June 26, 2004

• If the left did this they'd catch so much more hell.
• What Left? This election is Moderate versus Far Right, and the Moderates don't need Hitler references, only the deteriorating situation in Iraq and the stagnant economy.
• The Hitler clips come from an ad at Bush in 30 seconds.
• That ad was so bizarre and contradictory, I think the RNC is starting to lose it. If you played it for anyone who'd been in a space capsule for the last 3 years they'd have no idea what what was going on. And I doubt anyone who isn't a political wonk would do much better.
• I agree with Nal. The right would denounce this if it was produced by Kerry but I really don't think it is altogether that incendiary. Kinda bland and nothing to get excited about.
• I think this ad is much better constructed than you all are giving it credit for. The GOP is proving that they can use anti-them propaganda as the bulk of the ad, and then at the end say, "All this horrible stuff everyone else is pointing out? That isn't pleasant to think about. If you elect Dubya, he won't make you think about the unpleasant stuff." George W. Bush: Caring isn't fun, so why do it?
• What this ad says is "Never mind the torture and fascism, George W. Bush is an optimist so everything is OK." No Democratic Party attack ad does a better job of attacking Bush than this does.
• Video summary: *begin lame "I care" piano riff* I'm not angry because it's not the time. Anger has been a part of some bad times. Vote for me.
• Hysterical. Pass the peanuts. This should be good.
• Move along, nothing to see here...
• Wait a sec - isn't this pointing out that Kerry, etc have compared Bush to Hitler?? Who's Godwining who, here? As for the speculation of denouncement and counter-denouncement, I'm torn between mild indignance and equally mild amusement.
• Isn't anyone going to argue that the website has been hacked? I'm still too tripped out to attempt such a conjecture. Say "still too tripped out to" over and over again.
• Very bizarre. I find it odd that the ad would contain reasonable and challenging points/questions about Bush's policies and actions, and then not defend those policies and actions. Instead, it tells you that it is pessimistic to raise such issues. I really do find it odd.
• No kidding, and yeah, it does lump them all together, implying that Kerry, Gore, et al. have been calling Bush "Hitler." I've been calling him that, so why don't they put my picture up there? I think I could benefit from some publicity.
• Weezel is dead on: the ad is saying that Democrats are nasty people who are too focused on criticism to make any sort of positive change. (Of course, the ad itself is focused on criticism and does nothing to promote positive change except promoting the power of positive thinking, which is perfectly pointless.)
• Byuh?
• MonkeyFilter: Promoting the power of positive thinking, which is perfectly pointless.
• So who is that ad asking me to vote for, again? I'm so confused. Maybe they are trying to confuse people so they won't know who to vote for and won't vote at all.
• Hence my bringing this up.
• With a big ol' lie, and a flag and a pie, And a mom and a bible, most folks are just liable To buy any line, any place, any time... When the lie's so big, and the fog gets so thick, And the facts disappear - the Republican Trick Can be played out again. People, please tell me when we'll be rid of these men! Just who do they really suppose that they are? And how did they manage to travel as far as they seem to have come? Were we really that dumb? People, wake up, figure it out. Religious fanatics around and about. The Court House, The State House, The Congress, The White House. Criminal saints with a "Heavenly Mission" -- A nation enraptured by pure superstition. When the lie's so big, and the fog gets so thick, And the facts disappear - the Republican Trick Can be played out again. People, please tell me when we'll be rid of these men! Zappa
• I haven't felt this awful since we saw that Ronald Reagan film.
• If someone didn't see the last part of that, they'd think it was an ad for a Kerry campaign. Maybe there's a reason Bush isn't talking (or when he does, he can hardly do so coherantly)... he's spending all his brain power with positive thinking!
• As a son of Republican parents, the actions of that party have always interested me. They have SO many contradictory messages and images. This one is: "It does not matter if Bush is a fascist, if he condoned torture and abuse, if he likes to give tax breaks to his pals. All that matters is his optimism." This video seem to be something that Republicans might show at private viewings to the faithful, but is there any Republican here that can explain this?
• They have SO many contradictory messages and images. Not solely a Republican phenomena. Example: the Democratic party is the widely thought to be the party that best represents the views of African Americans, yet it took a Republican administration to name the first African American Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Cognitive dissonance declares no party affiliation, Steveno :) Keep also in mind that Bush & Co., strictly speaking, are pretty much Republicans in name only - basically, they're not Democrats, so they must be Republicans, right? Hmph. Republicans have rather more respect for the rule of law, the primacy of the individual (especially individual rights), fiscal responsibility, and a host of other interesting and imo laudable ideas that the current administration doesn't have even a nodding acquaintance with. As for the ad, it smells like mundane "portraying the other side as a bunch of boogeys." I'm actually sort of surprised that it rated a post (no offense to Mfpb 2 21). Political ads are for the not very intelligent, designed based on advertising and marketing theories decades old, minimally effective, and wildly expensive.
