The lowest form of Political Ad in a generation

[Sayhey]

I thought I'd seen it all. The Bush campaign has taken, what I assume are the ads pulled from Moveon.org's contest - which included footage of Hitler, and interspersed the Hitler speeches with speeches of Kerry, Gore, Gephardt, and Michael Moore to give the message of equivalence of Nazis and Democrats. I would remind everyone the original "Hitler ads" were submitted among hundreds of other ads and pulled by Moveon.org as quickly as they became aware of their content. Now Bush/Cheney, in what can only be described as gutter politics, has consciously used and approved the use of Nazi comparisons in what is a historic low point in Presidential politics. Take a look for yourself:

Bush campaign (http://www.georgebush.com/Default.aspx)

[zimv20]

i understand your outrage.

the ad, as it stands, is actually kind of confusing. at the end, i got what they were saying, but in the middle i couldn't help but wonder why they would use footage comparing bush to hitler. they're relying on the idea that the act of comparing bush to hitler is more outrageous than the parallels. i think they may have miscalculated.

and what's w/ the "wild-eyed" thing? is that a common dem slur? 'cuz i found that kind of confusing, as well.

also embedded in the message: it doesn't matter what you do, so long as you're optimistic. huh?!?

[IJ Reilly]

Wow, that is so incredibly desperate.

[Sayhey]

i understand your outrage.

the ad, as it stands, is actually kind of confusing. at the end, i got what they were saying, but in the middle i couldn't help but wonder why they would use footage comparing bush to hitler. they're relying on the idea that the act of comparing bush to hitler is more outrageous than the parallels. i think they may have miscalculated.

and what's w/ the "wild-eyed" thing? is that a common dem slur? 'cuz i found that kind of confusing, as well.

also embedded in the message: it doesn't matter what you do, so long as you're optimistic. huh?!?

The message of the ad is that Democrats are as "wild-eyed" in their criticism of Bush and as demagogic in their speeches as Hitler. Unless one is quick and paying close attention it is not even clear where the Hitler footage comes from or what the muted shoots of Bush are about. All one hears is the speeches of Gore, Kerry and the other Democrats along with the ranting of Hitler. The use of such footage has never, ever, before been part of a major party's ad campaign. This is outrageous and will backfire on Rove and Bush, but watch, if they have to back off it will be with statements of equivalence of Fahrenheit 9/11 with this ad.

[patrick0brien]

-That video is just... unacceptable.

[blackfox]

IJ nailed my sentiments exactly...

[takao]

hm as far as i understood hitler is saying
"..dann werden wir wieder emporsteigen, genau wie die..."

which is a part of the "Aufruf an das Deutsche Volk", 10. Februar 1933 - Sportpalast
http://www.lsg.musin.de/Geschichte/natsoz/hitler-feb33.htm

"Wenn wir selbst dieses deutsche Volk emporführen durch eigene Arbeit, durch eigenen Fleiß, eigene Entschlossenheit, eigenen Trotz, eigene Beharrlichkeit, dann werden wir wieder emporsteigen, genau wie die Väter einst auch Deutschland nicht geschenkt erhielten, sondern selbst sich schaffen mussten."

"If we lead this German people up by our own work, by our own diligence, own determination, own defiance, own persistence, then become we will rise again, exactly like the fathers once also Germany not got for free, but had to create it by theirselves."

[wwworry]

If you lump in with the democratic candidates what one person submitted to an OPEN call for entries from an unaffliated advocacy group then the democrats could just as easily make an ad that: has bush talking smack about God then cuts to calls for the rapture and white supremecy etc.

It is quite low misleading and confusing. After seeing the Irish interview I wonder if Bush is even capable of deeper more nuanced interpretations. Them bad angry. Me good. It is a diservice to our country.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Wow, that is so incredibly desperate.

Amen, it shows just how low the politics will be till November. It seems to me that Bush wants a "win" and not a "loss" as he had in 2000. Meaning that he wants the popular vote as well as the electoral vote. He wants his vindication. I also think that it is a matter of family pride. He wants to do what his daddy wasn't able to do.

[Chip NoVaMac]

It is quite low misleading and confusing. After seeing the Irish interview I wonder if Bush is even capable of deeper more nuanced interpretations. Them bad angry. Me good. It is a diservice to our country.

:eek: Sorry I had a bad history vision...

[Krizoitz]

Why is it that all of George Bushs ads are about why John Kerry is wrong/bad/etc?

You'd think after four years in office he'd want to promote what is good about what he has done.

On the other hand the ads I have seen from Kerry are about Kerry and why he wants to be President.

Interesting difference. I think we have to go back and ask ourself the simple question. Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago. I'd have to say no.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Why is it that all of George Bushs ads are about why John Kerry is wrong/bad/etc?

You'd think after four years in office he'd want to promote what is good about what he has done.

On the other hand the ads I have seen from Kerry are about Kerry and why he wants to be President.

Interesting difference. I think we have to go back and ask ourself the simple question. Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago. I'd have to say no.

I love that question! It has guided me since Reagan. mentioned it. the answer then as it is now today, no. Clinton asked the question, "Are you better off today, than you were eight years ago?", the answer then was a resounding yes.

Maybe that should be the lead question of any incumbent during a press conference or debate.

I think that it may make for a more interesting election today.

[zimv20]

Maybe that should be the lead question of any incumbent during a press conference or debate.

i'd love to hear someone ask bush if he knows what the minimum wage currently is.

[Chip NoVaMac]

i'd love to hear someone ask bush if he knows what the minimum wage currently is.

Or more importantly what it should be by those handy calculators that say we are paying less for gas that we did in the 70's.

