They are creating a heck of a response here in New York. This from today’s Daily News. --------------------------------------------------- Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad By MAGGIE HABERMAN in New York and THOMAS M. DeFRANK in Washington DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS Thursday, March 4th, 2004 The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage. "It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable." <b>Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission. </b> "I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11. "But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat." Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots. "How heinous is that?" Kleinberg asked. "That's somebody's [loved one]." Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled. "It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said. But Jennie Farrell, who lost her brother, electrician James Cartier, called the ad "tastefully done," adding: "It speaks to the truth of the times. Sept. 11 ... was something beyond the realm of imagination, and George Bush ... led us through one of the darkest moments in history." The gauzy, upbeat spots, aimed at shoring up Bush's sagging approval numbers, begin airing today on national cable networks and 50 media markets in 17 states that Bush-Cheney strategists consider electoral battlegrounds. Two ads, including a Spanish version, show fleeting images of the World Trade Center devastation. The 30-second spots include a poignant image of an American flag fluttering defiantly amid the WTC wreckage. One, titled "Safer, Stronger," also features a one-second shot of firefighters removing the flag-draped remains of a victim from the twisted debris. Both ads reinforce the Ground Zero imagery with frontal shots of two firefighters. Unlike the paid actors and actresses in most of the footage, they are not ringers, but their red headgear gives them away as non-New Yorkers. The Bush campaign declined to reveal where the burly smoke-eaters actually work. Bush officials defended the imagery as totally appropriate. "9/11 was the defining moment of these times," campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters. "Because of that day, America is at war and still is." Charging Democratic rival John Kerry with politicizing the attacks by alleging Bush has turned his back on the city, Mehlman added: "The President's never forgotten. It's a central part of his leadership." The spots, pegged to the theme of "steady leadership in time of change," do not mention Kerry. Instead, their uplifting message hopes to refurbish Bush's battered image after two months of harsh Democratic attacks and a series of missteps by the normally surefooted White House political apparatus. "We've been off our game for weeks," a senior Bush strategist conceded. "Thank goodness, there's plenty of time to get well, and plenty of grist to chop Kerry down to size." http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/170291p-148587c.html --------------------------------- What I find interesting is that he would use such imagery but drag his feet with the 911 commission. Thoughts?
Did anyone really doubt that Dubya would use 9/11 as political cannon fodder? When arrogance is your strongest trait, this is what happens. Can't wait until the 2004 Republican Convention in NYC. Will Dubya actually be arrogant enough to make his acceptance speech from Ground Zero? I wouldn't put it past him.
He is that arrogant, I just really hope that the Reps continue to try to use 9/11 for political gain. Most people who vote will see through that and will kick his a$$ out. It is absolutely disgusting that he would use images from the most horrific terrorist attack ever made on this country for his own political currency and I think most Americans will gag on the imagery.
Poor, poor liberals.... I think they are just a TEENSIE-WEENSIE bit scared that John Kerry isn't getting 100% of the publicity anymore! I think they are just a TEENSIE-WEENSIE bit scared that Bush's campaigning will significantly bolster his image and position with the voters! Do you see this level of anger, bitterness and frustration from a happy liberal? NO. They are gravely concerned about the upcoming campaign. They should be, quite frankly -- they are operating from a position of weakness. GAME ON
Of course, I don't predict this ad, which would be closer to the truth: In the summer of 2001, your unelected President received notification from three separate foreign governments----Egypt, Israel, and Russia----of the impending attacks that would forever change the course of our nation.....and did nothing. Now we have a war that should have been averted. Tough on terrorism.....vote Bush?
It is truly laughable that the liberals think that no mention of the *largest terror attack on American soil* should be made in the upcoming Presidential race. This is obviously wishful thinking by the liberals, as they well know that the demoncrats are very weak on foreign policy and homeland security issues. Face it, 9-11 was an event that called for significant policy changes, both at home and abroad. An event of this magnitude will continue to call for policy changes going forward. The American people need a President that will be tough on terror and will protect our nation. Clearly, the American voters give a *clear* edge to Bush on this issue. That is why you see the liberals complaining so desperately. Their only attempt to 'win' this issue is to try to stifle discussion of it. When they see Bush wisely incorporating it into his ads, they recognize that their losing issue will be front and center. This is a very tough pill for the liberals to swallow -- hence the whining, crying and gnashing of teeth that you see here.
I have no problem with the mention or discussion of 911 in the debate on foreign policy. It is a discussion that needs to happen and will. What I find interesting is that it’s the first thing that Bush has come out with in his first ads. Don’t you think there are more pressing issues? America thinks so… Why not come out with how well he’s done on job creation? Why not discuss the budget surplus? Why not tout his gains on environmental policies? Why not talk about the job he’s done in bringing to justice corporate scandal in America? Why not brag about the job he’s done with health care? Why not discuss his new constitutional amendment request? Why not brag about the good will he has garnered from our allies around the world? But I’m sure that will all be covered in his next round of ads. Right?
Question: Previous to *the largest terrorist attack on American soil*, what held that title? What was it's political significance?
I'm pretty sure that prior to 9/11 the OK City bombing was the largest terrorist attack on American soil. Although I don't recall that being used in Clinton '96 ads. As for the GW Bush campaign using 9/11 imagery in their ads I'm not surprised because they don't have much else to campaign on regarding GW's record. As many of the posters noted this could backfire but its a safer bet than trying to campaign on an aenemic economy, Iraqi quagmire, inconsistent trade policy and divisive social agenda.
