It’s well done. Frankly, though, I thought the Chimp’s dumb gags at the Correspondent’s dinner were quite obscene enough already – even without the added material.
Dave, as usual, you seem to want to distance yourself from the bluntness of the ad by putting a label on it. Would you hasten to put the same label on ad for Ivory soap? Are all political ads, no matter how truthful, by definition propaganda? If you accept that this war is wrong, and that people are dying needlessly, and that Bush has made light of the war (which the ad clearly shows him doing), again, why is the ad propaganda?
Propaganda is the operative term. In fact, this is propaganda that relies on a baseline of propaganda. It assumes WMD were the reason we went to war in Iraq and no thinking, informed person actually beleives that the President or Colin Powell or anyone in the Cabinet ever said that – John Kerry did advocate for going to war for the WMDs, of course, but then he’s just a Senator. So given that this is pure propaganda that no informed person actually believes, that probably means the answer to your question is, “yes, it will be effective with some undecided voters”. Though I wonder if even that term is an oxymoron. Do undecided people even bother to vote?
If the people who put this partisan smear together were actually honest with themselves (or us) they would admit that EVERY group/assembly of people uses inside jokes and humor – some of it totally inappropriate for general consumption – as a safety valve for the pressure and tension of difficult times and impossible responsibilies. This has to be true even for those in the continual glare of our criticism.
So yeah, it is effective propaganda. Too bad our society is so damn committed to having their side win an election that the haters among us are willing to do and say anything – no matter the cost to our nation as a whole – to have an outcome they want. As a long-time supporter of 3rd party candidates, I can say that one of the benefits to being out here on the edges is I can, at least, avoid that trap. It’s easy when winning isn’t an option.
“Propaganda is the operative term. In fact, this is propaganda that relies on a baseline of propaganda. It assumes WMD were the reason we went to war in Iraq…”
I think you need to check you logic. The ad says nothing about the reason why we went to Iraq. It does not imply that the reason we went into Iraq was because of WMD. GWB does not speak to this in the ad either.
If the people who put this partisan smear
How is it a smear? When images of the death and dying in Sudan are shown, is it a smear against the Janjaweed? Just propaganda, right? Like images from the holocaust. Smear agains Hitler, right?
“together were actually honest with themselves (or us) they would admit that EVERY group/assembly of people uses inside jokes and humor – some of it totally inappropriate for general consumption – as a safety valve for the pressure and tension of difficult times and impossible responsibilies.”
People are dying by the thousands, Bush jokes about the war, and he’s just “blowing off steam”? That’s exactly what Rush Limbaugh said, by the way, when the images of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners emerged. Just blowing off steam. Using this as an excuse, what can’t you get away with? I wonder if the Janjaweed are blowing off steam, or perhaps the Chechen terrorists. I mean, they were blowing off steam, weren’t they?
“So yeah, it is effective propaganda. Too bad our society is so damn committed to having their side win an election that the haters…”
Yep, all of us who are opposed to GWB are just irrational haters. Good propagandistic term to dismiss anyone who is too critical, or God forbid is too passionate in these times.
“among us are willing to do and say anything – no matter the cost to our nation as a whole – to have an outcome they want.”
Better to just keep quiet and hope it goes away, or maybe, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em?
“As a long-time supporter of 3rd party candidates, I can say that one of the benefits to being out here on the edges is I can, at least, avoid that trap.”
You’re obviously smarter than all of the rest of us. You see things we don’t, right? You haven’t become ensnared in the sophistry that has the rest of us all bollocked up. You’ve taken a different, perhaps more enlightened path. Good for you.
“It’s easy when winning isn’t an option.”
Yes, we who wish to see Bush defeated are more concerned with winning than with principle, unlike yourself who apparently cares nothing about winning.
Or, have you ever considered that maybe you have been delluding yourself?
I never would have thought that so many on this blog’s readership would rush to defend Bush. I guess the acceptabity of what we say depends on the audience that we say it to. We shouldn’t assume that when the president has cameras trained on him, and when he is at a formal event, that his message is for general consumption. Hmmm.