• Fes is right -- this ad is designed to make Kerry, Gore, Dean and co. seem like a bunch of nutcases. The idea is that the swing voters, the moderates, will be put off by their behavior. But Fes, you say the ad is for the "not very intelligent," and if that's the case then I believe the ad has done a bad job. On the first viewing, it's not clear the Hitler stuff is from a MoveOn ad and the footage isn't really put in context. So I guess I'm trying to say that if this had been done properly it might be effective, but I think the average person -- who isn't a political junkie -- will just get confused.
• Fes - The party that best represents African Americans may be the party that gets the majority of their votes. de Carabas - Yes I see the design to make Kerry and Gore look nuts, but it doesn't come across. It looks more like a warning with a Pollyanna tag. If I were "the average person" and undecided, this would convince me to vote against whoever was compared to Hitler.
• Not solely a Republican phenomena. Example: the Democratic party is the widely thought to be the party that best represents the views of African Americans, yet it took a Republican administration to name the first African American Secretary of State and National Security Advisor. Cognitive dissonance declares no party affiliation, Steveno :) Bzzzzt, sorry. Thanks for playing, perhaps you'd be interested in a copy of our home game? Not to burst your bubble, but the appointment of a couple of token blacks in key positions isn't flying with the majority of the African American community, especially when they're not doing anything that could be considered truly beneficial to said community. Hell, Clinton was blacker than Condi will ever be.
• surlyboi - good comment! But, I'd like to know if you think more prosperous blacks have gone to the Republican side? Is prosperity a leading factor? Or, are they looking to the health of the whole black community? Or, somewhere in between? Don't mean to make you a spokesperson for the entire population, but wondering what you see?
• Somewhere in between. I've seen some affluent blacks move toward the right. (hell, for a time, I was fairly conservative myself) but of late the indicators I've seen have been pointing to a majority of blacks, prosperous and otherwise angling toward the left. A decent part of it is because of Bush and to a lesser extent Condi. I've heard the word, "shill" uttered a few times in reference to her. Don't mean to make you a spokesperson for the entire population, but wondering what you see? No worries, I'm a much better spokesperson for amerasians anyway. =)
• the appointment of a couple of token blacks in key positions isn't flying with the majority of the African American community So why didn't Clinton *do* it? It's not as if there aren't qualified African Americans, and it's not like he had a problem appointing African Americans to lesser cabinet positions - so why the shyness at the top end of the cabinet? "Token" and "shill" are awfully cavalier terms to use for both Powell (who imo could easily win a Presidential election against any Democrat you'd care to name) and Rice, who is no dummy - Ph. D from Notre Dame, professor and provost at Stanford, author and security advisor during the last three presidents. I think it is specious - and a little patronizing - to assume that a person's skin color requires them to be in a certain political party, and that those who choose otherwise are somehow either deficient or mercenary.
• Clinton was blacker than Condi will ever be. *raises eyebrow* Think I'll pass on that home game, thanks though.
• I think it is specious - and a little patronizing - to assume that a person's skin color requires them to be in a certain political party, and that those who choose otherwise are somehow either deficient or mercenary. I think it's specious and a little patronizing to assume that because a couple of blacks/asians/hispanics/etc are on the cabinet, your party suddenly has gone from a bunch of old white men to the party of inclusion. When you have a decent representation of all those races and not just the few that you trot out on stage at the RNC convention, then we'll talk. I'm not calling either Powell or Rice deficient or mercenary, those were your words. Care to enlighten us as to why you chose them? Matter of fact, I have more respect for Powell and his stick-to-itiveness in an attempt to keep the more radical elements of the current administration from going completely off the deep end. And you can raise your eyebrows all you want, but I'm pretty sure I've got more of an inside track on this issue than you do.
• I'm not calling either Powell or Rice deficient or mercenary, those were your words.Care to enlighten us as to why you chose them? Well, you referred to them as "tokens" and "shills." I assumed that those words meant they were either deficient (a token, after all, is placed in a position they aren't qualified for) or mercenary (in that a shill is typically a paid spokesman of some sort). And you can raise your eyebrows all you want, but I'm pretty sure I've got more of an inside track on this issue than you do. Please, forgive me my whiteness and presumption. I shall now recuse myself from the subject.
• Well, you referred to them as "tokens" and "shills." I assumed that those words meant they were either deficient (a token, after all, is placed in a position they aren't qualified for) or mercenary (in that a shill is typically a paid spokesman of some sort). Not all tokens are placed in positions they're not qualified for. And the use of token in common parlance can also mean a standout element in a relatively homogenous group. I've referred to myself as the token minority in some of my various places of work but you can bet your ass I got there on my own merit. Shills are indeed typically paid spokespersons, true. But then, Condi is paid to do what she does. Does it mean she believes it any less? No. I think she really believes in what she's doing. Does that mean she's doing it with the African-American community in mind? Not in the least. And not that she has to either. She is free to do what she wants, as is everyone in this country. But to think for a minute that because she's black means she reperesents Black America is silly. And your whiteness needs no forgiveness. =) And I ask that you don't recuse yourself. I'm genuinely interested in your opinions.
