Democrats & Liberals: Archives

The problem is whenever someone talks smack about Bush’s administration or policies, with or without reason, the right-wing pundits like to launch into tirades and personally attack that person.

Granted, a lot of the rhetoric from the left has gotten just as over-the-top as that on the right. Digital brownshirts? Tsk Tsk. But lest we forget, the right better not be gloating in self-righteousness either (“red daiper babies?”).

You’re absolutely right in your assessment that it’s devolved into a name-calling match, I was afraid it would and. What the Bush reelection campaign seems to be banking on is that if they can quickly paint the left as the WORST offenders, then they’ll win by default. This attack ad is probably just a toe in the water compared to what will come out as we get closer to November.

Here is the official Bush campaign response.

“On Thursday, the campaign launched a web video titled Kerry’s Coalition of the Wild-eyed. The video featured Democrats who support John Kerry making negative and baseless attacks against the President. Interspersed in the video were segments of two ads that appeared on a website sponsored by MoveOn.org - a group campaigning for Kerry - in January.
On Friday night, John Kerry’s campaign denounced our use of these ads, and called that use “disgusting.”

The Kerry campaign says, “The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong.”

We agree. These ads, like much of the hate-filled, angry rhetoric of Kerry’s coalition of the Wild-eyed, are disgusting.

- Where was John Kerry’s disgust when he hired Zack Exley - the man responsible for encouraging the production of these ads as part of a MoveOn contest - to run the Kerry campaign’s internet operation?

- Where was John Kerry’s sense of outrage when Al Gore, just yesterday afternoon, compared the Bush Administration to the Nazis saying, “The Administration works closely with a network of ‘rapid response’ digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for ‘undermining support for our troops.’”

- Where was John Kerry’s anger when Al Gore in May spoke of “Bush’s Gulag”?

- Why has John Kerry not denounced billionaire and Democrat 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’).”

- Why has Kerry not spoken out against filmmaker Michael Moore who last October compared the Patriot Act to Mein Kampf. “The Patriot Act is the first step. ‘Mein Kampf’ - ‘Mein Kampf’ was written long before Hitler came to power.”

We created this web video to show the depths to which these Kerry supporters will sink to win in November.

Is this the Democratic Party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt who reassured his countrymen we have nothing to fear but fear itself?

No. This is John Kerry’s Coalition of the Wild-eyed, who have nothing to offer but fear-mongering.

Sincerely,

Ken Mehlman
Campaign Manager

Frankly, let ‘em run this ad. It only makes us look good. The Democrats are animated, forceful, interesting to watch… and then there’s Bush, smiling, happily ignorant to the bad things happening in the world.

The Kerry campaign called on the president to remove the video from his Web site.

Which might not be a bad idea for the Bush team. NEWSWEEK asked an interactive content developer for a large New York City advertising firm to view the video and offer his professional opinion. After laughing out loud at the video, he said the picture of Hitler overwhelms any other message and that the entire advertisement seemed poorly conceived. “If you’re not aware of the MoveOn.org campaign, it seems like a ridiculous point. It’s picking up a spitball, polishing it, and throwing it back at them. It’s like saying: ‘I’m like Hitler? No you’re like Hitler’.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5298664/site/newsweek/

Interesting argument from the GOP. They acknowledge that their own ad is disgusting, then they accuse Democrats of “starting it”.

Agree with the media consultant. I hope they run with this turkey.

Good point Woody.

Well, I haven’t seen a campaign in my lifetime that was based on a calm discussion of issues, but I guess hope is never ending.

Most people vote on image and passion, not sound thought.

If sound government were the end result of elections we would see the dissolution of the Republican and Democratic Parties and an actual decrease in the size and scope of government.

This has Karl Rove written all over it. Remember, Karl Rove was the guy, who when working on a local political race in Texas, bugged his own office and then “found” the bug and blamed it on the opposition. By creating a media firestorm, just a few days before the election, Rove successfully manipulated the media to paint a negative picture of the opposing candidate, thus pushing a 50/50 race a few points in towards his candidate resulting in a win.

Be assured that Rove will try anything and do anything to bring down Kerry. Also note that Rove was fired from the Bush election campaign in 1992 because it was discovered that he planted a negative story with conservative columnist Robert Novak (the guy who exposed Valerie Plame as an undercover CIA agent) with the intention of killing the career of a colleague he did not like.

The connections between Rove and Novak are pretty clear. The methods Rove uses to leak information are also pretty clear.