BTW, the current minimum wage should be in the range of $7.50 to $8.00 an hour using inflation calculators.

[Neserk]

i'd love to hear someone ask bush if he knows what the minimum wage currently is.


Better yet, ask him how a high school graduate is suppose to *live* on it!

[Chip NoVaMac]

Better yet, ask him how a high school graduate is suppose to *live* on it!

Particularly now that even state colleges are hard to get in to, and seeing double digit increases in tuition. Despite what some may say it is getting harder to gain the education to make better of ones self. Not impossible, just much more difficult. More of the have and have nots.

[Chip NoVaMac]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Adolf Hitler's image has surfaced again in the White House race. President Bush's campaign is featuring online video of the Nazi dictator, taken down months ago from a liberal group's Web site and disavowed, in a spot that intersperses clips of speeches by Democrats John Kerry, Al Gore and Howard Dean.

Democrats want the video pulled from the site. Campaign aides said it would remain.

Republicans had criticized the group MoveOn.org in January because it briefly posted an ad contest entry that linked Hitler and Bush. It showed images of Bush with text saying, ``God told me to strike at al-Qaida,'' before turning to images of Hitler with the words, ``And then He instructed me to strike at Saddam.'' The submission ended with the words, ``Sound familiar?'' on a black and white screen.

The group later said the entry was in ``poor taste'' and pulled it from its site.

The 77-second video on the Bush-Cheney re-election site splices footage of Kerry, the presumptive nominee, and his 2004 rival Dean along with 2000 nominee Gore and film director Michael Moore. The spot calls them Kerry's ``Coalition of the Wild-eyed.'' Clips of Hitler's image are seen throughout the spot.

``The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong,'' said Kerry's campaign, Mary Beth Cahill, who called on the GOP campaign to remove the Web video from its site.

``We're using the video from MoveOn.org to show our supporters the type of vitriolic rhetoric being used by the president's opponents and John Kerry's surrogates,'' said Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

The Bush-Cheney video spot appeared on the campaign Web site Thursday and was sent electronically to 6 million supporters.

The online spot begins with clips of Gore assailing the Bush administration. ``How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison,'' Gore shouts during a public speech.

It then cuts to an image of Hitler, followed Dean, Moore and Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., all bashing Bush. There are more clips of Hitler, Gore and then Kerry, before the screen cuts to the words, ``This is not a time for pessimism and rage.'' Video images of Bush follow.

A disclaimer was added to the beginning of the Web spot on Saturday afternoon to explain that the video contains ``remarks made by and images from ads sponsored by Kerry supporters.'' The disclaimer also accuses Kerry of failing to denounce those who have compared Hitler to Bush.

I post the news article in full only to show both sides have to answer for how low the Bush campaign has fallen in order to get elected. It is now up to Bush to show that Kerry's camp sanctioned the pulled ad from MoveOn. In the very least the Republicans my be right that a denouncement from the Kerry camp would have been in order. But since the Bush camp can use the F-word and Kerry's can't i guess it is a case of glass houses.

[zimv20]

chip - do you have a link to that article? thanks

[Sayhey]

Here's the Kerry Campaign's response to the ad:

Bush Uses Hitler Imagery in Web Ad

Kerry Spokesperson Calls on Bush to Apologize for Using Images of Hitler on Website

Washington, DC – Kerry campaign spokesperson Phil Singer issued the following statement in response to the Internet ad on George Bush‘s website featuring images of Adolph Hitler:

“The fact that George Bush thinks it’s appropriate to use images of Adolph Hitler in his campaign raises serious questions about his fitness to spend another four years in the White House. Adolph Hitler slaughtered millions of innocent people and has no place in a campaign that is supposed to be about the future and hope of this nation. The President’s use of these images during a month that evoked the memory of World War II is remarkably insensitive to the sacrifices of the millions of people who lost their lives during Hitler’s reign of terror.

“The Bush Campaign should immediately remove these hateful images from its website and apologize for using them. The use of Adolph Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong.”

John Kerry for President (http://blog.johnkerry.com/dbunker/)

zim, the post by Chip is a Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8223-2004Jun26.html) article.

edit: it is acutally an AP article, but the link is to the WaPo.

[Voltron]

Why is it that all of George Bushs ads are about why John Kerry is wrong/bad/etc?

You'd think after four years in office he'd want to promote what is good about what he has done.

On the other hand the ads I have seen from Kerry are about Kerry and why he wants to be President.

Interesting difference. I think we have to go back and ask ourself the simple question. Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago. I'd have to say no.
After four years in office he doesn't have to waste commercial time talking about what he's done while in office we should already know that information.

[Voltron]

i'd love to hear someone ask bush if he knows what the minimum wage currently is.
I don't know about you but my goal in life is to not make the minimum wage but many times more than the minimum wage. If they raise the minimum wage do we folks who make above that get pay raises equal percantage wise to the minimum wage increase? Nope, we get screwed. Minimum wage should be for those high school kids living at home. If all you are doing is making the minimum wage don't go getting anyone pregnant.http://sharevana.com/forums/images/generalsmileys/nono.gif

[Voltron]

I post the news article in full only to show both sides have to answer for how low the Bush campaign has fallen in order to get elected. It is now up to Bush to show that Kerry's camp sanctioned the pulled ad from MoveOn. In the very least the Republicans my be right that a denouncement from the Kerry camp would have been in order. But since the Bush camp can use the F-word and Kerry's can't i guess it is a case of glass houses.
Actually perhaps Kerry should've publically denounced Moveon.org if he wasn't sanctioning them?

