless you consider cliche' speeches to be a great achievement).
I don't think he should be brought up on charges or anything I just think that Americans SHOULD see through such pandering and exploitation and send a clear message back to him(as in get out of office!).
I would have no problem with a republican or democrat talking about their military service as it goes to their qualities or leadership, courage and character. If Kerry had never served in Viet Nam then I would think his displaying images of viet nam soldiers or vets to be exploitive.

Bush not only did not serve in Viet Nam..he did not 'serve' in WASHINGTON(Or New York...or Texas or Oregon...)! He did not 'serve' in AMERICA!

However, I think there is a more disturbing issue here: The fact that Bush's admin. has outlined his campaign sttrategy and makes no bones about their intentions...to BUY the election!

He cannot match Kerry on the issues. He is not a match for Kerry(or anyone else except maybe ALan Keyes or Pat Robertson)intelelctually. He sucks when it comes to civil liberties, honesty, fiscal responsibility/economics(even the republicans agree with THAT!), and foreign relations.
But he has TEN TIMES THE AMOUNT of moolah that Kerry has and he plans on spending every dime of it!
Bush is the NY Yankees of politics!

 

Oh, come ON. "Nothing"? Bush's entire foreign policy was revamped in response to 9/11. Bush has been bashed on these boards before for his anti-nation-building speeches during the 2000 campaign. (Thank goodness he flip-flopped!) The reverberations are still being felt today - not a day goes by without media editorials (foreign and domestic) attacking America's post-9/11 foreign policies. Is that exploitative? I say it's just stating the obvious - that 9/11 is the pivotal point in the Bush presidency. So what's the problem with friends and foes using it in the campaign?

In case y'hadn't noticed, the only person who has publicly stated his intention to buy the election is George Soros.

Also in case y'hadn't noticed - economists don't get rich, military historians don't run armies, and political scientists don't get elected. I won't concede that Bush or Keyes are dumb (Keyes has a doctorate, for goodness' sake), but nor would I concede that raw intellect is the critical variable for political leadership. It all comes down to how well you lead, and where you lead. Maybe a good way to judge that would be 9/11, hmm?

 

I totally agree. His administration failed to prevent 9-11 and that fact should be taken into account.

 

@Ankiseth_Vanir:

Your apparent desire to see Bush ousted is admirable (I am speaking as one who shares the same sentiments). However, with all due respect, attacking him on the basis that he should have been able to foresee 9/11 is not the way to do it. Yes, there was intel which suggested such a possibilty, but from what I understand, this intel was no more reliable than any one of hundreds that are received every day, including the existence of WMD’s (apologies to the pro-Bush camp, but I couldn’t resist that last part ).
To suggest that Bush should have been able to prevent 9/11 would be politcal suicide (not to mention unfair).

My point is that, where Bush failed miserably was after 9/11, not before.

 

I'll guess we'll have to disagree on this point. In my eyes Bush failed miserably before, after, and during the 9/11 attacks.

I firmly believe a vigilant administration could of prevented the attack.

 

I don't agree. Although I will admit that you did qualify that statement with "at least in part." I think that history will view the wars in the Middle East, at least thus far, as the centerpiece of the Bush policy. Certainly 9/11 will be looked at as a cause of the Bush doctrine of preemptive warfare, but on balance it will be viewed in a larger context: The culmination of a "terrorist" war against the US conducted over a ten year span by Bin Laden and his private army of scum. IMO, historians will see the preemptive war as a turning point in American policy; almost certainly a huge mistake of historical proportion. But 9/11 will be seen as only one piece of a larger doctrine of a new American "Big Stick Policy" for a set of reasons, ranging from national security issues (which would include oil) to politcal motives and Bush's sagging presidency. It should keep historians very busy, both those who favor the Bush policies as well as its detractors.

We should be clear on the issue that some of the victim's families are not happy with the promotional hyping of 9/11. I can't say I blame them as their grief is probably a very personal and profound experience. That Shrub is not senistive to their grieving is not a big shock. Would the Dems be much different if the situation was reversed? Probably not. Almost anything goes these days in political warfare. This will be a very ugly political election. No one will get out of it "clean."

I am reminded of why both John Adams and George Washington had contempt for party politics. It's a shame that I have to look back to these American fossils (as great as they are), because our current leaders are such puny men. Personally, it has changed me. In recent years I have considered myself a member of the Green Party. But all this rancor and poison of party politics has put me off of any party affiliation. I'm now a true independent, until there is someone who can rise out of the muck and slime and there are "better times" in American politics.

[ March 07, 2004, 06:41: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]