War imagery for me, but not for thee

July 18, 2006

In light of the Republican uproar over the [tag]DCCC[/tag]’s web [tag]video[/tag] that included a brief still shot of [tag]coffins[/tag] of U.S. troops — the GOP said it was “despicable” to use such imagery in a political context — maybe the right can explain why it’s perfectly acceptable for Republicans to run similar ads.

Using vivid images of smoke pouring from one of the towers of the [tag]World Trade Center[/tag], [tag]Republican[/tag] Sen. Mike [tag]DeWine[/tag] unleashed a commercial yesterday that charges Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown with casting votes in Congress that could have weakened America’s response to terrorism. […]

While the commercial’s language is strong, the gut-wrenching images of the Trade Center and the hijackers is likely to make a searing impact. Although DeWine clearly wanted to grab the attention of TV viewers, some analysts warned that it could be seen as an effort to exploit a national tragedy.

Unless Republicans are prepared to denounce DeWine and any similar ads that may be aired during the campaign, which seems pretty unlikely, it’d be awfully helpful if GOP leaders could explain the standards for us. Dems can’t show coffins from Iraq for a second a half in an online video, but Republicans can run ads with of the Trade Center and the [tag]9/11[/tag] hijackers (just as Bush did in 2004)?

Fortunately, as Greg Sargent noted, House Majority Leader [tag]John Boehner[/tag] (R-Ohio) has it all it figured out. Sort of.

Questioned by reporters on what the difference was, Boehner seemed tongue-tied. “These were American citizens killed by terrorists. That is a very different policy issue than American soldiers dying on the battlefield protecting the rights and freedoms of American people.”

“How so?” a reporter asked.

“How so? You want me to describe the difference between men and women of the military out there defending the American people, and victims – victims – of terrorist activities?” Boehner asked.

“They were both killed by opponents, right? Terrorists or Islamic insurgents?” a reporter pressed.

An exasperated Boehner said: “The World Trade Center victims were victims of a terrorist act here on our shore and I think all Americans were appalled that this did in fact happen. But I think the differences, in terms of the images, are as clear as night and day.”

Yes, it’s different because it’s, you know, different. To show viewers an image that highlights the tragic U.S. casualties in Iraq is offensive, but to show viewers an image that highlights the tragic U.S. causalities on 9/11 is not. As far as Bush is concerned, both are victims of Islamic terrorism. Indeed, as the White House sees it, they’re both incidents involving the same war.

But one belongs in a [tag]campaign[/tag] [tag]ad[/tag] and one doesn’t. It’s “as clear as night and day.”

IOKIYAR!

  • This should be a green light for the DCCC to re-post their video. Next, the DCCC needs to contact (via every news service) every corner of the right wing noise machine that was screeching at them. Let them know:
    I got yer outrage right here, creep

  • Boehner pulls a boner again.

    Nothing more to say. BuzzMon is right. Put it back up.

    Not that they need to with it up on YouTube.

  • It really seems to me like the Democratic leadership, save maybe Emanuel, were all the kids who were victimized by bullies… who grew up into the Republican leadership.

  • Whoever pulled the Democratic ad needs to be pulled.

    The proper response to the Republicrooks’ manufactured outrage should be as follows:

    Democrats honor our fallen troops by doing what they and their comrades would want us to do: Defend America and her people, defend the Constitution, and prevent the types of grief that the Republicans have actively promoted.

    If Dems can’t stand their ground on the number one issue of the day, they deserve to lose.

  • I sometime fantasize that the son of some Republican big wig would wish for his birthday that his dad wouldn’t lie for a full day and the wish was granted as in Liar Liar. Lets imagine for moment that it was Boehner’s son who wish was granted. Here is what Boehner might have said under the circumstances:

    Okay, let me explain the difference. The proposition that BushCo was indirectly responsible for 9/11 because of negligence requires a complex argument -at least by average American standards- to establish. Most people don’t have the patients to follow such an argument. Therefore they take the easy way out and give BushCo a pass on the 9/11 deaths. The images, consequently, will cause Americans to focus their rage on “Terrorists” and no BushCo. On the other hand, the proposition that BushCo. is responsible for the death of American soldiers in Iraq is self-evident. The only thing open for debate is whether the policy goals in Iraq are worth this cost in human life. Since most people no longer think that invading Iraq was a good idea, it the ad is a vivid reminder of the price of BushCo. policies.

    Hence, so far as we Republicans are concerned, we can use images of 9/11 in their commercials, but we will loudly condemn Democrats for the use of images of soldiers coffins in their commercials.

  • Typing a little fast there rege,

    patients should be patience

    and its “we can use images of 9/11 in our commercials”

    Yah, I’m just being mean.