[blackfox]

After four years in office he doesn't have to waste commercial time talking about what he's done while in office we should already know that information.
Or it could be because there is very little positive to say...
I don't know about you but my goal in life is to not make the minimum wage but many times more than the minimum wage. If they raise the minimum wage do we folks who make above that get pay raises equal percantage wise to the minimum wage increase? Nope, we get screwed. Minimum wage should be for those high school kids living at home. If all you are doing is making the minimum wage don't go getting anyone pregnant
That is most people's goal...but not everyone can be CEOs or white-collar professionals...some people have to be ditch-diggers and fast food workers. It may not be mentally-challenging work, but it is work, and those people deserve to be able to live some modicum of a decent life through their efforts...as far as pay-raises for everyone else, well I support that too, wages have not really kept pace with inflation, but that is something you will have to take up with companies, unless you want government regulation of Industry...free-markets, remember...you want to keep costs down...
Actually perhaps Kerry should've publically denounced Moveon.org if he wasn't sanctioning them.
Moveon.org held an open contest for commercials...the Nazi one was an entry...they rejected it...so why must Moveon be to blame? And why is it Kerry's responsibility to denounce an entry disavowed from an organization not part of his Campaign? It would have been different if it was on Kerry's Campaign site. But it is on Bush's OFFICIAL Campaign site, not a right-wing independent organization comparable to moveon.org...wtf?

[zimv20]

i want someone to ask bush if he can state the minimum wage because i suspect he doesn't know it. the question is: is it important for the president to be aware of the current value of the federal minimum wage?

and sly, yes, i do work at a multiple of the minimum wage, thank you. between 8x and 34x, depending on what i'm doing.

[Chip NoVaMac]

chip - do you have a link to that article? thanks

Is this what you wanted?

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040626%2F1617342753.htm&sc=1131&photoid=20040626XDJC107

[zimv20]

Is this what you wanted?

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040626%2F1617342753.htm&sc=1131&photoid=20040626XDJC107
yep! thanks

[G4scott]

But somehow, everyone fails to see that the people mentioned in the ad examples of the crazy people and crazy things the far-left has to offer in their quest to oust President Bush. The far-left has really become a bunch of nut-jobs, and the Bush campaign just wants you to remember that when you go to the polls in November.

[zimv20]

But somehow, everyone fails to see that the people mentioned in the ad examples of the crazy people and crazy things the far-left has to offer in their quest to oust President Bush. The far-left has really become a bunch of nut-jobs,
please be specific by mentioning which person saying which things qualify as "crazy" and "nut job"

[Sayhey]

But somehow, everyone fails to see that the people mentioned in the ad examples of the crazy people and crazy things the far-left has to offer in their quest to oust President Bush. The far-left has really become a bunch of nut-jobs, and the Bush campaign just wants you to remember that when you go to the polls in November.

There is nothing in the speeches of the Democrats used in the film that can be even remotely confused with the "far-left." Gore, Dean, Kerry, Gephardt, and Moore's criticism of Bush come from liberal, moderate, and in the case of Moore, progressive politics. None of them advocate radical solutions (i.e. socialism) associated with the far left in the US. The only way one can confuse the two is if you are standing so far to the right that moderate politicians look left.

More to the point, scott, you miss the point of the cynical use of images of Adolph Hitler to taint Bush's opponents with the madness of Nazism. Not only is such a tactic beyond the pale, but the attempt to portray dissent from Bush's policies as crazy is a problem in and of itself. If Bush wants to fight the criticisms, he should answer them directly and with policies that show they are wrong. He can't do so on either count, so his campaign continues with lies and distortions. I would hope that even if you agree with Bush's policies, that this ad would make you uncomfortable.

[IJ Reilly]

There is nothing in the speeches of the Democrats used in the film that can be even remotely confused with the "far-left."

I think this ad, and the apologies some Republicans have offered for it, tells us more about their perceptions than they'd intended. Apparently some, if not quite a few, within the Bush camp do indeed in their mind's eye see valid similarities between Democrats like Gore and a nationalistic, genocidal, dictatorial, militaristic leader like Hitler. It's not quite an adequate explanation of an ad like this to chalk it up to garden-variety gutter politics. What's truly frightening about this ad is that somebody had to actually believe enough in this message to make it, and that these people are running the Bush campaign. Clearly, they hold anyone who'd criticize their policies with deep and complete contempt. I don't suppose we need to know much more about the Bush campaign than what, perhaps without meaning to do so, they've just told us by creating this vile piece of work.

[Sayhey]

I think this ad, and the apologies some Republicans have offered for it, tells us more about their perceptions than they'd intended. Apparently some, if not quite a few, within the Bush camp do indeed in their mind's eye see valid similarities between Democrats like Gore and a nationalistic, genocidal, dictatorial, militaristic leader like Hitler. It's not quite an adequate explanation of an ad like this to chalk it up to garden-variety gutter politics. What's truly frightening about this ad is that somebody had to actually believe enough in this message to make it, and that these people are running the Bush campaign. Clearly, they hold anyone who'd criticize their policies with deep and complete contempt. I don't suppose we need to know much more about the Bush campaign than what, perhaps without meaning to do so, they've just told us by creating this vile piece of work.

I don't know what the mix of blind ideologues (neocons) to cynical manipulators (Rove and his buddies) exists in this campaign, but one thing it shows to me is there is little they will not stoop to in the pursuit of power. It is almost irrelevant if they do so because they love the power or because they believe they're divinely or politically entitled to that power.

One thing I find amazing is the coordination of the attacks. When Gore gave the speech to Moveon.org (http://www.moveon.org/front/gore.html) right-wing pundits tried to not deal with the content, but rather painted his passionate delivery as crazy. This line of attack, painting all critics as crazy demagogues, including the use of comparisons to Nazis (most recently the comparison of Moore to Leni Reisenthal,) is a careful calculation on how to best discredit Bush's opponents. I think we can look forward to more attacks of this nature. The question becomes just what won't they say or do to try to win in November?

