Political Ads and 9/11

[ThaSaltCracka]

Now that the two candidates have been decided, its now time for the part of the political process I loath the most, Political Ads. I have a feeling this is going to be one of the worst years for attack ads. I also think Bush is going to exploit every angle he can.
case in point, two recent articles from my home paper, The Seattle Times, report on several of Bush's new Ads. Take a look.
report on ads (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001870789_bush04.html)

reaction of 9/11 famalies (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001871069_webbush04.html)

some highlights, or low lights, whichever way you look at it.


Departing from the usual incumbent's script of boasting that things have improved on his watch, the three ads, directed at 18 battleground states, including Washington and Oregon, emphasize the "tough times" Bush has faced and contend he has made the nation "safer, stronger." None of the initial ads offers new proposals for a second Bush term.

A Spanish-language version of one ad, in which Bush does a brief Spanish voice-over, will air on selected local stations in Florida, the Southwest and West.
I would love to hear this, purely for the entertainment /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

Shanto Iyengar, chairman of Stanford University's communications department, said Bush's positive advertising is unlikely to have much impact because people know so much about him. In an online study in which 266 voters were shown ads and other promotional material by the candidates, he said, support for Kerry and Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina rose by more than 10 percent, but Bush's numbers did not budge.

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

"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 today. "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."

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.



I think it is ridiculous for Bush to use 9/11 or ground zero in any of his ads. This seems to reek of explotation. He wants us to focus on his leadership during 9/11 and the months afterwards, and not on how bad the economy is. Even now I am really questioning his leadership during the war on terrorism, and even on terrorism before 9/11.

[Wake up CALL]

Let me see if I understand you correctly. You say it is shameful for President Bush to point out why his policies have been implemented. Yet I saw no crticism from you while Kerry and all the other nutter butter brothers were criticizing President Bush for his response to the attack on 911.

I agree it is too bad that the politics will be dirty during the campaign but be assured it will be dirty on both sides of the political spectrum. Remember we are talking politicians here, not real people. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

wait did you read the articles? his ads don't mention anything other than his "leadership" during the tough times we've had.

Yet I saw no crticism from you while Kerry and all the other nutter butter brothers were criticizing President Bush for his response to the attack on 911.
I honestly am not sure what your talking about here, please elaborate.

I agree it is too bad that the politics will be dirty during the campaign but be assured it will be dirty on both sides of the political spectrum. Remember we are talking politicians here, not real people
I agree, I know it will be bad on both sides, thats not my point, my point is it is especially dirty when someone uses a terrible tragedy for his/her political gain, which is what Bush is doing with the ads featuring pics of 9/11

[Wake up CALL]

I saw three of his ads on CNBC last night and saw none of the scenes described in your links. They may have abbreviated the ads for discussion purposes but I would have thought they would show any juicy tidbits that could lead to any possibility of more Bush bashing.

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly am not sure what your talking about here, please elaborate.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sorry but if you truly do not know what I meant you do not have enough information to discuss this subject. I am pretty certain you have watched at least one democrat make a political speech in the last 60 days. Just one glimpse should demonstrate what I meant.

[ThaSaltCracka]

thanks for elaborating, if you are talking about the war in Iraq, then I am glad they are questioning him, everyone should be. It is now apparent that he misled the American people, so if they want to criticize him go ahead. Now if your talking about the Admin. trying to stall investigations into 9/11 info gaffes, why not criticize that as well. Please elaborate.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
. It is now apparent that he misled the American people,

[/ QUOTE ]

My turn, please elaborate, I see nothing apparent about any so called deception. Remember the definition of deception please, perhaps you really mean to mislead.

[ QUOTE ]
Now if your talking about the Admin. trying to stall investigations into 9/11 info gaffes

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly which investigations are they attempting to stall and which gaffes would these be? Please elaborate.

Wake

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is ridiculous for Bush to use 9/11 or ground zero in any of his ads. This seems to reek of explotation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Will it also be exploitive if John Kerry uses images from his service in Vietnam in some of his adsZ? Is Kerry allowed to show pictures of himself in uniform? After all, more than 55,000 American died in the Vietnam War. Why wouldn't Kerry be exploiting the deaths of those people if he uses Vietnam images in his campaign?

[Clarkmeister]

"Will it also be exploitive if John Kerry uses images from his service in Vietnam in some of his adsZ? Is Kerry allowed to show pictures of himself in uniform? After all, more than 55,000 American died in the Vietnam War. Why wouldn't Kerry be exploiting the deaths of those people if he uses Vietnam images in his campaign?"


Unlike Bush and 9-11 there aren't suspicions that Kerry's negligence may have allowed Vietnam to occur.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Unlike Bush and 9-11 there aren't suspicions that Kerry's negligence may have allowed Vietnam to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not answering the question. That's evading the question and changing the topic to put a negative light in the direction you want it.