Cameron, that story about Rove bugging his own office is black-helicopter crowd conspiracy theory—-or, if you prefer, a load of agricultural by-product. D

i wish that they would push through campaign reform…..

meaning…no commercials…..

they have to present their credentials and their voting history, show what they have contributed to the american public, and how they have bettered the country…and then we get to choose based on factual proof….instead of this bull of who is more like hitler……

ahhhh….to sleep….perchance to dream…

Cameron Barrett: My thoughts exactly, Karl Rove is a mud-slinging Machiavelli. Remember, he also torpedoed John McCain’s South Carolina campaign with his patented “push polling.” Apparently he’s learned a few tricks since then and we’re going to get to hear about them as we draw closer to the elections.

Kerry used poll-pushing extensively against Dean in Iowa. But why do so many regard it as such a terrible thing that Rove orchestrated a successful campaign against McCain? That’s what a campaign manager is supposed to do—a good one, anyway.

Kerry’s people got him where he is today by burying the rest of the field. That’s just how things work, and there’s no superior virtue in having your head handed to you in a political campaign.

Martin is Ken Mehlman, campaign manager? Of who may I ask, and is this the same “Martin” on this site who derided dems from taking the pulpit in black churches???

I do personally dislike the extreme leftism as I don’t like the extreme right using these sorts of spiteful bantering points. Such as Limbaugh tactics and such as Moore’s tactics in addressing what should be addressed as substantive points of real discussion on real technical factors.

I personally feel that Michael Moore is doing his own party a great disservice with his film “Farenheit 9-11” in that it’s not so much an intellectual discourse on the screen but a hate Bush rally which doesn’t help us. The agendized editing, the song overlays it doesn’t help us in November but makes us look like liars just as when Rush Limbaugh or other extremists do it. It’s a massaging of history and I would rather see something like “Frontline” tackle what are genuinely puzzling questions about this administration than a satirical and biased far-left, personality it takes away from what are much needed questions and moves it into the sphere of rhetoric to spark a rallied response.

Dems need the substantive to win this election let’s not get bogged down with what is actually the province of the Limbaughs, Hannities and Scaifes. When we do it it looks just as trifling and misleading as when the Neo-cons do it.

As for move-on dot org, they really are not on the same page with the moderates and moderates are what it takes to win an election. The middle ground and swing voters will make the difference.

Bush is screwing up in that he is playing polarization games and touting his right wing flank and really should be easing over into the swing and left lanes so as to gather those votes. And it’s those votes that will decide this election not his powerbase of ultraconservatives. I guess this is a body of logic that the right wing currently hasn’t arrived at yet.

Clinton was in for two terms, why? Because through embarking on the platform of the rightwing he got the moderate votes enough to sustain him in his reelection bid.

Karl Rove could very well lose this election for Bush, in both his platform not engaging the swing but also in creating for Bush a contrived image. Did anyone see the interview on Irish TV with Bush defending this war? He was personable and spectacular in defending it, but when in Rove’s handling, Rove will insist on wall paper with the topic written over and over again on it and give Bush phony sounding “Free-dumb” quotes and patriotic jiberish that appeals to no one, not even his own party. Bush desperately needs to get rid of Karen Hughes, who turns his speeches into mush and Rove who’s sense of P.R. is bound to make even the most ardent republican atleast a little weary of the same speech over and over again.

My assessment Bush will lose the election because of Karl Rove and his lack of public relations sensibilities. Bush can tackle it without Rove’s help as he comes off ten times more personable as when he has the Rove/Hughes factor contriving things for him. Making him appear less agile personality-wise.

Ken Mehlman is the campaign manager for Bush’s re-election campaign. I know this might confuse those who just assumed that Karl Rove is the campaign manager—he’s not. Rove is chief political strategist. I don’t really know what their relative duties are.

Your analysis may be true in this election, but the same strategies you think are so terrible won Bush the presidency in the first place against a heavily favored opponenent, and then won huge victories in the midterm elections. I guess we just have to wait and see.

And to answer your question—why, yes. That was me. Thanks for remembering.

Different opponent, different political climate, Martin. The same techniques won’t work this time around, I’ll wager.

Granted I don’t either specifically know the exact duties of either Rove/Hughes. Some of Bush’s reelection speeches do look good though but this is a big Dem year and Bush had better rally as much of the center as he can. The far right he can depend on but the swing has to be nailed down. meaning aiming a bit left of center without falling over.

Gore couldn’t attract pigeon-**** the way he ran in 2000 and Kerry is a drag on anyones attention span and his not divulging his running mate makes him even more lack-luster. But yes, we’ll have to wait and see.