[zimv20]

iow, the bush campaign's new line of attack is: "no! YOU'RE a nazi!"

[takao]

This line of attack, painting all critics as crazy demagogues, including the use of comparisons to Nazis (most recently the comparison of Moore to Leni Reisenthal,) is a careful calculation on how to best discredit Bush's opponents.

correction: Leni Riefenstahl
http://www.leni-riefenstahl.de/
as seen those propaganda movies were funded by the 'government in charge' of the time and not before the NSDAP was in charge....sure ties to "the party" but there were much worse....

[Sayhey]

correction: Leni Riefenstahl
http://www.leni-riefenstahl.de/
as seen those propaganda movies were funded by the 'government in charge' of the time and not before the NSDAP was in charge....sure ties to "the party" but there were much worse....

takao, thanks for the spelling correction. Your statement that "there were much worse" could be used to define the phrase "damning with faint praise." ;)

[IJ Reilly]

The question becomes just what won't they say or do to try to win in November?

Clearly, not much, if anything -- whatever they think the public will swallow, goes. But in a way, I think you're being more charitable in your conclusions than I find myself able. At some point, tactics like this transcend cynical politics and instead suggest a cynical belief system. It isn't being done entirely for affect.

[zimv20]

tactics like this transcend cynical politics and instead suggest a cynical belief system.
and also suggests an incredible lack of respect for the intelligence of the voting public

[clipper]

The truly ironic thing about all this is that in the spectrum of political science, the right-leaning Republican Party is on the same side of the political spectrum as the Nazi Party of the 1930s and 1940s. The left-leaning Democratic Party is more similar to a democratic socialist philosophy.

Guess you can compare the policies of GWB to Hitler... at least politically! :eek:

[takao]

takao, thanks for the spelling correction. Your statement that "there were much worse" could be used to define the phrase "damning with faint praise." ;)

well the biggest supporters of "the party" were the industry leaders ... (yeah IBM, i'm looking at you )

[takao]

The truly ironic thing about all this is that in the spectrum of political science, the right-leaning Republican Party is on the same side of the political spectrum as the Nazi Party of the 1930s and 1940s. The left-leaning Democratic Party is more similar to a democratic socialist philosophy.

Guess you can compare the policies of GWB to Hitler... at least politically! :eek:

well i have to defend the republicans here.... that comparisation is to far streched...but on the other side i would have no problem if you compare them to the catholic-conservative party in austria of the year 1934 who formed regime in austria and put god into the constitution...

[mactastic]

So lets see if I got this right... MoveOn.org comes into possession of a clip made by a random supporter comparing Bush's policies to those of Hitlers. MoveOn rejects the ad, but the right-wing attacks anyway, offended that anyone would show Dubya and Hitler in the same ad.

Now the GOP is putting out an official ad spot showing Kerry and Hitler in the same ad, and its OK?

WTF?

[Voltron]

So lets see if I got this right... MoveOn.org comes into possession of a clip made by a random supporter comparing Bush's policies to those of Hitlers. MoveOn rejects the ad, but the right-wing attacks anyway, offended that anyone would show Dubya and Hitler in the same ad.

Now the GOP is putting out an official ad spot showing Kerry and Hitler in the same ad, and its OK?

WTF?
moveon rejected the ad after the noise about them doing it. They put their finger in the air like the democrats they are and subcumed to the polls. They did not do it because they felt the ad was bad, or wrong. They did it because the polls stated people would like them better if they did.

Motive. And I believe they were not upset at Hitler being in the same ad as Bush, but in comparing Hitler to Bush as if saying Bush was Hitler. Not quite the same thing.

[mactastic]

moveon rejected the ad after the noise about them doing it. They put their finger in the air like the democrats they are and subcumed to the polls. They did not do it because they felt the ad was bad, or wrong. They did it because the polls stated people would like them better if they did.


Prove it. Without using Boortz or Newsmax or WorldNetDaily. I dare you to find any mainstream media report saying MoveOn.org was considering the Bush/Hitler ad before the right wing attack dogs made them stop.

[wwworry]

So Bush rejected torture only after people found out about it.

Bush wanted to get to the bottom of the Plame leak only after people found out about it.

not to say that what moveon did is OK because Bush did it worse; that would be low.

But moveon did have an OPEN call for entries and that was one of more than a thousand entries. Open is open.

[Voltron]

Prove it. Without using Boortz or Newsmax or WorldNetDaily. I dare you to find any mainstream media report saying MoveOn.org was considering the Bush/Hitler ad before the right wing attack dogs made them stop.
You mean you dare me to find a link to a left wing web site? Your right I wouldn't be able to do so. Course a few months ago I would've been able to make a link to moveon.org and the ad itself. The ad that wasn't pulled until it was on virtually every news show I watched. But that link doesn't exist anymore.

[Voltron]

So Bush rejected torture only after people found out about it.


You don't know when Bush rejected torture you are only assuming.
Personally I'm not against torture of terrorists for the purpose of preventing more terrorism. We cannot stand guard on every building, train, water source, etc. Thus special situations require special treatment. I repeat this isn't a game where the winner struts and then you start another one, this is about survival, our survival and there is no save to go back to if we fail.

[mactastic]

You mean you dare me to find a link to a left wing web site? Your right I wouldn't be able to do so. Course a few months ago I would've been able to make a link to moveon.org and the ad itself. The ad that wasn't pulled until it was on virtually every news show I watched. But that link doesn't exist anymore.

