PDA

View Full Version : Bush campaign stumbles out of the gate


Mavdog
03-04-2004, 01:05 PM
They better do better going forward or those poll numbers favoring Kerry won't turn around. i/expressions/clock.gif

9/11 Victims' Kin Angered by Bush Ads
46 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Relatives of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and a firefighters union said Thursday they're angry that President Bush (news - web sites)'s new campaign ads include images of the destroyed World Trade Center and firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher through the rubble.

They say the ads are in poor taste and accuse Bush of exploiting the attacks. Bush's campaign defended the commercials as appropriate for an election about public policy and the war on terror, saying they were a tasteful reminder of what the country has been through the last three years. The campaign had said in the past that it would not use the attacks for political gain.

"It makes me sick," Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr., in the attacks and leads a victims families group called Peaceful Tomorrows, said Thursday. "Would you ever go to someone's grave site and use that as an instrument of politics? That truly is what Ground Zero represents to me."

"September 11th was not just a distant tragedy. It's a defining event for the future of our country," Karen Hughes, a Bush campaign adviser, told "The Early Show" on CBS on Thursday. "Obviously, all of us mourn and grieve for the victims of that terrible day, but September 11 fundamentally changed our public policy in many important ways, and I think it's vital that the next president recognize that."

The first ads started running Thursday on broadcast channels in about 80 markets in 18 states, most of which are expected to be critical to the election, and nationwide on select cable networks. The ads do not mention Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), focusing instead on improving Bush's image after criticism by Democrats in recent months. Bush is expected to spend a large part of his $100 million war chest on ads.

One of the ads shows the charred wreckage of the twin towers with a flag flying amid the debris. Another ad and a Spanish-language version of it use that image as well alongside firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher through the rubble as sirens are heard. Firefighters are shown in all the ads.

Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, on Thursday called the ads disgraceful and said they should be pulled.

"We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders," Schaitberger said. He said his union is politically independent even though it endorsed Kerry and has donated money to Republicans.

Barbara Minervino, a Republican from Middletown, N.J., who lost her husband, Louis, in the attacks, questioned whether Bush was "capitalizing on the event."

David Potorti, an independent from Cary, N.C., whose brother Jim died in the north tower, called the campaign's use of the images audacious.

"It's an insult to use the place where my brother died in an ad," Potorti said. "I would be just as outraged if any politician did this."

Until Bush cooperates with the federal commission that is investigating the nation's preparedness before the attacks and its response "by testifying in public under oath ... he should not be using 9/11 as political propaganda," said Kristen Breitweiser, of Middletown Township, N.J., whose husband, Ronald Breitweiser, 39, died in the World Trade Center.

"Three thousand people were murdered on President Bush's watch," Breitweiser said. "He has not cooperated with the investigation to find out why that happened."

MavKikiNYC
03-04-2004, 01:52 PM
I saw a couple of Bush campaign ads previewed last night, which included media images of the WTC after it had been attacked. I didn't find anything offensive about them at all, but I didn't find them to be particularly effective either. Bush campaign will need to do more than what I saw for him to be able to press his advantage and remind voters of the very real national security and foreign policy accomplishments that his administration has achieved.

As empathetic as one might feel toward family members of vicitms of the 9/11 attack, I'm not sure that their opposition to the ads means all that much, other than as an instrument of emotional appeal being exploited by those attempting to decry the Bush campaign. I could have predicted this response months ago, before the ads were ever conceived and composed. Many of the most vocal family members of 9-11 attack vicitms act as if their perspective should be deferred to in all matters, and that their interests and their vision of how the victims should be memorialized should be placed ahead of any interest of the survivors, or of the cities and the nation that were left in the wake of the attacks.

With all due respect and sympathy to the families of the victims, they were not the only ones affected by the attacks--it was far more than an attack on the individual victims and their families; they were acts of war against the American people. Preisdent Bush responded with boldness and a decisiveness to defend Americans and American cities from further destruction and attacks, and indeed to transform geopolitics to reduce the likelihood of such attacks in the future. I have no confidence whatsoever that a Gore-led administration (or indeed any Dim-adminstration) would have had the vision, courage or conviction to respond in what was, as far as I'm concerned, the MOST appropriate manner, if not the ONLY appropriate manner--declaring war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and degrading the world-wide network of governments and terrorists organizatons against whom previous Clinton-led Dim administrations had shamefully failed to act, and who were allowed to grow into a global threat with the capacity to disrupt both national and international economies and alter day-to-day life for millions and millions of people. And while I understand and may even agree with many of the oppositions to the Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act, by the same token it's impossible to deny the necessity of such measures to insure national security in the face of what amounted to acts of war.