The Right has played dirty for years while Democrats and liberals have essentially rolled over and played dead. Finally, the Right is tasting a little of it’s own medicine and does not like it.

Historically, politics in America has been a dirty business. Honest politics is probably an oxymoron.

Two commentaries on the ad from

Both commentators agree that it was despicable, but one was incidentally amused.

Best line: “[Bush is] going to need better gutter tactics than this to stop Hitler in Ohio.”

Two commentaries in Slate about this ad. They thought it was despicable, and were not impressed tactically.

Best line: [Bush is] going to need better gutter tactics than this to stop Hitler in Ohio.

I like this quote, Woody:

What exactly does the Bush-Cheney campaign think that these Democrats have in common with Hitler? Basically, it’s that they’re too darned excited about politics. They yell. They criticize harshly. They use bad language. The message here, to the extent there is one, is: “Don’t be like Hitler—chill out!”

I was under the impression that moveon.org only had the “hitler” material on their website briefly, and only as a submission by one of their members during a contest. They found it offensive and removed it from the web site within a couple of days,after perhaps one or two hundred people had seen it. They did NOT sponsor this ad, or run it officially.
So in response, the GOP puts Hitler on their official website? Sounds like overkill to me, but perhaps overkill could be used to describe many aspects of the present administration.

It may not be effective, but there is no double standard here. It is not, “Comparisons to Hitler are disgusting, but you started it.” It’s “Comparisons to Hitler are disgusting. Remember when MoveOn compared me to Hitler? Isn’t that disgusting?” When they say, “We agree. These ads, like much of the hate-filled, angry rhetoric of Kerry’s coalition of the Wild-eyed, are disgusting,” the ‘these ads’ he is referring to are the ads within the ads. The MoveOn ads are disgusting. They deserve to be decried. Here we are decrying them.

So, it may be poorly put together or poor judgement to include the Hitler spots, but since those spots are about GW, how is that a dirty trick? Except the bumpers at the beginning and end, ad consists almost entirely of what the opposition to GW has to say. Is it a dirty trick to say, “Remember when they said this about me?” Is it hypocritical?

I mean, the left should be thrilled. The Bush campaign is basically running negative against itself.

Well Jason, I am not going to waste time trying to convince you that the Bush ad is disgusting, but I hope that the GOP is working on more ads like this. I can’t wait to see Kerry compared to Stalin, Dracula, etc.

The point is, Kerry was NOT compared to Hitler. Bush was. His ad is about Bush being compared to Hitler by Kerry supporters. While the ad may be confusing to some who were not aware of the disgusting MoveOn.org ads, the Kerry campaign certainly WAS aware of the MoveOn.org ads. It is disengenuous for the Kerry campaign to suggest that the ad compares him and other dems to Hitler. Kerry’s outrage should be at being lumped in with the “wild-eyed” who came up with the offensive ad. Instead he misrepresents the comparison.

Having seen the ad myself, I can attest that if I had not been aware of the MoveOn.org ads, I would have been confused - even with the captions that are on the on explaining where they came from. (Hell, if I was not a political person, I may not even know who MoveOn.org is.) So perhaps it was poor judgement to include these ads. But it is certainly ironic that all of this outrage from the Democrats is over Bush including an anti-Bush produced by Democrats in his ad.

Jason:

Your last comment is the most salient. The Democrats are lambasting Bush for using the Democrats own words in one of his ads.

I tried to see how Bush compared the Democrats to Hitler….what i saw was the ad saying essentially, “here is what others have been saying about me, and here it is in their own words.”

Note how the left has jumped on one small portion of the ad, and have left the rest of the ad alone. This is reminiscent of when they excoriated the GOP for running an ad that at one point left out the letters DEMOC but included the letters RAT. No point is too small to focus on in their effort to change the focus away from the salient issues.

Why have they not commented on the ad as a whole? They know that is a losing strategy.

Joe was correct a couple of comments up when he asserted without confidence “I was under the impression that moveon.org only had the “hitler” material on their website briefly, and only as a submission by one of their members during a contest. They found it offensive and removed it from the web site within a couple of days,after perhaps one or two hundred people had seen it. They did NOT sponsor this ad, or run it officially.” All others in this thread on both sides of the argument have ignored this salient point. Bush running this ad would be comparable to Kerry running an ad showing the hate-filled words of some extremist blogger who happens to support Bush, and claiming that it demonstrates what the opposition is willing to sink to.