Lol, are you saying that outside of Boortz, NM, and WND there are no unbiased sources of news? Come on now Sly, I'd even accept something from the Washington Times or UPI here....

[Voltron]

Lol, are you saying that outside of Boortz, NM, and WND there are no unbiased sources of news? Come on now Sly, I'd even accept something from the Washington Times or UPI here....
Boortz is biased I would never call him unbiased.
Ask me to find a link to an unbiassed web site that shows people with gun permits using their guns to save lives. I can't do that either. The so called unbiased web sites or news sources only post those who use guns to commit violence. It is not my fault they only report 1/2 of the story and I have to resort to sites like http://www.packing.org/ to get the other point of view. Yes packing.org only reports one side of the story but at least its the other side of the story the so called unbiased media sources post. That tells me those unbiased media sources aren't unbiased or they wouldn't be ignoring these other factors in these two examples and allot more just like them.

[mactastic]

Boortz is biased I would never call him unbiased.
Ask me to find a link to an unbiassed web site that shows people with gun permits using their guns to save lives. I can't do that either. The so called unbiased web sites or news sources only post those who use guns to commit violence. It is not my fault they only report 1/2 of the story and I have to resort to sites like http://www.packing.org/ to get the other point of view. Yes packing.org only reports one side of the story but at least its the other side of the story the so called unbiased media sources post. That tells me those unbiased media sources aren't unbiased or they wouldn't be ignoring these other factors in these two examples and allot more just like them.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

All I'm asking is for you to find something saying MoveOn.org initially considered naming the ad that compared Bush to Hitler a candidate for consideration of the winning ads. The subject was widely reported on by many news organizations. I find it hard to believe that you couldn't find some news service that picked up something about this claim you make that MoveOn.org initially considered running that Hitler ad before realizing that the public backlash would be too much and only then decided to pull it.

Yet you go off on tangents about 'theliberalmedia' not covering these stories because they don't like Bush. So your proof is basically 'because I can't find proof of my accusation, it's true because theliberalmedia hides it from you. Additionally, this is even more proof that theliberalmedia controls what you see.'

So answer the charge. Can you or can't you back up what you said without resorting to an informations source officially labeled as 'entertainment'?

[Voltron]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

All I'm asking is for you to find something saying MoveOn.org initially considered naming the ad that compared Bush to Hitler a candidate for consideration of the winning ads. The subject was widely reported on by many news organizations. I find it hard to believe that you couldn't find some news service that picked up something about this claim you make that MoveOn.org initially considered running that Hitler ad before realizing that the public backlash would be too much and only then decided to pull it.


So answer the charge. Can you or can't you back up what you said without resorting to an informations source officially labeled as 'entertainment'?
I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth I never claimed they were going to pick it as a winning ad. I claimed they left it on their site until everyone knew it existed and it had served its purpose.

What I said was they never pulled the ad off of their site until after Fox and others was broadcasting widely about the ad. Until it became public knowledge almost everywhere I went so that everybody knew about the ad then they pulled it. These are facts, but I'm not going to go searching for links. Anyone with a memory and not living in a closet would already know this is a fact.

Yes I believe they only pulled it because polling data was against using the ad. Just like I believe that Kerry picks and chooses who he is based on what will get him the most votes. Something that is my own personal opinion and thus doesn't need links.

[zimv20]

These are facts, but I'm not going to go searching for links. Anyone with a memory and not living in a closet would already know this is a fact.

i believe you're in violation of one or two new rules.

[mactastic]

I never said that. You are putting words in my mouth I never claimed they were going to pick it as a winning ad. I claimed they left it on their site until everyone knew it existed and it had served its purpose.

I never claimed you said they were going to pick it as their winning ad. You are the one putting words in someone else's mouth.

What I said was they never pulled the ad off of their site until after Fox and others was broadcasting widely about the ad.

What you said was:
moveon rejected the ad after the noise about them doing it.

But if you claim that means:Until it became public knowledge almost everywhere I went so that everybody knew about the ad then they pulled it. then fine.

Now here you go contradicting yourself again.
These are facts... versus...Something that is my own personal opinion and thus doesn't need links.

You claim that 'these are facts' then just as fast you turn around and say these are your opinions that don't 'need links'. Which is it? Fact or opinion?

Long story short, you can't back up your claim so now you want to flip-flop and say you meant something else.

[Rower_CPU]

i believe you're in violation of one or two new rules.

We're still working on the rules - nothing's set in stone yet and the community needs to help draft them. :)

[Voltron]

i believe you're in violation of one or two new rules.
Fact -- I heard Fox, Boortz, and allot of other places reporting on this ad, some of whom demanding that it be pulled.

Fact -- It was one or two weeks later after being bombarded with "why havn't they pulled it" commentary every time I turned on the radio or tv before they pulled the ad.

Conclusion -- they didn't pull the ad until it was widely broadcasted that the ad existed and until a large number of people were demanding that they pull the ad.

Furthermore -- If they pulled the ad because they thought the content was distateful they would've done it sooner than they did. Thus back to my conclusion above.

No link to provide here. Facts that I observed myself which should've been also observed by anyone who had a tv or radio and conclusion based on what actually happened. Who knows maybe their real reason they pulled it is because their lawyers told them to and the reason it took so long to do so is because they had to take the time to research it or whatever. I don't know, what I do know is they did not pull it until after it was widely publicized. There was no point in pulling it then everyone knows about it now, most everyoen has probably already seen it. Pulling it now was redundant they waited too long for it to have served a purpose.

[Chip NoVaMac]

You don't know when Bush rejected torture you are only assuming.
Personally I'm not against torture of terrorists for the purpose of preventing more terrorism. We cannot stand guard on every building, train, water source, etc. Thus special situations require special treatment. I repeat this isn't a game where the winner struts and then you start another one, this is about survival, our survival and there is no save to go back to if we fail.

