Evolving.
The greyest of arguments
Published on March 5, 2004 By Angloesque In Politics
I'm not talking about a legal right; no one "owns" what happened on September 11. I guess I'm wondering if he has a moral right. If the terrorist attacks on that date were on America, then every American in some way owns a part of what happened then, Bush included.

But is it an equal distribution of "right"? On the Today show, Katie Couric interviewed three women about Bush's campaign ads. Two of the three women felt Bush was profiting from Sept. 11, which is technically true if the ads inspire a viewer to contribute to his campaign fund. (Aside: give me a candidate who'll use his campaign money to balance the budget and help eliminate our deficit and I'm so there.) One woman felt it was okay for him to use those images because, in effect, that's what happened. I don't mean to sound crass, but do these women and the firefighters unions and the police have more of a right to what happened on that date because of their proximity to the event than others? than me? than the president? than Alaskans? I don't know.

I'm sure there was much debate in the Bush camp about using these images, but I wonder if it's more detrimental to his campaign than helpful. Any commercial, to me, represents money or power, whether it's about a mop or a drug giant trying to get you to ask your doctor about a drug they don't tell you anything about in the commercial. Ergo, Bush is trying to win power by using these images. OTOH, though, it was the highlight of his presidency, aside--maybe--from Saddam Hussein's capture.

Ahh, I hate to have arguments about morals because they tend to be circular. Still, this one's about as grey as you can get.

Comments (Page 1)
on Mar 05, 2004
Yes, it was the highlight of his presidency, and no one would have a problem with him talking about it, but actual images of the destroyed World Trade Center do not convey anything about his personal triumphs. Show the video of him talking to the crowd on the megaphone.

Ultimately, it is an undeniable fact that the President has used images of the rubble of the Twin Towers for his personal political gain. The issue is whether this is offensive or morally repugnant. I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt; I think it was in somewhat bad taste and showed somewhat poor judgment, but I don't think he meant it to be really exploitative.
on Mar 05, 2004
I've got a problem with him using the images of 9-11 in his commercials. He's using them to tug at the heart strings of America, and yes, I do think he's using them to be exploitative.

Bad Taste dubya.

Cheers
on Mar 05, 2004
Personally, I have no problem at all with Bush using 9-11 images. The message is clear -- he is running on his anti-terror record, and he considers this to be the greatest concern of America at this point. In the era of television, communication is mostly by visual symbol, and this one is clear and fair, at least in my book.

It is now up to America to ask questions of this. Looking back from this vantage point, has terrorism been well handled? Was the Afghanistan situation handled for the best? Did our handling of Iraq make us safer from terrorists? Is terrorism the most important threat facing America for the next four years, or is this candidate focusing on an outdated priority? Was this candidate trustworthy, honest, and intelligent in dealing with this issue?

Answer those questions, and you know whether you are looking to replace the sitting president. This seems fair to me.
on Mar 05, 2004
I think that he is okay as long as he sticks to images of himself or his actions. Simply displaying images of the attacks or of the ensuing destruction says nothing about Bush and is therefore necessarily irrelevant and unacceptable.
on Mar 05, 2004
I don't think it'd be bad to use 9/11 in his campaign, but if he is using images and videos of the actual event, then that's just in bad taste. I don't think people would want to be reminded of it. I have no problem saying he handled post-9/11 well though, especially since I'm sure his opponents will say otherwise.
on Mar 06, 2004
The way the country felt during those days is actually about the only thing Bush has going for him with the average American.
We were the United States of America during those days. We did not for a second hesitate in rushing aid to those people in need. We were determined to protect and defend our land. But how much of that was Bush and how much was of it was the citizens? This is a good question and I absolutely say no.
on Mar 08, 2004
How was it bad taste? Because it "tugs at the heartstrings" ?...Well, isn't that the Point?