[Clarkmeister]

No, it was simply one of many ways to point out that you were comparing apples and oranges.

[jdl22]

Here's my biggest problem:

[ QUOTE ]
the three ads, directed at 18 battleground states, including Washington and Oregon, emphasize the "tough times" Bush has faced

[/ QUOTE ]

As an Oregonian (albeit currently living in Pennsylvania) I have to say that it bothers me that Oregon is considered a battle ground state. It won't be close and Bush sure as hell won't win. There are way too many liberals in Eugene, Salem, and Portland for those in the rural areas to make a difference. It was only close last time because of the Nader voters.

As for the subject of the post I think that despite his campaign slogan from the 2000 election he is a "divider". People either love bush or hate him. These ads showing how safe he has made us don't matter because people have already made up their minds on that.

Despite what people on both sides say I think it will be both an interesting and close election. Barring some major unforseen event (ie capture Bin Laden, or a major political scandal) I don't think the public's opinion will change much even after the debates. Liberals think he has ruined the country and conservatives think he has saved it. Unlike previous presidents, with Bush I don't know anybody that is indifferent.

[ThaSaltCracka]

Will it also be exploitive if John Kerry uses images from his service in Vietnam in some of his adsZ? Is Kerry allowed to show pictures of himself in uniform? After all, more than 55,000 American died in the Vietnam War. Why wouldn't Kerry be exploiting the deaths of those people if he uses Vietnam images in his campaign?
Not at all, military service shoudl be used to show someones leadership. Bush can use pictures of him in his National Guard uniform to show his Military leadership as well.
The difference here is 9/11 was a national tragedy, and for anyone to try to capitalize on it in any form is just wrong.
Kerry exploiting deaths in Vietnam??? the man was in Vietnam fighting with his countrymen, he was wounded is battle, I think he has the right to show his military record, and it definitely is not exploiting anyone. It should be a stark reminder of what he was doing during the Vietnam war and what Bush was doing.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Not at all, military service shoudl be used to show someones leadership.

[/ QUOTE ]

In case you skipped civics class President Bush is also The Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This should pretty much be included in his military service considering everyone in the military, General Officers on down, salute our President and follow his orders.

[Taxman]

Bush is commander in chief by default, not because he possesses any military leadership qualities or experience. He can go ahead and include that as a part of his military "service" record, but he'll get laughed down if he tries to pretend like that makes him more of a military leader than Kerry.

[elwoodblues]

By this line of logic, Bill Clinton had a great military service record as well (better than all but 43 other people in the country throughout its history.)

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
He can go ahead and include that as a part of his military "service" record, but he'll get laughed down if he tries to pretend like that makes him more of a military leader than Kerry.

[/ QUOTE ]

From an unbiased perspective President Bush's credentials are much higher than Senator Kerry's. Participating in ground warfare in a jungle does not make one a military leader anymore than mopping up the kitchen floor in a restaurant makes one qualified to cook a 5 star meal.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
By this line of logic, Bill Clinton had a great military service record as well (better than all but 43 other people in the country throughout its history.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Elwood, I missed the part where Clinton helped stop the terrorist organizations from attacking our country.

[ThaSaltCracka]

first of all Kerry was an officer in the Navy during vietnam, a captain of a swift boat. Far from easy time in Vietnam, unlike being a "pilot" in the Air National Guard. There is a big difference in being an officer in the Navay, commanding people, than being an officer in the Air Force, or atleast in Bush's case, a pilot.
so explain to me what Creditianals Bush has, other than being elected President.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a big difference in being an officer in the Navay, commanding people, than being an officer in the Air Force, or atleast in Bush's case, a pilot.


[/ QUOTE ]

To paraphrase you, there is a big difference from being a low level officer in a war that has been over for 30 years compared to the Commander in Chief of a war that has just begun. In other words I do not want a crybaby who testified in front of Congress about how awful he felt about serving his country in Nam but prefer a genuine leader who is not afraid to defend our country in spite of the criticism.

[Taxman]

Do you really think any other man would have folded under criticism and failed to "lead our country" following 9/11? Every president deals with criticism all the time. Nothing special about Bush there. Being made commander in chief by default doesn't mean he is more qualified. Maybe we should just bring back Clinton. After all he had 8 years of being commander in chief to Bush's 4.

[Taxman]

Hmm, I missed the part where the Bush administration came up with a plan to get Bin Laden before Sept 11. Oh wait, the Clinton administration did, but they were thoroughly ignored. After all how can you trust a man that earned his high popularity through a successful economy rather than a freak tragic event.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I missed the part where the Bush administration came up with a plan to get Bin Laden before Sept 11. Oh wait, the Clinton administration did, but they were thoroughly ignored. After all how can you trust a man that earned his high popularity through a successful economy rather than a freak tragic event.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taxman you are speaking of matters which you know nothing about. Remember this quote, "Tis better to shut your mouth and be thought an idiot than to speak out and prove you are one".