Man, I hate responding to this sort of thing. :)

But when I think people are misguided my Christian upbringing makes me cringe.

A number of reports in the mainstream press (whether you agree with them or not), have indicated that this administration within themselves discussed what torture would be legal.

I might agree in some circumstances that the government might be justified. But once you allow the government certain actions, it is hard to control them from using them in other circumstances.

As an example, if you are Black, Middle Eastern, or have characteristics that might be consider Muslim or Islamic. You are a photographer, out taking pictures. No malice in your heart. Just taking pictures that might seem interesting to you. According to what you are saying it is OK to be tortured to make sure you are not a "threat".

Remember once you give the government to act in a particular instance, you can not restrict them from using it elsewhere.

[Chip NoVaMac]

i believe you're in violation of one or two new rules.

What new rules?

[Voltron]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

All I'm asking is for you to find something saying MoveOn.org initially considered naming the ad that compared Bush to Hitler a candidate for consideration of the winning ads.
It looks to me that is what you said.
I never said the ad was a candidate for consideration of the winning ads which is what you just said I did say. I have no idea whether it was or not.

Now being a candidate for consideration of the winning ads also implies they might be pulled as a winner. Simple extrapolation. I never said that but I did state that is what you said when I replied because it basically means the same exact thing.

[Voltron]

You claim that 'these are facts' then just as fast you turn around and say these are your opinions that don't 'need links'. Which is it? Fact or opinion?

Long story short, you can't back up your claim so now you want to flip-flop and say you meant something else.
Your mixing up lines.
Facts are me hearing about the ads.
Facts are them not pulling the ads until after alot of noise was made about doing so.
I did simplify my statements here.
Opinion was calculating the reasons why they pulled them when they did instead of doing so earlier.


Next are we going to argue over the deffinition of the word "is?"

[Rower_CPU]

What new rules?

Forum ground rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413)

[Chip NoVaMac]

Forum ground rules (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=77413)

Thanks, i addressed my questions there....

[zimv20]

We're still working on the rules - nothing's set in stone yet and the community needs to help draft them. :)
<Life of Brian stoning scene>
sorry, i thought we'd started
</Life of Brian stoning scene>

[Rower_CPU]

<Life of Brian stoning scene>
sorry, i thought we'd started
</Life of Brian stoning scene>

"Go to the back." ;)

[Chip NoVaMac]

"Go to the back." ;)

"The cheese shall inherit the earth?"

[skunk]

"The cheese shall inherit the earth?"
Don't you mean the Chews?

[davecuse]

Sorry I'm a little late to join the discussion. After watching this ad I just cannot fathom why the Dubya campaign team thought this ad was going to be a good thing. It's very unclear exactly what they are trying to say, and if you weren't familiar with MoveOn.org, it just looks like Bush is comparing himself to Hitler. And in that last picture George just looks like a deer caught in headlights. I think he needs to hire a new ad team, and stop focusing on the last four years. Let's be honest the last four years have kind of sucked, give me a glimmer of hope for the future. Even though there's no way I could sleep at night if I put my vote in the R category.

On another note, I especially like the pessimistic ad that bashes Kerry for pessimism... BRILLIANT!

[mactastic]

Your mixing up lines.
Facts are me hearing about the ads.
Facts are them not pulling the ads until after alot of noise was made about doing so.
I did simplify my statements here.
Opinion was calculating the reasons why they pulled them when they did instead of doing so earlier.


Next are we going to argue over the deffinition of the word "is?"

Ok Sly, as long as you are willing to accept my observations and opinions as fact as well, we'll have no problems. BTW, is it a fact that Bush is an incompetent liar? That's my opinion, so it is indeed now a fact. :D

[Voltron]

Ok Sly, as long as you are willing to accept my observations and opinions as fact as well, we'll have no problems. BTW, is it a fact that Bush is an incompetent liar? That's my opinion, so it is indeed now a fact. :D
It is factual information that the ads existed on moveon.orgs web site.
It is factual information that the ads weren't pulled from moveon.orgs web site for a couple of weeks.
During that time period multiple tv stations reported on those ads so moveon cannot claim ignorance on their part that the ads existed. They could've pulled them much sooner but didn't.

[davecuse]

It is factual information that the ads existed on moveon.orgs web site.
It is factual information that the ads weren't pulled from moveon.orgs web site for a couple of weeks.
During that time period multiple tv stations reported on those ads so moveon cannot claim ignorance on their part that the ads existed. They could've pulled them much sooner but didn't.

It is factual information that Dubya used this ad for himself.
It is factual information that this is the topic of this thread.
It is my opinion that this was done in very poor taste. I just think it is rather bizarre to base an entire ad on a movie that was some guys entry into a contest and then playing it off as John Kerry's supposed agenda. It just seems like he's been using a lot of absurd sound clips as scare tactics to distract voters from the real issues. I feel like I've seen this sort of tactic before out of George...

[blackfox]

It is factual information that the ads existed on moveon.orgs web site.
It is factual information that the ads weren't pulled from moveon.orgs web site for a couple of weeks.
During that time period multiple tv stations reported on those ads so moveon cannot claim ignorance on their part that the ads existed. They could've pulled them much sooner but didn't.
Voltron, what exactly are you arguing here? Even if you are attempting to refute specific points levied at you, where is the context (w/regards to the thread topic)?

MoveOn.org is an independent web-based Organization. They could be accurately described as Liberal-leaning. Assuming your position for a moment that they somehow condoned this ad, by their inaction, is to ignore the big issue here...