We shouldn’t assume that when the president has cameras trained on him, and when he is at a formal event, that his message is for general consumption
That’s not the issue. Context dropping is the issue. I think this ad would play with the same crowd that Michael Moore plays with — people with 105 to 110 IQs who want to think like people with 130 IQs, and think that by putting all the dots together (or having them put together for them), they are doing just that. So in that sense, it would be very effective propaganda.
But the big problem with this ad is that it relies on the premise that there were no WMDs. Ironically, Kerry’s “October Surprise” is bringing that very premise into question. See Gertz’s latest in the Washington Times.
Everyone keeps throwing that word, propaganda around without specifically stating why it is propaganda. If you tell the truth, are you spreading propaganda? Apparently so. The ad is shocking, but that doensn’t automatically make it propaganda. The fact is, Bush has a long history of making light of grim and tragic situations. Remember Carla Fae Tucker? The woman he put to death in Texas? There are plenty of substantiated reports that he joked about that. I also remember that in a prime time interview he reported that he ended his day on 9/11/01 by joking with his wife Laura before they went to bed.
None of this is surprising, though, because Bush thinks of himself as a funny man. He knows that with power comes the privilige of being able to joke about what he feels like when he feels like. If others don’t find the humor, too bad. Of course, as with everything else, Bush abuses this privildge, and that is what you see in the ad.
Brad, you’re insane if you think Bush’s remarks should be ignored because of context. The only ones, in your view, who would be critical of the president for making such careless marks are those with average IQ’s who are just not bright enough to realize that because he spoke his words in front of journalists, he had absolute carte blanche to say whatever he wanted to say without fear of recrimination. By this logic, to say nothing of its unctous arrogance, he could have been joking about anything–the 911 widows and orphans, (“just couldn’t find their poor daddys under the twisted rubble, looked here, nope, there, nope, hey, anyone know who this hand belongs to” hysterical, isn’t it?) the deficit, the millions who have joined the ranks of the poor and uninsured, the tanking stock market anything. Just like his seven or eight minutes of inaction in the Florida classroom after being told of the SECOND plane had struck, there simply is no way to excuse this lapse of judgement. The more you try, the more you look like a True Believer willing to defend him to the end no matter what the fuck he does. Maybe you can convince yourself if you try hard enough, but don’t expect to dellude anyone else who has no particular investment in defending him. Brad, do the courageous thing, and admit that you’re wrong to support George W. Bush. Come on, be a man.
Daniel, Remember Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Thornton? Didn’t think so.
The question of course, was whether this is effective propaganda, which is a separate issue from whether I support George W. Bush. The operating premise of this ad is that there were no WMDs. If in some future it turns out that, yeah, there actually were WMDs or very good reason to believe so, then it kinda falls flat on its face. In fact, this ad’s premise is deeper than “no WMDs”. It’s really the Michael Moore premise that the WMDs were a total and deliberate fabrication crafted to justify invading a peaceful, sovereign country.
When your side’s October surprise relies on the existence of 400 tons of explosives that have dubios non-military use at best, maybe you shouldn’t be so invested in the “there were no WMDs” fantasy. I think most thoughtful Americans get that this WMD issue isn’t going to wrapped up by the end of this week’s CSI:Baghdad.
Not very effective in winning hearts and minds, I’d say. It appeals to me, and to you, Dave, because we’ve already accepted that the war is bad, and that killing Iraqi civilians is not a moral activity. That’s the point on which we’d like to convince people, not a point of common agreement on which we can build with them. Our minds are made up and our votes are committed, ever since we stripped Bush bare in the snark room. This video is meant for you and me, but not for those we need to persuade.
Now, this one (first spotted at Talking Points Memo) does a better job with the same bit of Bush video, and this one here (first spotted at Electrolite) avoids the exploitativeness of the one to which you linked by having an injured party speak on his own behalf.
Also, here’s a special bonus laff riot link to a thread which started with a laugh-out-loud joke, got to this joke specially hand-crafted for the occasion, and kept on going to this very day.
Atom Feed
It’s well done. Frankly, though, I thought the Chimp’s dumb gags at the Correspondent’s dinner were quite obscene enough already – even without the added material.