[Taxman]

Prove me wrong. You have yet to demonstrate any degree of knowledge in this area. I find it quite ironic that you would use that quote.

[Wake up CALL]

I have spent many posts showing you that Clinton inherited the economic prosperity you attemt to give him credit for. I have also shown you where Clinton botched his single attempt at ridding the world of Bin Laden and refuded to accept him when he was offered up on a silver platter. Once or twice is quite enough even for a college student.

I'll offer you one final hint, look up Project Bojinka for info on your hero Clinton.

[Taxman]

And I have spent many posts explaining to you that your posts don't really demonstrate that Clinton inherited any prosperity. Even if this was true you are ignoring what I actually said in my post which was that Clinton was popular because of that prosperity. It doesn't matter whether or not he was ultimately responsible for it. Bush had abysmal popularity ratings pre 9/11 and even afterward he managed to pull in the lowest popularity % of any president in a war time situation. The only reason he has any real shot at reelection is because of 9/11.

Besides, Bush did nothing more than any other president would have done. It's not like the US could have taken no action following Sept 11. Hell, other presidents might even have been able to take action without eventually alienating half of our allies. Praising Bush for being so agressive in trying to catch Bin Laden (after previously ignoring him completely) is the same as giving me praise for folding 72o preflop in EP after UTG raises. I'm still waiting for something with substance out of you on this matter. I don't love Clinton, I mostly just hate Bush. Ta.

Taxman

[ThaSaltCracka]

In other words I do not want a crybaby who testified in front of Congress about how awful he felt about serving his country in Nam but prefer a genuine leader who is not afraid to defend our country in spite of the criticism.
everyone read over this again, especially prefer a genuine leader who is not afraid to defend our country
now you couldn't possibly be calling Kerry a coward and Bush courageous, could you?
Lets seem, who went and fought in a war and who stayed at home being a p u s s y in the National Guard?
I think you know the answer

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
President Bush's new campaign ads include images of the destroyed World Trade Center and firefighters carrying a flag-draped stretcher through the rubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone attempt to explain to me the logic this adminstration uses to justify airing this image, while at the same time banning news coverage of flag draped coffins returning from Iraq?

[ThaSaltCracka]

the only people who can "logically" explain it are Bush supporters

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words I do not want a crybaby who testified in front of Congress about how awful he felt about serving his country in Nam but prefer a genuine leader who is not afraid to defend our country in spite of the criticism.
everyone read over this again, especially prefer a genuine leader who is not afraid to defend our country
now you couldn't possibly be calling Kerry a coward and Bush courageous, could you?
Lets seem, who went and fought in a war and who stayed at home being a p u s s y in the National Guard?
I think you know the answer

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps I can settle this once and for all. I was there and fought, would you like to elect me to be the President? I believe I have a somewhat unique perspective from which to offer my opinion that Kerry's military service does nothing to qualify him to be our President. Hear me NOTHING, was I clear enough for you? I say again NOTHING!

[ThaSaltCracka]

well then why does Bush's "service" mean everything to you.
I don't understand how you can support someone who was to afraid to go fight in a war that thousands of Americans, including yourself, fought and died in. You seem to give him a pass, but I am sure you chastized Clinton left and right for being a draft dodger.

You give Bush huge amounts of credit for service simply because he is president. Well as someone else said, he has military service by default, simply because he was elected. If we hadn't gone to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, would you say he has still lead the American military? The point is whoever was elected would have had military service in this regard.

Now if I was in the military right now, I would much rather have a president who has military service. Why? because our troops are being sent overseas to fight and die. I would rather my Commander in Chief know what its like to fight for his country, so he REALLY knows how the soldiers feel. Instead now we have a president who sends troops all over the world to fight wars, practically on a whim. He doesn;t know how they feel, and honestly I don't think he cares. As some one with family members in the military I want them to be taken care of, not thrown around the world for some admins. political gain/ideology.
Wake up Call, can you not see my point? we have people dying, we have a president who doesn't know what its like to have a friend dye on the battlefield in his arms. Thats why military service is important, right now. I would much rather vote for someone who got their military service through actually being there, instead of for someone who got theirs by wearing a suit and giving speeches.

[Taxman]

Just because you don't consider yourself fit to be president doesn't mean that military service isn't a good quality in a given politician. I certainly wouldn't want any old soldier to be president, but someone who is well educated and qualified in other ways is enhansed by the added dimension of that service. Should the commander in chief really have no significant experience in military matters? Would you want a clueless general telling you where to fight?

[ThaSaltCracka]

I find it fairly amusing he hasn't responded, I mean do you want ours sons or daughters, or brothers or sisters to go fight in a war they don't need to fight, led by somone who doesn't know whats it like to actually fight for our country?