Page 1 of 1
Hitler enters the presidential race
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2004 8:46 am
by mrmooky
This is just odd.
Bush campaign Web spot uses footage of Hitler
Video interspersing clips of Kerry, Dean, Gore with dictator's image sent to 6 million.
Associated Press
June 27, 2004
WASHINGTON -- Adolf Hitler's image has surfaced again in the White House race.
President Bush's campaign contains online video, removed from a liberal group's Web site months ago and disavowed, that features the Nazi dictator.
The Bush Internet video, which was sent electronically to 6 million supporters, intersperses clips of speeches by Democrats John Kerry, Al Gore and Howard Dean with the footage of Hitler.
Democrats want the video pulled from the site. Campaign aides said it would remain.
Republicans 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, all bashing Bush. The spot calls them Kerry's "Coalition of the Wild-eyed." Clips of Hitler's image are seen throughout the spot.
"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.
A disclaimer was added to the beginning of the Web spot 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.
More info
here.
Hitler being used in anti-Bush campaign
By JANINE ZACHARIA
WASHINGTON
Adolf Hitler has turned up in the US presidential race.
On Friday, the campaign of the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, US Senator John Kerry, lambasted US President George W. Bush for incorporating into an anti-Kerry campaign video portions of an ad posted by a liberal advocacy group, which likened Bush to Hitler.
The Bush-Hitler comparison was part of an ad posted months ago on the website Moveon.org, an internet advocacy group, which is not affiliated with Kerry but is working for his election. Moveon.org held a contest for advertisements about Bush and posted many of them on the website, including the Bush-Hitler ad.
The Bush campaign video, being broadcast on its website,
www.GeorgeWBush.com, is entitled the "Coalition of the Wild-Eyed." It strings together clips of an angry Vice President Al Gore screaming, "How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison." Kerry is shown using an expletive.
Former Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean shouts, "I want my country back."
Hitler images are interspersed twice. Third Reich war crimes are likened to Bush's foreign policy.
At the end of the video, a graphic reads, "It's a time for optimism, steady leadership, and progress."
A Kerry spokesman called on the Bush campaign to immediately remove the Hitler images from its website and apologize for using them. "The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.
Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman, in response, said he agreed with that assessment.
"These ads, like much of the hate-filled, angry rhetoric of Kerry's coalition of the Wild-eyed, are disgusting," Mehlman said in a statement.
The statement listed comments by Kerry supporters, which he said Kerry should have spoken out against.
Mehlman wrote: "Why has John Kerry not denounced billionaire and Democrat(ic) Party donor George Soros for comparing the Bush administration to Nazis. Soros stated, 'When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' It reminds me of the Germans. It conjures up memories of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ('The enemy is listening')."
I don't really see how this campaign is helping, well, anyone.
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2004 10:54 am
by ak404
God, they just Godwin'd themselves. Dumb fucks.
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2004 3:15 pm
by FlameBlade
I want to see bunch of people drinking a cup of tea.
Posted: Sun Jun 27, 2004 5:58 pm
by Chopper
It does raise the issue of hate speech. Which side has more hate speech? I think we are about to find out, and so will the puiblic. Kind of ingenious if you think about it.
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 4:07 am
by mrmooky
Hate speech?
Al Gore wrote:"How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison."
This is the type of quote the Bush/Cheney ad is using, and, well, it's not hate speech. It's called political criticism.
It amazes me that the Bush administration would endorse such an ad, which basically amounts to them hiding behind Mommy's skirts and having a cry. "They said mean things about us!" Well, no shit, George. If Gore is criticising you about Abu Ghraib, it's because you fucked up in Abu Ghraib. Even if you didn't endorse it, your administration failed to prevent it. Sometimes, when you fuck up in office, people in the other parties criticise you for fucking up. They have the right to do that. It's called freedom of speech. It's an essential part of democracy. You may have heard of it. Running ads that say, "the Democrats are bad for criticising us," makes you look like the same big, fat fascist you're decrying the them for comparing you to.
Posted: Mon Jun 28, 2004 11:11 pm
by Chopper
mrmooky wrote: Running ads that say, "the Democrats are bad for criticising us," makes you look like the same big, fat fascist you're decrying the them for comparing you to.
Huh?
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 2:06 am
by Cain
Basically, normally you'd expect this sort of move out of a "campaign ally", such as MoveOn.org for liberals. I'd expect it from a Heritage Foundation ad, or something similar. By using proxies, you can deny any involvement with the mudslinging while still letting your opponent get roasted.