Dave, as usual, you seem to want to distance yourself from the bluntness of the ad by putting a label on it. Would you hasten to put the same label on ad for Ivory soap? Are all political ads, no matter how truthful, by definition propaganda? If you accept that this war is wrong, and that people are dying needlessly, and that Bush has made light of the war (which the ad clearly shows him doing), again, why is the ad propaganda?
Devastating.
Propaganda is the operative term. In fact, this is propaganda that relies on a baseline of propaganda. It assumes WMD were the reason we went to war in Iraq and no thinking, informed person actually beleives that the President or Colin Powell or anyone in the Cabinet ever said that – John Kerry did advocate for going to war for the WMDs, of course, but then he’s just a Senator. So given that this is pure propaganda that no informed person actually believes, that probably means the answer to your question is, “yes, it will be effective with some undecided voters”. Though I wonder if even that term is an oxymoron. Do undecided people even bother to vote?
If the people who put this partisan smear together were actually honest with themselves (or us) they would admit that EVERY group/assembly of people uses inside jokes and humor – some of it totally inappropriate for general consumption – as a safety valve for the pressure and tension of difficult times and impossible responsibilies. This has to be true even for those in the continual glare of our criticism.
So yeah, it is effective propaganda. Too bad our society is so damn committed to having their side win an election that the haters among us are willing to do and say anything – no matter the cost to our nation as a whole – to have an outcome they want. As a long-time supporter of 3rd party candidates, I can say that one of the benefits to being out here on the edges is I can, at least, avoid that trap. It’s easy when winning isn’t an option.
I think it is anti-effective. I think it would only reinforce the anger/hatred of RedStates people against the BlueStates.
As anti-Bush as I am, I think taking shots over a stupid dinner joke is pretty lame. Lacking in perspective.
“Propaganda is the operative term. In fact, this is propaganda that relies on a baseline of propaganda. It assumes WMD were the reason we went to war in Iraq…”
I think you need to check you logic. The ad says nothing about the reason why we went to Iraq. It does not imply that the reason we went into Iraq was because of WMD. GWB does not speak to this in the ad either.
If the people who put this partisan smear
How is it a smear? When images of the death and dying in Sudan are shown, is it a smear against the Janjaweed? Just propaganda, right? Like images from the holocaust. Smear agains Hitler, right?
“together were actually honest with themselves (or us) they would admit that EVERY group/assembly of people uses inside jokes and humor – some of it totally inappropriate for general consumption – as a safety valve for the pressure and tension of difficult times and impossible responsibilies.”
People are dying by the thousands, Bush jokes about the war, and he’s just “blowing off steam”? That’s exactly what Rush Limbaugh said, by the way, when the images of American soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners emerged. Just blowing off steam. Using this as an excuse, what can’t you get away with? I wonder if the Janjaweed are blowing off steam, or perhaps the Chechen terrorists. I mean, they were blowing off steam, weren’t they?
“So yeah, it is effective propaganda. Too bad our society is so damn committed to having their side win an election that the haters…”
Yep, all of us who are opposed to GWB are just irrational haters. Good propagandistic term to dismiss anyone who is too critical, or God forbid is too passionate in these times.
“among us are willing to do and say anything – no matter the cost to our nation as a whole – to have an outcome they want.”
Better to just keep quiet and hope it goes away, or maybe, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em?
“As a long-time supporter of 3rd party candidates, I can say that one of the benefits to being out here on the edges is I can, at least, avoid that trap.”
You’re obviously smarter than all of the rest of us. You see things we don’t, right? You haven’t become ensnared in the sophistry that has the rest of us all bollocked up. You’ve taken a different, perhaps more enlightened path. Good for you.
“It’s easy when winning isn’t an option.”
Yes, we who wish to see Bush defeated are more concerned with winning than with principle, unlike yourself who apparently cares nothing about winning.
Or, have you ever considered that maybe you have been delluding yourself?
I never would have thought that so many on this blog’s readership would rush to defend Bush. I guess the acceptabity of what we say depends on the audience that we say it to. We shouldn’t assume that when the president has cameras trained on him, and when he is at a formal event, that his message is for general consumption. Hmmm.