You're only a sheep if you allow yourself to be. If you're "moved" to donate to Bush's campaign because of one stinkin ad showing things you've Already seen, then obviously you were going to donate Any freakin ways. Baaaaaaahh

And if you think he should not be allowed to use the images, why not? Why can't he? Are you just picking on him because he's the current guy you're "disliking" ?
How does anyone own something that's happened? Nobody owns 9/11. So how can you in any way tell Bush he Can't use it, or that he shouldn't? Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh


Damned if you do, Damned if you don't, Damned if you do it while you don't! (I know, my comments are inflammatory) But think about it people! You're making a decision based on something you have no control over. And it's not a decision, it's but an opinion.

However! If you were to discuss whether or not it will affect your voting because he uses 9/11 images, then that has relevance as opposed to this moral three-ring circus everyone is soapboxing on about. While you're all smarter than the average idiot and entitled to feel outraged over something..You are entitled, yes..It's the questions you ask and how you ask them.

Wisefawn, were you going to vote for Bush before the Ad? Are you going to vote for him afterwards?

Bulbous, were you going to vote for Bush before the Ad? Are you going to vote for him afterwards?

ADS are there to get you to vote for or against. Now, if it Manipulates your moral conscience in order to buy/steal your vote, than it has done its job. That should really be the question..because simply there is no moral thought or entity behind the ad..just stimulus and response
on Mar 08, 2004
How was it bad taste?


Sorry, but exploiting thousands of deaths and the destruction of a national landmark for political gain is bad taste.


If you're "moved" to donate to Bush's campaign because of one stinkin ad showing things you've Already seen, then obviously you were going to donate Any freakin ways.


The ads are not just to solicit money; there's a little thing called an election we have here in the US, and politicians need what are known as "votes."


I know, my comments are inflammatory


No, just silly.


And it's not a decision, it's but an opinion.


Who said it was anything but?


Bulbous, were you going to vote for Bush before the Ad? Are you going to vote for him afterwards?


No and no, but what relevance does that bear? SOME people were presumably swayed one way or the other.


because simply there is no moral thought or entity behind the ad..just stimulus and response


No, my reaction to the ad was not a biological reflex.
on Mar 09, 2004
That's twice now I've agreed with bulbous. What is this world coming to?

Lunaticus, I'll allow your point that ads are about manipulating people's consciences, but there's this thing called "taste." I think it's poor taste to exploit the personal deaths of thousands of people for political gain; on the other hand, during that time, Bush seemed to be a good leader--at least most Americans thought so (wasn't his approval around 80%?). Which is he banking on: the deaths of people or his leadership? and like a previous poster said, the pictures aren't exactly showing him with a bullhorn talking to people. That's where the paradox lies.
on Mar 09, 2004
Angloesque: Who says what you feel is good taste is what I find in good taste? Who died and made you God of our moral conscience? That's the problem when you said it's in bad taste and Bush thinking it demonstrates what he is looking for.

Bulbous: How is it any different than Buying votes? Or forging names at the ballots? All of these things go on but the best we can do is critize an ad? (Who really pays attention to ads, anyways? It's nothing but biased propaganda) Donations lead to better media coverage and more propaganda ads that lead to votes.

Your reaction to the ad was bilogical reflex, you just aren't able to comprehend how. ;o)

on Mar 09, 2004
I am not saying Bush planned 9/11 but he did know it was going to happen. He used it as an excuse to get involved with two totally different wars and get everyone waving flags. If it wasn't for 9/11, Kerry would win in a landslide, but Bush has everyone brainwashed so it's going to be close. Just as his father did.
on Mar 09, 2004
Bush does have a "rite" to use any ads his wants to.
on Mar 09, 2004


Angloesque: Who says what you feel is good taste is what I find in good taste? Who died and made you God of our moral conscience? That's the problem when you said it's in bad taste and Bush thinking it demonstrates what he is looking for.


1. No one, you crazy. I said "I think it's poor taste..." That's me thinking and phrasing it as my opinion.

2. Actually, the original Miss Manners gave me the right to dictate your moral conscience. *Plllllbth.*
on Mar 09, 2004
Drats, caught by a clause in a contract.
on Mar 10, 2004
*claps hands with glee, having gotten one up on Lunaticus*

--Miss Manners II