I hope that the Bush/Cheney 2004 campaign will always be able to articulate the national security accomplishments of the Bush administration with a sensitivity to those who were directly affected and who suffered the greatest personal loss, but I think that it is perfectly justifiable to refer to these events in describing the virtually unprecedented national challenges that Bush has presided over. Indeed, Bush's campaign would be foolish and playing into the Dims hands NOT to.

Evilmav2
03-04-2004, 01:55 PM
http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/bush/bushgallery/image/liberty1-398h.jpg

Feel free to judge these adds by yourselves folks. I personally don't think any of these George W ads are crassly trying to exploit memories of 9-11, but here are the links so that any of y'all who feel so inclined, can formed your own informed opinions about the matter.

President Bush Ads: "Lead", "Tested", and "Safer; Stronger" (http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/)

u2sarajevo
03-04-2004, 01:57 PM
I have seen the ads.... you can watch them here (http://www.georgewbush.com/tvads/).

I think the ads are terrific!

MavKikiNYC
03-04-2004, 02:09 PM
Thanks for the links, gentlemen.

They are definitely not offensive to me--innocuous, in fact, to the point of bland.

I do hope that if there's a John Kerrey-Paris Hilton clip, it will somehow make it's way onto the web.
(And if there's not, I know someone who can create one.)

Drbio
03-04-2004, 02:18 PM
It's sour grapes and a weak attempt by liberals to fuel emotions. They are grasping at any emotionally charged straw that they can grasp for. Those ads are hardly offensive, and W was heroic in his response to that amazingly tragic situation.

Usually Lurkin
03-04-2004, 02:28 PM
hey Mavdog, would you mind providing a link to the article?

I found that the same ap story (same author/title) at Yahoo! slightly modified and with the following passage:
"Nor did all victims' relatives criticize the ad.
Patricia Riley of Staten Island, N.Y., who lost her sister in the attack, said: "The president has every right to point to his leadership during that time."
Bush's campaign had said it would not use the attacks for political gain, and current and former aides defended the commercials. "
Link from Yahoo! (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_political_ads)

southern_sweets
03-04-2004, 02:56 PM
It didn't find them offensive either. However, I found them to be lacking in information and substance.

madape
03-04-2004, 03:21 PM
At least these ads were able to temporarily turn the focus of the media on Bush's record on national security. I think he's getting a lot of "bang for his buck", as these ads are being broadcast for free to millions of people by mainstream news outlets.

Plus, I think the over-the-top reaction to these ads as reported by mainstream media also helps Bush. The more irrational and ludicrous the left's platitudes seem, the less of a chance independants will take ANY of their arguments seriously. It's not the crazy Bush bashing wierdos like the ones complaining about Bush's ad that Bush is trying to win over, it's the fence-straddling undecided who are listening to both sides with an open and clear mind. Right now I'd wager that most of latter think the former has strayed a little far from rational thought (at least that should be the thought of any American who still considers terrorism a real and current threat to our safety)

But most importantly, the Dems are dangerously close to alligning themselves on the wrong side of the most important issue in this election... that of national security. If they continure to yell and scream every time this issue is brought up, they will likely appear to the public as a group that doesn't want to address the issue at all. In my opinion, weakness and indifference on national security spells doom for Kerry.

Mavdog
03-04-2004, 04:00 PM
It is clear that the campaign which the WH wants to rollout focuses on "the wartime president" and invoking the images of 9/11 is a prelude to that.

There's nothing which can provoke more patriotic allegiance than to show our armed forces being threatened and then triumphing over the enemy. Its a tried and proven campaign staple and one cannot begrudge the WH for using images that reinforce the Commander and Chief persona. Do the pictures of 9/11 really accomplish that goal?

