Interesting commentary regarding a 9/11 photo for sale. Photo Op-Portunism By MAUREEN DOWD Let me get this straight. Democrats are supposed to stifle objections and smile adoringly at President Bush whenever the subject is the war on terrorism. Anything else would be downright unpatriotic. But the G.O.P. can bathe Mr. Bush in a beatific commander-in-chief light, exploiting the war on terrorism to sweep more Republicans into office, guarantee the president's reelection and gild the party coffers. Anything else would be downright dumb — at least in a political jungle ruled by King Karl. (Nobody is even supposed to point out that Osama and the Evildoers are still out there. At this rate I expect Barbara Walters to find them before Tommy Franks does.) So now the White House gets caught peddling 9/11 commemorative photos. With all the class of a 1:30 a.m. infomercial for an electronic ab stimulator, the G.O.P. pitched donors, for a bargain price, a pictorial triptych of W.'s "defining moments." A letter to contributors hawked the goods Franklin Mint style: "Specially commissioned, individually numbered and matted, this limited edition series is yours free for serving as an honorary co-chairman of the 2002 President's Dinner with your gift of $150 or more." See W. take the oath of office! See W. deliver his first State of the Union address! And, if you act now, see W. aboard Air Force One in the hours after the terrorist attack, talking to the vice president! Fortunately for the Republicans, it's a photo and not a video. Otherwise we might hear the president nervously inquiring of his adult supervisor, "Hey, Dick, is it safe to come home yet?" Even putting aside the fact that this "heroic" image captures the shaky hours before the president found his footing and his mission in life, a day of blank fear when Washington received no guidance from its leaders, it obliterates the White House's professed principle of not using Sept. 11 to divide. Instead, Bushies are using that dark and sacred day to divide and conquer. "At best, it is in very poor taste," says a Democratic official, Jim Jordan. "At worst, it feels sacrilegious." Al Gore, who had his own fund-raising photo problems at the Buddhist temple, relished the role reversal: "While most pictures are worth a thousand words, a photo that seeks to capitalize on one of the most tragic moments in our nation's history is worth only one — disgraceful." Bill Maher, who believes his ABC show "Politically Incorrect" got canceled because he got in trouble with the White House patriotism police for his post-9/11 gibes, said dryly, alluding to the Florida election standoff: "It's the inaugural photo that is exploiting a tragedy." Asked if merchandising 9/11 was "morally correct," the never-illuminating Bush press secretary, Ari Fleischer, replied that "no objections were raised" by the White House to the party's use of the pictures. "Any picture taken of the president in that context is a reminder of how this president has brought the nation together, Democrats and Republicans alike," he added, transforming a red-handed moment of partisanship into a glad-handing moment of bipartisanship. Mr. Bush went to a Republican party gala last night and raised a record $30 million. It was at the same gala two years ago that Mr. Bush vowed to change the tone in Washington and end "excessive partisanship" and what he cast as the craven tactics of the Clinton administration. In his campaign, he vowed that he wouldn't put the Lincoln Bedroom up for sale. So he shouldn't put one of the worst days in our nation's history on the block, either. The Bush crowd has a glaring double standard when it comes to opportunistic use of catastrophes. A Times article this week suggested that this White House is politicizing all foreign affairs, which are measured and molded according to Karl Rove's electoral algorithms. Between the lines of the complaints about Mr. Rove's rising influence, one could detect a pouting Powell. The secretary seems to have a bad case of Rove rage. The idea that foreign policy has never been infected with domestic politics is extremely disingenuous. Especially in this administration, in which politics is everywhere and all the realms and all the portfolios run self-interestedly into each other like sauces on a plate of enchiladas.
"Hello, Kettle? This is the Pot!" I honestly don't see what the big deal is. He's not using photos of the WTC...he's not using photos of firemen or bodies or anything offensive. This is simply him making a phone call in the midst of an incredible crisis in our nation...him doing his job. I don't see why that's so offensive...particularly when you consider the source of these complaints.
It's a little unseemly I guess, but if you think the Democrats wouldn't have done the same thing you're kidding yourself.
From what I gathered, it wasn't a buy this photo but mroe of a make a donation and choose whatever photo you want. Is that right? If so, why is that wrong?
I don't get why this is a big deal. The photo is probably not even from 9-11. Regardless, this is silly.
I've got to say that this Republican Party promotion is far better than that one from the late '80s where donors were given pictures of Reagan's removed polyps.
wow, your a really good writer. I wish i could be as direct and concise as you. seriously. well written stuff and i agree. May I send this to my local news paper (its very conservative ) I live in the only conservative town in the hamptons. Also I will credit it to you or withold identity. whatever you want if i get your aproval.
This issue is small potatoes...they stole an election, afterall. Who cares about a picture of Bush talking to Cheney on 9-11? The fact that George W. didn't curl up into the fetal position and cry for his daddy (Bush *or* Chaney) in the wake of 9-11 is all he has to hang his hat on. What else does this administration have to run on? Capturing Bin Laden? A robust economy? Deft handling of the middle east? Passing a stimulus package through congress? Overthrowing a democratically elected government in Venezuela? They couldn't even manage to do that correctly! Still, W. will have to be a political moron on the level of his father to blow his re-election.
Now that's the kind of reasoned, intelligent, even-handed political analysis that makes this BBS so popular with those of us that have conservative beliefs. You should be very proud of yourself, coming up with such a well-thought-out review of the Bush Administration. If I were you, I would sneer at Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and conservative fans of their programs, because it is obvious that you approach politics free of the knee-jerk partisanship for which I'm sure you deride them. Good job all the way through.
My response was probably not called for. I just get so sick of that kind of garbage. Perhaps I'm the only one that still feels this way, but I lost almost all of my interest in partisan politics after September 11th. I now find myself defending Bill Clinton and George Bush because most of the criticism I hear of them is of the Molly Ivins/Rush Limbaugh "Everything Is The Other Guy's Fault" school of thought. Anyone know who Neal Boortz is? He is a terrific example of the kind of political person I wish could be flushed down the toilet, permanently. I will leave my initial post up there so as not to pretend I didn't say it.
wow, your a really good writer. Look at the post Voice. The article is attributed to Maureen Dowd. Most folks who would read a thread like this know she writes for the NY Times. As for your compliment, I appreciate a critique of writing skills provided by someone with your obvious expertise in capitalization, contractions, and punctuation.
BK-- I lived in Atlanta for a few years when Boortz and Sean Hannity were the top two local radio shows. I concur with your opinion.