This issue is that a Presidential Candidate (actually, a sitting President, up for re-election), chose to use footage from an ad that was of poor taste, made by an individual citizen, and craft an ad of even poorer taste. IMO, all ads that do not deal w/issues should be banned...but how anyone can defend an established leading Politician of using and endorsing an ad featuring Hitler, is beyond me. This will (if it hasn't) be shown on television...can you not admit that this is a poor development in politics? This is NOT about partisanship. If Kerry, Dean or any other Democrat had done this as part of their campaigns, I would be protesting as loudly...

So, I ask again, what are you arguing here? Do you not lament the decline of ethics in Political contests these days? In general?

[IJ Reilly]

So, I ask again, what are you arguing here?

Let me take a wild guess: "that the ends justify the means."

[mactastic]

MoveOn.org is NOT the democratic party, nor are they the official website for the Democratic candidate for president.

You can view the ad comparing Kerry, Moore, and Gephardt ON GEORGE W. BUSH'S OFFICIAL WEBSITE. The only concession Bush has made is that it's no longer on the front page of his website.

Get pissed at MoveOn.org all you want, but they pulled the offending ad. Bush won't. Probably like Cheney it makes him feel better to vent a little, so he'll unabashedly use images of Hitler and Kerry in his commercials, yet he'll scream bloody murder when the opposition does it to him. And you talk about hipocracy from the left. :rolleyes:

[Chip NoVaMac]

It is factual information that the ads existed on moveon.orgs web site.
It is factual information that the ads weren't pulled from moveon.orgs web site for a couple of weeks.
During that time period multiple tv stations reported on those ads so moveon cannot claim ignorance on their part that the ads existed. They could've pulled them much sooner but didn't.

It is factual information that MoveOn.org is not an official part of the Kerry campaign.

It is factual that the ad in question was hosted (if not produced) by the Bush campaign.

There is a big difference.

[Voltron]

Voltron, what exactly are you arguing here? Even if you are attempting to refute specific points levied at you, where is the context (w/regards to the thread topic)?


The context is in macrumors comments about my use of factual information and wanting me to provide proof of moveon.org's use of the original ad. You can reread the thread if you want and see that it is narrow between myself and Macrumors and thats it. ie refute specific stuff he has said to me which in turn was refute to specific stuff he claims I said so forth and so on. Basically arguing over trivial stuff like the deffinition of the word "is".

[davecuse]

The context is in macrumors comments about my use of factual information and wanting me to provide proof of moveon.org's use of the original ad. You can reread the thread if you want and see that it is narrow between myself and Macrumors and thats it. ie refute specific stuff he has said to me which in turn was refute to specific stuff he claims I said so forth and so on. Basically arguing over trivial stuff like the deffinition of the word "is".

How about we try to stay on topic rather than argue petty details.

[Voltron]

This issue is that a Presidential Candidate (actually, a sitting President, up for re-election), chose to use footage from an ad that was of poor taste, made by an individual citizen, and craft an ad of even poorer taste. IMO, all ads that do not deal w/issues should be banned...but how anyone can defend an established leading Politician of using and endorsing an ad featuring Hitler, is beyond me. This will (if it hasn't) be shown on television...can you not admit that this is a poor development in politics? This is NOT about partisanship. If Kerry, Dean or any other Democrat had done this as part of their campaigns, I would be protesting as loudly...

So, I ask again, what are you arguing here? Do you not lament the decline of ethics in Political contests these days? In general?
This ad was used affectively against Bush.
By the time Moveon.org pulled the ad I doubt a single intelligent individual hadn't already seen it.
The fact that it didn't win or had no chance of winning is immaterial. The fact that they left it on the site until everyone in the world knew about the contents of the ad meant that pulling it was a wasted effort, because you pull something to prevent its viewing not wait until after its been viewed to pull it because then what is the point of pulling it?
Thus I can see Bush making this ad to counter the punch that the original ad had.

[Voltron]

MoveOn.org is NOT the democratic party, nor are they the official website for the Democratic candidate for president.



Dear MoveOn Members,

Three words sum up why we need to take action today: The Supreme Court. I need you to join me in keeping the Supreme Court out of the hands of right wing ideologues. I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman’s right to choose, on civil rights and individual liberties, and on the laws protecting workers and the environment.

If you agree with me that there should be no equivocation, no double-speak, no avoidance of the issue, then sign my online petition today at:


they, in my opinion, are in conlusion with each other. And in the opinion of several news journalist (yes all of them right wing biased personel) are working hand in hand with each other.
http://www.moveon.org/pac/cands/kerry.html

No one link would prove it and no amount of arguing would change someones opinion who defered from that but it is still my personal belief that it is true.

WASHINGTON — A senior strategist for MoveOn, a liberal activist group, is joining John Kerry's Democratic presidential campaign. Zack Exley will direct Kerry's online organizing.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-04-07-kerry-staffer_x.htm
In the same way some think that it is true that Cheney helped Halliburton get contracts unfairly due to his old connections with them.

[blackfox]

The context is in macrumors comments about my use of factual information and wanting me to provide proof of moveon.org's use of the original ad. You can reread the thread if you want and see that it is narrow between myself and Macrumors and thats it. ie refute specific stuff he has said to me which in turn was refute to specific stuff he claims I said so forth and so on. Basically arguing over trivial stuff like the deffinition of the word "is".
Ah...I see, the "new rules in progress"...well then I must ask how the burden of proof is fufilled by just by saying that it is "fact"...I believe you mean it is "common knowledge", which while sometimes fact, is often not. Easy mistake...Also, conclusions and assumptions made of said "facts" (even if true), are not facts...they are opinions.

