When I was reading this discussion, it occurred to me: unity cannot exist in a democracy. I suppose that's probably a good thing.
Here we have a a perfectly beautiful, very classy set of political ads, positive, full of hope, idea-oriented, non-attack-oriented, and hopeful. And some people choose to see nothing but some sort of attempt to make people fearful or to "exploit" a national tragedy.
The oddest comparison? That the Bush administration enforces a policy that was enforced throughout the Clinton administration not to show soldiers' coffins coming home. The reasons for that long-standing policy are pretty easy to understand; why intrude, and make public, something that should be a private matter? If reporters want to attend funerals, all they have to do is ask the families.
How this compares to public footage easily available of a national tragedy that we all saw, I don't know. The one seems to be remembering something we all saw; the other, something that requires actual invasion of privacy, and should require permission.
But for anyone who cares, the military's policy on showing coffins to the press has been in place far longer than Bush has been president. So what is the point? If Bush is going to use a half-second of footage from the WTC aftermath, he must now allow soldiers' families' privacy to be invaded?
Today much was made of the families of 9/11 casualties reacting in outrage to that half-second of footage in the commercial. Fortunately, on NPR today they had interviews with a number of other families who said they found the commercials moving and entirely appropriate, saying that the events of that day belong to all Americans, not just to the surviving families.
I happen to agree, which is why I've said, and continue to say, I think Senator Kerry should be doing the same thing. In fact, I'd feel a lot better about him as a potential President if he would do exactly that, and would start mentioning 9/11 in every single stump speech and every single commercial. Because 9/11 belongs to us all, and there's not a thing wrong with that. In fact, anyone who wants my vote in November had better better be talking about 9/11 a lot.
A whole lot.
Still, it's interesting to note a couple of thing: the one "head of a firefighter's union" who's been excoriating the President for his ad turns out to have been working for the Kerry campaign for months. And, five of the 6 surviving family members who excoriated Bush today turn out to be highly politically active people with an axe to grind. Which was obvious to anyone who heard the press conference, which was mostly a jeremiad against Bush administration policies, with the content of the half-second image in the commercial barely an afterthought to those folks.
Which other families of 9/11 survivors have also pointed out. Making one wonder just who exactly is doing the exploiting here.
When I look at Bush critics, listen to what they say, read their comments, I just shake my head anymore. Maybe it's me, maybe it's them, maybe it's both of us, I don't know. But I just don't get them anymore.
I do know that I tremble in a bit of fear if this is really where our politics is these days, because I increasingly find most Bush critics I encounter simply irrational--no sense of fair-mindedness, no sense of proportion, no sense of holding Bush to the same standards as previous administrations. Either my brain works different, or theirs does. But I find them incomprehensible. Honestly. Simply incomprehensible. And that really bothers me.
I agree. While I am leaning toward Kerry at this point, I saw nothing wrong with the ad screened on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer today (except it being a little boring, actually)
It would be a bad idea to suppress discussion of 9/11 for the sake of sensitivity. It could still happen again, and we've got to talk more about it rather than place it on a pedestal, even if that upsets some people.
To be very cold about this, Bush's response to 9/11 is the strongest card he has. No one has forgotten it; even Americans who approve of nothing else he has done remember him well for it.
I thought it questionable wisdom to play this card this early. It's eight months until the election, and that's a long time.
Dude. Go look at the ad. It's in one corner of the screen, and it flashes by so fast--barely on-screen a second or so--you practically have to go out of your way to notice it. It's about 1 second out of a 30-second commercial that is part of a series of three commercials, the other two of which don't even have that in it.
I'm befuddled. What do the critics want? How about if Kerry goes to a soldier's funeral, and uses footage from that in his commercials, to show why the Iraq war was wrong? He'd need a family that's against the war but there are some of those.... I mean, would that be...
I'm just lost. I find this incomprehensible.
Dean... did you also notice the amazing similarity in the talking points that each of the widows were using? They came off sounding rather coached to me.
Bad Democratic partisans. Baaaaad
I think the WTC on 9/11 should be on TV at least once a week, least we forget!
Its just that you seem to be apt to make sloppy generalisations about Democrats which would outrage you if they were made about Republicans, Christians, men, southerners, etc. Its strange.
I go after Republican party-liners all the time, Max.
I am not making any sloppy generalizations at all, just telling you what I see in my comments, what I see on partisan-Dem blogs, what I hear from friends. It frightens, befuddles, and disturbs me. Either I've gone completely 'round the bend, or they have, because they just plain aren't making sense to me anymore.