  • Lance, I’ve said many times I’m not very good at typing and editing. (I received a D in personal typing in high school. I’ve improved somewhat since then, believe it or not.) If I had the option of editing my post after I published them, I’d do much better. Feel free to edit me.

    PS. How many mistakes can you find in this post?

  • I’m not too comfortable with the notion that because the Reps do something that is at best in poor taste, and at worst morally reprehensible, it’s ok for Dems to do it, as well…

  • Buzzmon hits the nail right on the head. Get the blasted thing back up on the DCCC site. Give it to DNC to put up. Give it the all ther blogs to put up. Give it to the media—here, and outside the borders. Put it in the papers. Magazines. Send free copies to people all over the place. break the images down into freeze-frames—just like a comic book—print millions of copies, send them to people, who can distribute them to other people—just like Tom Paine did with “Common Sense.”

    Get people to carry copies into their churches—and schools—and places of business/employment. Take them to the beaches, the amusement parks, folk festivals, craft bazaars, flea markets, yard sales, tractor pulls, county fairs, neighborhood street-parties—blast it all, TAKE THESE THINGS EVERYWHERE!

    This ad—this wee bit of information—could be precisely the instrument to pound the Republikanner beast back into its dark, smelly pit. It should be exploited without remorse, and with both malice and intent. It has the potential to be “weaponized”—and the Reich is scared to death that the People just might figure that out….

  • Actually they are different. One: Troop deaths, is an example of a totally avoidable tragedy that occured because of Bush misleading us into war and the Republicans rubber stamping it.

    The other: WTC terror attacks are an example of a preventable tragedy that resulted from deliberate neglect by the laziest, most dishonest administration in the last 100 years.

    So, y’know, they’re different.

  • Michael: IOKIYAR

    Must admit I had to look that one up on acronymfinder. Just for kicks, I backspaced the ‘R’ and replaced it with a ‘D’. I just thought it was interesting that this behavior seems to be mostly a Republican phenomenon.

    Does it occur to anyone else that these tactics are straight out of “Marketing 101”?

    E.g.: ‘Business A’ says its product is perfect and better than ‘Business B’; ‘Business B’ says its product is perfect and better than ‘Business A’. Both are full of BS but nobody complains because this is perfectly normal and acceptable in a competitive marketplace.

    Idealism is being overtaken by cold pragmatism. While the “Christians” are distracted by ethical non-issues like variations in human sexual behavior and profanity, personal integrity, honesty, humility, charity (and basically everything else that Christ himself is presumed to have espoused), right-wing politicians are rewriting the very definition of ethics to serve the interests of the wealthy few.

    I fear hypocrisy like this just doesn’t phase the masses anymore and I will not hold my breath for any substantial “outrage” from this.

  • An exasperated Boehner said: “The World Trade Center victims were victims of a terrorist act here on our shore and I think all Americans were appalled that this did in fact happen. But I think the differences, in terms of the images, are as clear as night and day.”

    So Boner is saying that he is not appalled at the death of 2500+ American servicemen, nor the maiming of tens of thousands more. Nor the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi. Nope, he’s not at all appalled, because he helped cause it.

  • Here‘s an image I’d like to see the Democrats push. I’ve offered it to virtually every newspaper that has an email address, for free. So far, no takers. A crying shame.

  • Here’s a thought that won’t lie down vis a vis the ad and DCCC ‘strategy’. In martial arts it’s normal to take your opponent’s attack without resistance, absorb its energy, and use it to strike back with double force. It’s like letting your opponent defeat himself, while conserving your own resources. If you constantly try to resist, parry and block your opponent you will quickly exhaust yourself and risk injury.

    Whether this awareness is working at all in the DCCC decision to yield to Repug criticism and withraw the ad I don’t know, but the effect — greater publicity and a stymied Boehner — is working in their favour.

    I’m wondering if it’s right to be so hasty in lambasting them for an apparent weakness, which actually turns out to be in their favour.

  • I suspect that what really ticked the Reps off was the costs-to-effect ratio. Posting a video on your website can’t possibly cost as much as planting an ad on TV. And, you have to consider that a lot of TV viewers think of ad breaks as the perfect time to take a leak, so don’t even see them, while, if a video is on the Web, you have to seek it actively, intending to watch. It had to hurt like hell also, to have shot oneself in the foot, by bringing attention to it and swelling he coffers of the enemy in the process.

    The ho-hah maybe working in the Dem’s favour but, unlike Goldilocks, I don’t think that was the original “strategy”; it’s all unearned profit. And I’d like to see the ad back on the DCCC’s site soon. On “You Tube”, you can watch it; on DCCC’s site, you can watch it *and* contribute some needed cash. And let’s face it; the younger generation — which is more likely to watch the Web than TV ads — is also more likely to part with cash than it is to take the time and effort to go and vote.

    • Comments are closed.