Yes.
It’s certainly no more inappropriate than using shots of the aftermath of 9/11. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Appropiate - Yes
Smart? - No |
| |
Written By:
bains
URL:
http://
|
During the Clinton presidency, would it have been inappropriate for a Republican candidate for office to show footage of the soldier being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu when the tag line, "things have taken a turn for the worse." Candidates ought to think long and hard about how they use images of war for short-term political gain. It cuts both ways.
Besides, this political ad doesn’t appear to answer Greg Gutfeld’s simple question, "Can you come up with a single realistic solution for Iraq, other than saying it was a mistake?"
|
| |
Written By:
jordana
URL:
http://
|
Ditto Bains answers.
|
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
Appropriate? No.
Permissible? Yes.
A smart move? Absolutely not. This will alienate far more undecideds than it attracts IMHO. This ad is just red meat for the base. |
| |
Written By:
D
URL:
http://
|
|
Yes, it is inappropriate. But nothing should surprise us. I am curious to know how it plays in his district - around Boca Raton and West Palm. I may be mistaken but I don’t think that’s exactly an area heavily populated with retired conservative veterans. |
| |
Written By:
Wulf
URL:
http://www.atlasblogged.com
|
Of course it is permissible to use images of war in political speech. War is a deeply political act. It affects all of us emotionally and financially, and may well affect whether we live or die.
War should be discussed more, not less. But of course how you discuss it reflects on you. If the Democrats concentrate on such images it will confirm that they are not to be trusted in matters of national defense. But by all means, let us hear and see their positions on our current war. |
| |
Written By:
Rory Daulton
URL:
http://
|
So let me get this straight: Rahm Emanuel, Nanci Pelosi, Bill Clinton (no sign of Hillary), and some other guy nobody’s ever heard of are running against George Bush and Dick Cheney? Wind power and defense are the platform? The "Lion" himself won’t allow wind power generation in his back yard, and nobody really believes that the dems see the military as anything more than a source of pork for their districts. Feh.
As to the flag draped coffins, I suppose you can show just about anything in an ad, no matter how tasteless. Doesn’t make it right. Others can - and Jon probably will - disagree, but I just didn’t see Bush’s use of the 9/11 images in the same way as I see these. He had a huge part in the nation’s recovery from those attacks, and in the response to them, which is what his ads attempted to convey. |
| |
Written By:
S.
URL:
http://
|
|
My favorite part of the commercial is when they are showing pictures of the democratic leaders, and they suddenly show a picture of a mother and her child reading a book together on the bed (not a democratic leader). Then, they go back to showing leaders. Watch it again and see if you can guess why they gratuitously threw that picture in. (hint: can’t appear to be an all-Caucasian party now can we?) |
| |
Written By:
Clark Taylor
URL:
http://
|
Not to mention that it appears Katrina was the fault of the current administration, and no blame can be attributed to a Democratic city administration in New Orleans, or a Democratic governor in the state that seems to be taking the longest to recover despite oodles of Federal funds.
but MY favorite was ending it with Bill - he’s running again? |
| |
Written By:
looker
URL:
http://
|
It’s certainly no more inappropriate than using shots of the aftermath of 9/11. Were the 9/11 images used as a direct attack against Democrats? In other words, were they used to blame Democrats for the deaths?The caskets in this ad are being directly used as an example of how Republicans have hurt America. |
| |
Written By:
JWG
URL:
http://
|
JWG,
That is a nice distinction and has been nagging at me. They can go ahead and use them that way, but I will find it irritating in a way Bush did not irritate when he used his ads. I can’t imagine any politician not using a time when even most liberals thought he was at his best to campaign. If he had used it to directly attack Bill Clinton I would have found it rather irritating and unfair. It also would have, I am sure, touched off a campaign in retaliation using 9/11 images to attack Bush. That is a road I am glad we didn’t go down. I worry that ads such as this may touch off a response from Republicans I’ll hate even more.
It may be fair game, but it is definitely a worrisome beginning to the ad campaign. |
| |
Written By:
Lance
URL:
http://
|
My favorite part of the commercial is when they are showing pictures of the democratic leaders, and they suddenly show a picture of a mother and her child reading a book together on the bed (not a democratic leader). Then, they go back to showing leaders. Watch it again and see if you can guess why they gratuitously threw that picture in. (hint: can’t appear to be an all-Caucasian party now can we?) How about the fake Tom DeLay mug shots with the equally fake number below him. - 91108GOP? |
| |
Written By:
McQ
URL:
http://www.qando.net/blog
|
But by all means, let us hear and see their positions on our current war. Total agreement with Rory here. It certainly seems to me that when the democrats want to talk about the war, they aren’t being honest about their true opinions unless they are accusing republicans of being bloodthirsty nazis or something. If they aren’t doing that, they are not expressing their actual feelings, because they know it will not win them elections. |
| |
Written By:
Josh
URL:
http://
|
|
Discussion would be good, but discussion is an intellectual excercise, whereas pictures of caskets is an attempt to evoke an emotional response. |
| |
Written By:
timactual
URL:
http://
|