Sadly, I agree with you, Dean. I have been actively interested in politics for 30+ years, and I have never experienced an environment like we see today. I understand, and expect, substantive policy disagreements. A vigorous two-party system in which both sides recognize and embrace the undeniable greatness of our country while acknowledging its imperfections(and different approaches and solutions)has been the slow, deliberate engine driving our many accomplishments. This forced compromise often results in frustration and anger, but any objective observer would say it has been damn successful. All of our Presidents have had their detractors, but the sheer volume of blind partisanship aimed at President Bush is unique in my lifetime. I have heard the arguments that this and that President had equally strong opposition, but President Bush's critics have a naked hatred for him so divorced from his real policies and actions that even I, a political realist, am aghast at its shallowness--and its implications for our country. Mr. Bush says up, they say down. He says the sun rises in the east, they say the west. He strives to protect them, they say he places them in greater danger. I understand the desperation that liberals and Democrats feel as they see their hold on power and the public conscience ebbing. That this desperation has resulted in a win-at-any-cost mindset, whether it endangers our country, our friends, or the rest of the world--that, I do not understand.
While i do find the left's attitude toward bush very strident, I wonder if this discussion isn't shaped by the very fact that we live in a much more interconnected world than ever. FWIW, I was part of the "left" during the reagan years, and the vitriol that was leveled at him (and Edwin Meese, the proto-Ashcroft) was every bit as mean-spirited and nasty as that leveled at Bush. But it was played out in a decidedly less mediated environment. There were reagan-Hitler comparisons too. Listen to a dead kennedys album from that era to get a feel for what the true left was saying then.
Dean, this is one of the reasons I do so little real blogging anymore- I just got sick of the rant-meisters. And yes, I have blown my stack on my blog from time to time, so mea culpa. Once I realized that anything I said, no matter how reasonable I tried to be, would be seen as a red flag by some single-issue ideologue I just decided to bow out. I leave my politics mostly to the comments section these days.
As to what Bryan said, the only reason this has become so much more visible is that there is this medium of the Internet serving as a huge amplifier. Back in the “good old days” the crazies just shouted to each other in their own little circles and mailing lists. The Internet makes them both louder and bolder because they hear enough voices like their own to convince themselves that they are far more mainstream and powerful than they really are. The right had this problem earlier than the left, but I think the left has the bug a little worse than the right.
If you need an example, just look at Howard Dean. The Internet made that man the front-runner and convinced him and his followers that they were THE power to be reckoned with in the Democratic party. Hell, they made enough noise to convince the Party of that. When reality intruded they turned out to be nothing but a loud and small crowd. They had organization, managed to create great buzz and generated a ton of cash for their man: in short the Internet delivered everything except the votes. The echo chamber made those people blind to the reality that their support was broad, but terribly shallow.
That same thing drives the hate cycle on the left and the right. The loons think they are an Army on the march and they take the battle to blogs and newspapers all over the country because it is so easy to do. Give me ten people, some computers and a couple of weeks and it would be little problem to convince the gullible that there is a new groundswell of support for (insert your choice of ideological bugaboo here). Be clever enough and I’m fairly certain all it would require is a few nudges and a little encouragement, then back off and watch it grow.
That last may be a bit on the cynical side, but there it is.
J.A. Eddy you make some valid points!
I do not think the American people are listening to this stupidity at all. Most people are going about their lives working at their jobs coming home, doing chores working with the kids after school doing the laundry and all, and really not as much as we would want to think do get into politics this early in the game.
The hoopla over those ads are just that, hoopla. They were done tasteful and it is obvious to people because they know Bush was there for US all of US throughout the whole ordeal and IT is NOT OVER! This shall pass, it is just nonsense, just nonsense. It is a few seconds...period...done tastefully and as you said with fireman, geez!
Kerry is not stupid and he saw it and he will of course see the optomistic nature of the ads and that of course speaks volumes right there. Kerry knows that. He comes from an upper class neighborhood so wait and see, it shall pass.
Both Bush and Kerry better talk about Sept.11 in the coming months because you ask Mothers taking their kids to school and people taking trains into work in large cities like Chicago, Boston, New York & you Will know that Is on their mind.
Sept. 11, changed all of US, ALL of US. It hit our *mainland* and that NEVER happened in history...NEVER! Our entire Justice Department.. INS Department, Defense Department had a shakedown and shakeup and re-organization, CIA, FBI, Customs, Border Patrol, everyone, every government agency...Now HOMELAND SECURITY.
AHH...Bill Clinton? No? Former Bush, No? Reagan, No?.....Has a republican or democrat ever had to deal with this? Just the current POTUS Has and to deal with this attack on our *Mainland*, this United States of America and it is like NONE other in HISTORY. We are talking a NEW KIND of WAR of TERROR and CHEMICAL WARFARE HERE... *MAINLAND*
TALK BUSH...TALK KERRY...TALK about 9/11...