It seems that when
Not funny
This Kerry ad delivers a knockout punch. I hope it airs on TV in swing states. (The link goes directly to the video file.) (Via Joho the Blog.)…
We shouldn’t assume that when the president has cameras trained on him, and when he is at a formal event, that his message is for general consumption
That’s not the issue. Context dropping is the issue. I think this ad would play with the same crowd that Michael Moore plays with — people with 105 to 110 IQs who want to think like people with 130 IQs, and think that by putting all the dots together (or having them put together for them), they are doing just that. So in that sense, it would be very effective propaganda.
But the big problem with this ad is that it relies on the premise that there were no WMDs. Ironically, Kerry’s “October Surprise” is bringing that very premise into question. See Gertz’s latest in the Washington Times.
-Brad “the elitist Bush supporter”
Everyone keeps throwing that word, propaganda around without specifically stating why it is propaganda. If you tell the truth, are you spreading propaganda? Apparently so. The ad is shocking, but that doensn’t automatically make it propaganda. The fact is, Bush has a long history of making light of grim and tragic situations. Remember Carla Fae Tucker? The woman he put to death in Texas? There are plenty of substantiated reports that he joked about that. I also remember that in a prime time interview he reported that he ended his day on 9/11/01 by joking with his wife Laura before they went to bed.
None of this is surprising, though, because Bush thinks of himself as a funny man. He knows that with power comes the privilige of being able to joke about what he feels like when he feels like. If others don’t find the humor, too bad. Of course, as with everything else, Bush abuses this privildge, and that is what you see in the ad.
Brad, you’re insane if you think Bush’s remarks should be ignored because of context. The only ones, in your view, who would be critical of the president for making such careless marks are those with average IQ’s who are just not bright enough to realize that because he spoke his words in front of journalists, he had absolute carte blanche to say whatever he wanted to say without fear of recrimination. By this logic, to say nothing of its unctous arrogance, he could have been joking about anything–the 911 widows and orphans, (“just couldn’t find their poor daddys under the twisted rubble, looked here, nope, there, nope, hey, anyone know who this hand belongs to” hysterical, isn’t it?) the deficit, the millions who have joined the ranks of the poor and uninsured, the tanking stock market anything. Just like his seven or eight minutes of inaction in the Florida classroom after being told of the SECOND plane had struck, there simply is no way to excuse this lapse of judgement. The more you try, the more you look like a True Believer willing to defend him to the end no matter what the fuck he does. Maybe you can convince yourself if you try hard enough, but don’t expect to dellude anyone else who has no particular investment in defending him. Brad, do the courageous thing, and admit that you’re wrong to support George W. Bush. Come on, be a man.
Daniel, Remember Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Thornton? Didn’t think so.
The question of course, was whether this is effective propaganda, which is a separate issue from whether I support George W. Bush. The operating premise of this ad is that there were no WMDs. If in some future it turns out that, yeah, there actually were WMDs or very good reason to believe so, then it kinda falls flat on its face. In fact, this ad’s premise is deeper than “no WMDs”. It’s really the Michael Moore premise that the WMDs were a total and deliberate fabrication crafted to justify invading a peaceful, sovereign country.
When your side’s October surprise relies on the existence of 400 tons of explosives that have dubios non-military use at best, maybe you shouldn’t be so invested in the “there were no WMDs” fantasy. I think most thoughtful Americans get that this WMD issue isn’t going to wrapped up by the end of this week’s CSI:Baghdad.
Not very effective in winning hearts and minds, I’d say. It appeals to me, and to you, Dave, because we’ve already accepted that the war is bad, and that killing Iraqi civilians is not a moral activity. That’s the point on which we’d like to convince people, not a point of common agreement on which we can build with them. Our minds are made up and our votes are committed, ever since we stripped Bush bare in the snark room. This video is meant for you and me, but not for those we need to persuade.
Now, this one (first spotted at Talking Points Memo) does a better job with the same bit of Bush video, and this one here (first spotted at Electrolite) avoids the exploitativeness of the one to which you linked by having an injured party speak on his own behalf.
Also, here’s a special bonus laff riot link to a thread which started with a laugh-out-loud joke, got to this joke specially hand-crafted for the occasion, and kept on going to this very day.