Mac already got ya with this...I still want to know if you think this (the Bush ad) is ethically, professionally or otherwise wrong? What say you?

[davecuse]

This ad was used affectively against Bush.
By the time Moveon.org pulled the ad I doubt a single intelligent individual hadn't already seen it.

So because "some guy" made an inappropriate ad about Bush for a contest none the less, it is automatically linked back to the Kerry campaign?

That aside, there are millions of people in this country who have never heard of much less visited MoveOn.org, however if this ad comes on TV a medium which reaches a much greater number of voters, this is certainly going to be seen. Without the pretext of knowing what MoveOn.org is, it appears the Bush campaign is saying that John Kerry called Dubya the same as Hitler. If I were the sitting President of the United States I would carry myself with a little more dignity and not lie to the American people.

[mactastic]

they, in my opinion, are in conlusion with each other. And in the opinion of several news journalist (yes all of them right wing biased personel) are working hand in hand with each other.

Is it your contention that only Democrats collude like this, or do republicans engage in these kinds of shenanigans as well? IOW, are the members of the Club for Growth in collusion with the GOP?

No one link would prove it and no amount of arguing would change someones opinion who defered from that but it is still my personal belief that it is true.

There you go mixing 'fact' and 'opinion' again.


In the same way some think that it is true that Cheney helped Halliburton get contracts unfairly due to his old connections with them.

So you're finally admitting that Cheney helped Halliburton get contracts unfairly? You've taken a big step today Sly... :D

BTW, I've never seen the ad that ran on MoveOn.org's site. I guess I know what you think of me then huh? What was it, something about my intelligence level?

First you accuse me of calling you stupid, then you turn around and call me unintelligent. Nice going.

[IJ Reilly]

A person does not have to be a political junkie who follows every nuance of who said what about whom to know that this ad is fundamentally offensive. Or at least it should be to anyone who possesses even a marginal standard of personal decency. Charges of hypocrisy are somewhat beside the point when the ad, taken just as we see it, is reprehensible. Those who would excuse it should keep in mind that most Americans aren't interested in the process of convoluted political paybacks that seems to be the main justification for the ad. To not be offended by tactics like this also suggests the need for a personal soul-check. Something may have gone missing...

[Voltron]

So you're finally admitting that Cheney helped Halliburton get contracts unfairly? You've taken a big step today Sly... :D

BTW, I've never seen the ad that ran on MoveOn.org's site. I guess I know what you think of me then huh? What was it, something about my intelligence level?

First you accuse me of calling you stupid, then you turn around and call me unintelligent. Nice going.
Why do you feel like you have to put meaning into words I've said that wasn't there. Meaning that if I ignored some might think is true when its not but when I reply back to correct such misconception it twists the thread away from its primary topic. This tactic is not necessary, but yet I have to simply state you are putting words in my mouth again.

I have no idea whether or not Cheney helped Halliburton get contracts unfairly. But I have yet to see anyone prove that he did. I also see nothing wrong with Halliburton getting contracts the way they always have in the past simply because they have allot of practice and experience with this stuff. Clinton use to pass off no bid contracts to Halliburton simply because they were good at their job. Or I guess that was his reasoning.

Do I now have to clarify that I'm guessing at a persons reasoning because there are those who assume I read someones mind and am claiming I know it for 100% certainty?

[blackfox]

A person does not have to be a political junkie who follows every nuance of who said what about whom to know that this ad is fundamentally offensive. Or at least it should be to anyone who possesses even a marginal standard of personal decency. Charges of hypocrisy are somewhat beside the point when the ad, taken just as we see it, is reprehensible. Those who would excuse it should keep in mind that most Americans aren't interested in the process of convoluted political paybacks that seems to be the main justification for the ad. To not be offended by tactics like this also suggests the need for a personal soul-check. Something may have gone missing...
Exceedingly well-put IJ,
I have been fumbling around/sidetracked with specifics...but that is my opinion to a tee.

Thankyou for your eloquence, and wonder how anyone could argue those points.

With that in mind, this thread is done for me...

[IJ Reilly]

I thought I was done with it too, until I read this:

Filling in for host Sean Hannity on FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes on June 28, substitute host Mike Gallagher -- a nationally syndicated radio host and a frequent FOX News Channel contributor and guest host -- recycled the false claim that advocacy group MoveOn.org "is actually using" the image of Adolf Hitler to compare Hitler to President George W. Bush. Gallagher also asserted that the new Bush-Cheney '04 video (which attacks Senator John Kerry and juxtaposes footage of Democratic Party leaders with footage of Hitler) "brilliantly put together side by side Al Gore's raging maniacal rant next to Adolf Hitler."

Contrary to Gallagher's claim, MoveOn.org never used the image of Hitler to compare Hitler to President Bush: The Hitler footage to which Gallagher referred was originally included in ads submitted to MoveOn.org as part of a contest. However, as Columbia Journalism Review's website The Campaign Desk noted in its "Distortion" column, while "at least one [ad] was posted briefly on the organization's website ... MoveOn quickly removed it and disassociated itself from the offending ads."

From the June 28 edition of FOX News Channel's Hannity & Colmes:

GALLAGHER: The left has been calling -- comparing George Bush to Hitler and Saddam for a long time now, all throughout this entire ugly, ugly year of campaigning.

But I've got to ask you something. I thought this spot [the Bush-Cheney '04 video posted on GeorgeWBush.com on June 25] brilliantly put together side by side Al Gore's raging, maniacal rant next to Adolf Hitler. It was actually pretty cleverly done.

Does the Kerry campaign, do you think, not expect that Adolf Hitler could even be evoked when it's MoveOn.org, a Kerry machine, that is actually using that image?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406290003

No soul required. Just add water.