Bryan,
Good point - lets count 'em...CNN, Fox News, Headline News, CNBC, MSNBC - thats five major 24-hour news outlets.
Its been pointed out that about 2.4 million people blog...
How many radio stations are on a 24-hour news-talk format?
There is a vastly increased volume of news and commentary space which needs to be filled...and it will get filled with something. Heck, even I fall to it - where I blog, I'm sometimes searching hither and yon for something, anything to post about...gotta keep it fresh, gotta always have something new; don't dare let the blog go even a few hours without something new on it...lest people stop coming.
The echo-chamber is vastly enlarged - and this accounts for some of the stuff we see; still, the blind, unreasoning hatred for President Bush, while it may be fed by the modern media beast, is something entirely new.
The vials of wrath are full, again....
I'll be brief: If POTUS had shown footage of the victims jumping out of the WTC, would that have been OK?
So...why not cut the 1/2 second of WTC footage in question altogether? What have we lost?
Simply replace it with pictures of POTUS standing atop the rubble, bullhorn in hand, arm around the firefighter. Or use the picture of the three firefighters raising the flag at Ground Zero. They'd sign a release, I'm sure.
Best of all, show the pic of POTUS on Air Force One, looking out the window. That's already been used anyway for POTUS' fundraising campaign.
I'd be OK with any of those solutions.
I'm eagerly awaiting the aircraft carrier ad -- then hell will break loose! I'll be terribly disappointed if we don't get an ad or campaign mail with those graphics. But yeah, standing atop the rubble with the bullhorn and a firefighter would sure work for me.
W would never use footage of victims falling from the WTC. BUT, I totally disagree with the blackout on all mainstream media of those images. They are powerful and historical, and they serve to remind us of what we fight for and against. Those who would hide those images away would like to see the war against our enemies ended prematurely (and us broken and destroyed as a result). There were a lot of well-made screen savers and slide shows around after 9/11 (very popular at work, even with the liberals...amazing) that I still like to look at from time to time. I have no use for anyone who wants to forget. I'm just very worried that 9/11 was a walk in the park compared to what is yet to come.
Peg:
This whole flap isn't about remembering or "hiding those images away." It's about one side "owning" the images of the dead and using them for partisan political purposes.
Perhaps you've done professional photographic work, or know someone who has. If so, you know that you're supposed to get a release from everyone whose picture you use in a commercial context. And, no, I'm not suggesting that POTUS get a release of the family whose member was carried out of the rubble for the ad. What I am saying is that you can avoid that problem by avoiding the use of the image in the first place.
Use other images (see my earlier comments); they are plenty powerful and permission of those that are pictured (and those who took the pictures) would be easy to get.
But that won't happen because (a) POTUS hates admitting he was wrong and (b) he's got nothing else to run on anyway.
In a weird way, the flap was good for him; it blew the dismal job figures clean off the front page.
There are some, Dean, that support Bush and the GOP because they are angry with the directions of the Democratic Party. You know that. There are many people who do the exact opposite.
Knowing quite a bit about home and my family's own activities, many in the private sector unions here are involved in Democratic politics because they see the current leadership of the GOP as hostile to unions, hostile to what matters most to them, and more interested in telling them what should be their top priorities. In fact those deeply attached to the Dems are not the most angry. It is those that would be active members of the GOP given their own choice of party. After all, many of these areas went for Specter, Ridge, Heinz, Scott, Scranton, need I go on?
Those six, did they vote for Pataki? I would like to get them under oath when asked.
Libertarian:
I know you are "making a point," but a true Libertarian would plotz at the idea of putting someone under oath before asking them who they voted for.
:^)
Folks, Bush's use of the image in no way implies that he is the sole owner of the political fallout from the attacks. The only people saying that are the Democrats. If the Democrats had a leg to stand on, they'd be using that footage too. Making hay out of the bullhorn in the rubble footage would be smart, but it's a different animal from the footage of the attack.
The reality is, the Bushies purposely put that one picture in there to bait the Dems. The picture of the WTC wall with the flag certainly conjures up the images of 9/11. That wasn't good enough. They had to get a body in there so they could get the Dems screaming. Karl and company are masters of this. Think about how far the Bushies have sucked the Dems in. They have Kerry as the nominee. This is the man who called for "regime change" in the middle of the Iraq invasion. With his tax cuts, they have the Dems screaming for TAX INCREASES prior to the election. Now, with this picture, they have Dems screaming FOR 9/11 censorship. What is truly laughable is how the Dems call GWB stupid yet they keep falling for his transparent traps. They are the "scarecrow" party of American politics. If they only had a brain.