• I think it important that no one ever feel the need to excuse their whiteness when discussion race relations, otherwise the debate looses too many voices. I am very interested in racial and ethnic relations, as I am in class relations, and in the US they are very intimately related, though I do sometimes feel self-consious because I am white. (Though I have at times been a minority, as I grew up in a neighbourhood that was at first half Jamaican, and later half Somalian.) Do people vote by racial or ethnic association (ie. the perception of the party favouring their group)? Or for economic reasons? Or simply out of habit, or as a vote against the Repubs*? Any of these could explain why so many black Americans vote Democratic. Of course, what I have always found curious is why so many working class white Americans vote for people who promise tax cuts. Even many middle class people are often better off forgoing tax cuts in favour of better schools and social services, though this is more pronounced in Canada with the health care and all. *(that's why Canadians vote Liberal - we don't actually like them, but they aren't Reform, or whatever they are called now.)
• Well, please forgive my self-righteous tautness, surlyboi. Sometime I forget we're not Mefi :) I suppose my main contention is that a lot of people assume that a person will exhibit a certain set of behaviors, viewpoints, etc just because they have a certain color skin. I don't think that's true - cannot African Americans (or any racial/national/age/class group) have large diversity within on subject not related to the defining character of the group? The statement "Clinton was more black than Condi" seems like it plays into stereotyping as much as the derogatory stereotypes prevalent in the former half of last century. Clinton *cannot* be black, any more than Condi can be *less* black. Their political viewpoints don't enter into it, because politics can't be a defining characteristic for race. The underlying stereotypes of that statement implies that race is a set of behaviors and philosophies, not simple skin tone. And that is a slippery slope that we are only recently really trying to get out of here in America. And though I would concur with you that Rice may not be considered representative of Black America, I would counter with two points: first, why should she have to represent Black America? She holds an appointed position, has never been elected to anything so far as I know, and as such isn't reponsible to any constituency. We don't hold the same assumptions for white or Hispanic appointees (or even candidates) - when was the last time that you heard the phrase "He doesn't represent White America" outside of discussion of overt racism?) And second, I think we are doing Black America a disservice by assuming that the political views of the group are somehow monolithic - cannot African Americans be seen not as a bloc but as individuals who each hold beliefs which may or may not conform to outside stereotypes? We don't know what's on Condi's mind, but I don't think that her job is by necessity a mandate to represent the will of the African American community, anymore than any other African American political officeholder, elected or otherwise. I will concede the "token" aspect - I always assumed that a person of whatever color who is in a position they have earned cannot be a token, that tokens are placed in positions to serve as a mark of diversity rather than for any skills they may or may not have. And, again, I appreciate the friendly overture in the face of my oversensitivity. Upon reflection, you could have easily countered with bile, but you refrained and for that, thanks.
• And though I would concur with you that Rice may not be considered representative of Black America, I would counter with two points: first, why should she have to represent Black America? She holds an appointed position, has never been elected to anything so far as I know, and as such isn't reponsible to any constituency. Indeed. And that is the very point, IMO that makes your initial assertion moot. She doesn't represent black America or any constituency, for that matter. So why should her appointment (and Powell's as well) mean anything more than just the fact that she was appointed? Skin color doesn't have any significance here other than bragging rights. (We appointed a black person! we're more forward thinking than you! and other wankery of that nature.) We don't hold the same assumptions for white or Hispanic appointees (or even candidates) - when was the last time that you heard the phrase "He doesn't represent White America" outside of discussion of overt racism?) A lot lately, actually. Perhaps not precisely in those words, but the recent (and not-so-recent) flair-ups against affirmative action have had that tone. (And not that I'm 100% for Affirmative action, as I think the system needs some fixing at the moment.) And second, I think we are doing Black America a disservice by assuming that the political views of the group are somehow monolithic - cannot African Americans be seen not as a bloc but as individuals who each hold beliefs which may or may not conform to outside stereotypes? Indeed, blacks and any other minority shouldn't be seen as a monolithic entity becuase we are all different. But here's the rub, for a long time, we've been looked on as monolithic not by our own choosing but by the elements that defined our experiences, (Be they slavery, the vagueries of immigration, etc...) and the color of our skin. There are experiences that are far more common for your average black person than for your average white person and vice-versa. Some of these things shape our consciousness and our behavior. We don't know what's on Condi's mind, but I don't think that her job is by necessity a mandate to represent the will of the African American community, anymore than any other African American political officeholder, elected or otherwise. Indeed it isn't which again brings this all back to my original assertion that her appointement means nothing more than just bragging rights. And, again, I appreciate the friendly overture in the face of my oversensitivity. Upon reflection, you could have easily countered with bile, but you refrained and for that, thanks. I'm here to debate and derail a thread or two, not drive anyone away.
• Maybe I'm overstating but I'm compelled to say this is a very fine thread. Fil Exquis!!
• And there's more!