For Bush to put his personal stamp on something this controversial is highly unusual, and against the normal rules of politics-- as well as against good taste. Generally, politicians strive to appear "above" the hate speech and mudslinging. I have to wonder what the hell Rove is thinking-- either this is a deliberate attempt to do something clever, or the man has let his temper get the better of him.
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 3:25 am
by mrmooky
Chopper wrote:Huh?
Well, it's generally accepted that in a democracy, if the governing administration makes a mistake, the opposing parties have every right to point that mistake out. Abu Ghraib was one such mistake. I'm not suggesting that the Bush administration actively encouraged or allowed what happened at Abu Ghraib - just that the mistake happened on their watch. As such, Al Gore has every right to criticise the Bush administration for failing to prevent Abu Ghraib. Whether Gore would have been able to prevent it any more than Bush did is irrelevant - it is still crucial for democracy that someone point out the failure of the government as a whole to prevent it. This most recent ad seems to suggest that Gore ought not point out the failings of the government, which makes Bush and Cheney look, to some extent, anti-effective democracy.
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:58 pm
by TLM
Now, I know I'm bringing up old stuff here, but wasn't there something about... Florida, votes, chads... Supreme Court stuff during the last election? I'm a little fuzzy on details here, but as far as I can remember, Bush wasn't so much elected as appointed.
That aside, Mooky has it spot on. A modern democracy is (in theory, at least) based on the people's privelige and right to criticize the governemnt without fear of repraisals. If that gets taken away, democracy starts to erode, and fast too. Of course, there are other factors at work, such as overall economic stability, living standards and so on. You can get away with a lot if the economy is going well and people are well fed and own three SUV's apiece. This ad might be pushing it a bit, but it's still not over the top. I think it'll slide. Still doesn't mean that comparing anyone to Hitler isn't in extremely bad taste.
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:09 pm
by lorg
bah! Here I thought this was a thread about cloning
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 1:10 pm
by DV8
lorg wrote:bah! Here I thought this was a thread about cloning
Gregory Peck's dead, dude.
Posted: Tue Jun 29, 2004 8:45 pm
by Chopper
mrmooky wrote:Chopper wrote:mrmooky wrote: Running ads that say, "the Democrats are bad for criticising us," makes you look like the same big, fat fascist you're decrying the them for comparing you to.
Huh?
Well, it's generally accepted that in a democracy, if the governing administration makes a mistake, the opposing parties have every right to point that mistake out. Abu Ghraib was one such mistake. I'm not suggesting that the Bush administration actively encouraged or allowed what happened at Abu Ghraib - just that the mistake happened on their watch. As such, Al Gore has every right to criticise the Bush administration for failing to prevent Abu Ghraib. Whether Gore would have been able to prevent it any more than Bush did is irrelevant - it is still crucial for democracy that someone point out the failure of the government as a whole to prevent it. This most recent ad seems to suggest that Gore ought not point out the failings of the government, which makes Bush and Cheney look, to some extent, anti-effective democracy.
So how does this make Bush look like Hitler? Did you even read what part of your post I quoted? BTW: Since when was Hitler big?
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:00 am
by Serious Paul
Effective democracy?
That's a good one.
Posted: Wed Jun 30, 2004 6:23 am
by mrmooky
Chopper wrote:So how does this make Bush look like Hitler?
He doesn't actually look like Hitler, but he doesn't look very pro-democracy, either. It's just unwise to run an ad saying, "criticising us is bad," while using Hitler's image, and expecting nobody to make the mental connection.
Did you even read what part of your post I quoted?
Yup. That's what I was replying to.
BTW: Since when was Hitler big?
I meant it in the figurative sense.
Chopper: given that you're a Bush supporter to some degree, imagine the Democrats running a similar ad when Clinton was President, that mixed clips of Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole with those of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter (who compares everyone to Hitler) speaking - angrily, in some cases - about areas where Clinton had failed. The ad labels these Republicans the "coalition of the wild-eyed", and portrays them as being in some way emotionally extreme and unfit for government. I'm not sure what your reaction to such an ad would be, but mine would be something like: "how low of the Clinton/Gore campaign to criticise their opposition merely for criticising them. A good President would tackle his opposition's
policies in the ad, not merely seek to paint them as extreme for not liking him. It is the right, nay, the democratic duty, of the other parties to criticise the sitting President, and it is in the interests of democracy that the President respect that."