I watched assorted Dems express outrage over these ads. They come off as phony and petty. That said, the use of the photo served no purpose other than to bait the Dems into this faux outrage. It was a cheap political ploy by the Bushies and it worked like a charm. I think the whole thing further cheapens and degrades American politics. It brings nothing but dishonor on this country and disgraces her citizenry.
BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES IN THIS COUNTRY SUCK!
Oh lighten up.
[pause]
Only the Republicans suck.
:^)
Alrighty then Ara.
both parties suck
Ara,
I guess you walk on water; I don't. Screensavers go around, slideshows ditto, and if I see a great pic online, I save it. Do I have downloaded music on my HD? Yes, and not all of it from iTunes. I don't walk on water or claim to.
As far as "owning" images of 9/11, no, the right doesn't own them and neither does W. The left has merely DISOWNED them. This puts me immediately in mind of Howard Dean's caterwalling (no other word for it) about taking back the American flag from Rush Limbaugh. The left can wail all they want about the flag being taken away by the right, but sayin' it don't make it so. If I wave the flag, wear the flag, decorate my office with it, I haven't taken it away from anyone. The left spat on and burned the flag decades ago. The left DISOWNED the flag. They can take it back any time they want, but it means showing respect and pride and patriotism, and that they will not do.
Many wore flag pins at work for a long time after 9/11 (some still do). To the best of my knowledge, they're all Republicans. I could go on but you get the idea. We on the right own nothing. I won't criticize anyone who uses 9/11 images or the flag to express support of the WOT, love of our country, etc. But I immediately dismiss any whining that we on the right own those symbols. The left en masse has disowned them. Anyone who wants to take something back ought to examine exactly why they gave it away to begin with.
BTW, I knew you would throw a party over the jobs report. I think this is another trap Dems are about to fall into face-first, but we'll have to wait and see.
Dean, I'm asking (without sarcasm, please believe me)-What exactly do you want Kerry to say about 9/11?
Peg C:
With all due respect to you, I haven't said a thing about the flag. Nor have I thrown a party about the jobs report. Read my blog if you like. Or not. Just, please, try to listen to what I've been saying and don't put someone else's words in my mouth.
Oh and that thing about downloading tunes off the Net?
You're under arrest.
:^)
Hey Dowingba --
Preview function in MT template is still, ahem, not right. Please fix!!
Thanks.
Ara,
I didn't say you mentioned the flag; I mentioned the flag. It has been tossed around as a symbol "owned" by the right the same way the 9/11 images now are. (I do remember that one of my first comments here discussed the WOT and evil and I was accused by Adam of equating evil with Iraq, when I had not mentioned Iraq in my entire overlong post, and I don't even believe this is what I did to you vis-a-vis the flag.) I'm not accusing you personally of disowning the flag, but to me it is similar symbolically to 9/11 images, and both seem to set some libs' teeth on edge.
I try to stick to right-leaning blogs (Dean will probably want to smack me for that) because when I venture over to the left my blood pressure skyrockets. Thanks for the invite, anyway. Too, I spent 30+ years on the left and that's all anyone should ever have to take. Good, if you didn't throw a party over a lousy jobs report. I am certain most of your party's leaders did.
One more thing - I just read yesterday's Lileks column on using the 9/11 images in ads and the WOT in general, and he says everything so much better than I can. What he said.
I know I'm a little late to the party, but I worked hard on this. CNN and Salon are busted, and I scored a few finds that Smash and Hawkins missed.
Name after name came up in these stories, and just about every one had a national organization and/or a hyper-slick political website.
If you want to trash Bush, talk to the pros, I guess.
Peg C.'s analysis of owning vs. disowning is quite excellent.
I must say that I have had it with this nonsense that certain people can "own" a historical event or era. Nobody "owns" September 11. "Professional blacks" like Jesse Jackson do not "own" slavery, either in world history or in the U.S., nor do they "own" Jim Crow or the Civil Rights struggle. Nor does anyone "own" the Holocaust in the way that certain invokers of "Godwin's Law" like to maintain, pretending outrage whenever anyone makes a valid historical parallel to our time.
The whole point in remembering these and similar events is to prevent their ever happening again. I have nothing to do with "sensitivity" and this cult of not offending people. I don't give a damn if what I say is "offensive" or not, especially to those who spent their time looking for things to be offended by. The only thing I care about is whether I'm right or wrong. If you think I'm wrong, then prove me wrong.
I agree completely with Dean that the more said about September 11 by _both_ political parties, by all Americans, the better. I say we _must_ see those images of the atrocity, again and again and again, until the full impact of that day and its meaning is burned into our minds forever. Never forget. Never forgive. NEVER AGAIN!
Steven, honestly, I have never been in stronger agreement with you. Right on!
"Maybe it's me, maybe it's them, maybe it's both of us, I don't know. "
It's them.