Right. Did OK city change everything? If not, where is the rule thay states terrorist attacks change everything only if they exceed X number of casualites, or if they were perpetrated by foreigners? If there's another 9-11, but it achieves fewer casualties, would it change everything? Less than everything? If there were more killed, would it change us more? If the second plane had missed, and as a result fewer had died in 911 than OK City, would it still have changed everything? I have said that Bush should not be help responsible for 9-11. But how he should be given credit for it is beyond me. He is still playing the same one note fiddle: FEAR. Of course, the history of world leaders who used fear as their primary tool for public motivation is a long and prestigious one... I think the best response to all of Bush's fear based rhetoric is a quote from another President who knew a little something about getting America through troubled times; The only thing we have to fear....
MacBeth, once again you attempt to distort issues. Oh, you'll deny it, but there is no question you are doing it. 1) You can in no way minimize or trivialize the impact of 9-11 on policy making by making comparisons to OK City. Two totally different events. The grotesque casualty comparison that you make doesn't capture the difference in magnitude of the two events at all. You're argument is not only disingenuous, but it is sickening. A new low for you. 2) Bush's leadership after 9-11, not 9-11 itself was not responsible for his dramatic boost in popularity and ownership of the foreign policy/homeland security issue. You act like 9-11 was a gift for the Bush Administration. It wasn't. It was a tragedy that was dealt with magnificently by Bush. This is why he gained politically from it. It didn't magically drop into his lap, as you naively assume. As far as I'm concerned, I implore you to keep up with the strategy of attempting to trivialize 9-11. I can't think of a worse way for the liberals to campaign. Get ready for a landslide with that approach.
T_J. You said, and I quote, Your qualification is that it is the * largest terror attack on American soil * ( leaving out the slaughter of civilian Natives, for example, but oh, well). Now, by that qualification, OKC was, prior to 9-11, the * largest terror attack on American soil.* Why the distinction? Why didn't OKC qualify? Really? How, pray, do you happen to know this? Factual response, T_J, not rhetoric. Well, I may be naive, but the fact that his numbers were highest just after 9-11, and the farther the event has been from the present, the lower his numbers have dropped...hmmm. What's the constyant? Bush's 'dealing with 9-11'. What's the variable? 9-11. When he had 9-11 AND his 'dealing' with it, his numbers were high. Since he has had 9-11 less and less, and his actions more and more, his support has fallen....Hmmmm.... I would think that using it for your own political gain, ie ads, etc., is trivializing it far, far more than asking rational questions about the relative impact of past and future terrorist attacks, but oh, well, I'm just another lunatic fringe liberal who voted Republican 4 of the past 5 elections...
MacBeth, I certainly hope you recognize the degree of pomposity that you exhibit when you play the semantics game and parse words in an effort to trivialize the catastrophic tragedy that was 9-11. It is gross. Frankly, you look like an idiot when you do that. There are no two ways about it. Playing the legalease, Clinton-esque word smithing game in trying to 'define' what constitutes a tragedy is the most sickening display of idiocy I have seen in quite some time, and that is saying something with some of the liberal clowns running around in here. It is clear that the President's response to the tragic attacks on 9-11 was praised on both sides of the aisle and by millions of Americans. There obviously is no questioning that. But hey, if you continue to not want to believe that, then fine. Like I said, I implore you to keep up with the strategy of "oh, 9-11 wasn't that big of a deal, OK City was just as bad" approach. Very smart move politically. In fact, I strongly encourage you to advocate this strategy amongst democratic party leaders. You clearly feel very strongly that we should have had the same reaction to 9-11 that we had to OKC, so you'd better spread the word! Just don't come crying to me again after your candidate gets DUKAKISSED in November. TEARS
As I expected, 100% rhetoric, 0 substance. A) It's not a semantic. Were I you, I would rage about the insensitivity you are showing to the hundreds who died in OK, City, etc. It's not a semantic argument to say that, if 9-11 changed everything because it was, exactly as you said, the *largest terror attack on American soil*, why would the acts which held that qualification previously not have the same significance. You say it's the difference in casualties. Rather that argue with you, I will defer to your obviously superior understanding of the matter, and ask where the casuaty-makes-significant number line is drawn? 1, 000? 750? 2, 314? Where, T-J? If, indeed, you are opposed to sematic arguments, give me a real indication of where you feel the numbers leave OKC as being nowhere near the significance, despite being the *largest terror attack on American soil*, of 9-11? B) You really, really don't get it. When people say 9-11 was what gave Bush the support, and you argue that by saying " No, people said nice things about him from BOTH sides!" as though that refutes the point, you are revealing your limitations. Rather than exaplin it to you point by point, allow me to phrase it this way: WHat form exactly, do you feel the support we feel 9-11 garnered him took? Parades? Babies named in his honor? Or maybe a window of time where people supported whatever he did and said, and didn't want to be seen criticizing him? Maybe you'll get this point....maybe.
I find it humorous that Clinton exploited OK City by going on TV to "mourn with America" to get the old poll numbers up and yet....when Bush uses a tragedy in the same manner, he is the anti-Christ? 9/11 was the seminal moment of the Bush presidency is like Bob Stoops not considering his finest hour to be the 2000 (correct me if I'm wrong about that) national championship. It was his defining moment as president and he'd be a fool not to mention it, especially when running against an appeaser like Kerry, who'd have our national defense shunted through the parlimentary debacle that is the UN.
Bush also went tothe 9-11 site, and mourned with the victims...over a year ago. That was obviously politcally motivated, as was Clinton's move, but both were also the expected thing to do. Using it in a partisan ad is, however, an entirely different kettle of fish. Do you honestly not see that?
So, which is it. Was Clinton exploiting OKC and Bush exploiting 9/11 or not. Try as you might, you can't have it both ways.
I'm surprise no one said anything about the ridiculous national championship analogy. Starting with, a national championship is an accomplishment.