The strategy certainly has its pitfalls...especially if the situation in Iraq doesn't get better, and if the situation in Iraq spirals down the strategy will bite them in the butt.

The article sure suggests that the people who lost family members were not too much on board with using the imagery. I can tell you that today I don't wish to see the burning towers over and over, just like I don't want to see other shots of death and destruction.

Rather than an assumption of the viewer swelling up with a patriotic fervor, isn't it plausible that some will be reminded that there was a failure of our government to protect our country?

Using the attacks on 9/11 as a reason to re-elect GWBush isn't going to have too much impact IMHO. It brings up too many questions that haven't been answered, and even leads some to question the success of the hunt for Bin Laden et al. Sometimes it is best to let sleeping issues alone...


hey Mavdog, would you mind providing a link to the article?

Here is a link to an AP article by the same writer, but this is an updated copy that changes a bit fom what was posted earlier. Many of the same lines, but also somne different, including the quote you mentioned.

AP article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&e=1&u=/ap/20040304/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_political_ads)

Max Power
08-15-2004, 08:16 PM
Would a mod please move this thread.

I bumped it to show mavdog that he is being inconsistent. He bashes Bush on a trivial subject yet thinks Kerry's war record should be ignored.

Mavdog
08-15-2004, 10:04 PM
Actually Max it's a critique of the campaign philosophy, there's nowhere above that I "bash Bush on a trivial subject."

BTW, just how could you characterize the way Bush managed the War on Terror as a "trivial subject"?

LRB
08-15-2004, 10:09 PM
Imagine all those 1000's of familes and individuals tramatized by this war and having pictures and images as part of a campaign solely to provide a knee jerk patriotic reaction. Do the pictures of Vietnam really accomplish that goal? Certainly when accompanied by mountains of lies it can be argued that this strategy will come back to bite the democrats in the ass.

Max Power
08-15-2004, 10:21 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
Actually Max it's a critique of the campaign philosophy, there's nowhere above that I "bash Bush on a trivial subject."

Yes you criticized Bush for using the imagery.


This is a waste of time as it has no bearing on the positions that the candidates are proposing.

But how is this less of a waste of time as the Kerry military service issues? I don't understand the distinction. Is it OK to criticize Bush for minor issues but not Kerry?


BTW, just how could you characterize the way Bush managed the War on Terror as a "trivial subject"?

That wasn't the focus of this thread or your response. It was the use of the 9-11 imagery for political gain.

Mavdog
08-15-2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by: Max Power

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Actually Max it's a critique of the campaign philosophy, there's nowhere above that I "bash Bush on a trivial subject."

Yes you criticized Bush for using the imagery.

The question was if the imagery would benefit or hurt Bush.

"There's nothing which can provoke more patriotic allegiance than to show our armed forces being threatened and then triumphing over the enemy. Its a tried and proven campaign staple and one cannot begrudge the WH for using images that reinforce the Commander and Chief persona. Do the pictures of 9/11 really accomplish that goal?"

No "bash[ing]" there.

"The strategy certainly has its pitfalls...especially if the situation in Iraq doesn't get better, and if the situation in Iraq spirals down the strategy will bite them in the butt."

A lack of bashing there.

"Rather than an assumption of the viewer swelling up with a patriotic fervor, isn't it plausible that some will be reminded that there was a failure of our government to protect our country?"

still looking for any bashing...

"Using the attacks on 9/11 as a reason to re-elect GWBush isn't going to have too much impact IMHO. It brings up too many questions that haven't been answered, and even leads some to question the success of the hunt for Bin Laden et al. Sometimes it is best to let sleeping issues alone..."

nope, no bashing.
Did you actually read my posts?


This is a waste of time as it has no bearing on the positions that the candidates are proposing.

But how is this less of a waste of time as the Kerry military service issues? I don't understand the distinction. Is it OK to criticize Bush for minor issues but not Kerry?[/quote]

uh, it was a critique of the campaign. Would you like to disuss the Kerry campaign ads?


BTW, just how could you characterize the way Bush managed the War on Terror as a "trivial subject"?

That wasn't the focus of this thread or your response. It was the use of the 9-11 imagery for political gain.[/quote]

You don't understand the link between the imagery of the towers burning and the War on Terror? How can you miss it?