Sept. 11 Families Disgusted by Bush Campaign Ads
 

So does this mean we Democrats can begin showing flag-draped coffins being unloaded at Dover, or the Vietnam VeteransMemorial, or just the pictures of the 500+ servicemen and women killed in Iraq?

I can't believe the Bush campaign went there. Especially the flag-draped stretcher.:mad:

That's some cheap shit. I hope they get fucked at the polls for that one. Not that I didn't hope they get fucked at the polls anyway. Not that kerry is much better.

The Kerry campaign is only disgusted they they didn't think of it first. There is no shame in political campaigning.

As for me, I'm staying home, and I think that's the principled stand this time around. One guy who pushed for the PATRIOT act and other violations of civil liberties, and another guy who voted for the damned thing. Forget it.

A non-vote doesn't send a strong enough message. Vote for an independant or third part candidate that doesn't stand a chance to make it in. This two party system is fucked, we need new input.

A nonvote or third party vote is a vote for the originator of the Patriot act.

I believe a non-vote is marginally better than a third party vote. Third party votes are ignored and often the totals of the other candidates are rounded up to hide the minor parties. But not voting reduces the voter turnout number, which does get reported.

And warch: no, a non-vote is NOT a vote for the originator of the PATRIOT act, whoever that might be. It's simply not a vote.

Note that it's not really clear who originated the PATRIOT act anyway. The act is really a laundry list of law-enforcement wet dreams that they've been trying to get passed for years but the time wasn't right. What is clear is that BOTH major candidates support it.

Bipartisan yeah, I remember the turnaround, but clearly introduced and quickly, aggressively pushed by the republican administration. (There is a sunset provision I'm hoping to cash in on.)
I'm not getting a perfect candidate. Seems the choice will be Kerry or Bush. I'm going with the lesser evil, in my mind, Kerry.

Why not write in for Russ Feingold?
I think refusing to show up is an easier out, not a strong strategy for change. But maybe youre right.

I was reading a piece by Sarah Vowell, where she sites a scene from the Breakfast Club:

Jock: Why do YOU have a fake id?
Geek: to vote.

I gotta vote.

When I look at the foreign policy positions of both candidates, I weigh them against 9-11 as instructed by Bush Co. Both of these clowns support interventionionism THE root cause of 9-11. Don't feed me any of that innocent America crap tonight...I'm in no mood.

Give them jobs, cars and condos and they'll stop bombing you. It's fairly straight forward.

ROTFL. Give them jobs, cars, and condos and they'll use the condo as a base to build car bombs using materials stolen from their employers.

Appeasement never worked before and won't work now. And it's NOT all America's (or even the First World's) fault.

I don't see much evidence of happy, wealthy individuals anywhere engaging in life endangering acts of terrorism on a major scale. I do see a long history of repressed impoverished people turning towards extremist causes that give them something to blame for their misfortune.

If Germany was not an impoverished mess after WW1 and the treaty do you think Hitler would have rose to power? Do you think the current neo-nazi revival in Russia has nothing to do with economic conditions?

But I think we have seen them financing some extremist groups on a major scale. Of course it could have been blackmail/extortion.

I'm with warch, vote. Write in Saddam if you must, but let them know you were there and didn't buy their line of shit. While your at it, write them a letter and tell them so.

There is none so blind as he who will not see. Neither Osama bin Laden nor the September 11th hijackers themselves were poor slobs in a mud hovel somewhere.

No, they weren't happy individuals. I hope Osama's even less happy now. But poverty wasn't what made them unhappy.

Those of you that know me know that I support Bush, however, Bruce and Warch seem to have the most effective suggestion IMO.

Senator Santorum doesnt know me personally but his staff does know I vote and....... I write original letters* to his office, not some bs form letter.


* - That's why there is always a white cube van parked at various different locations on my walking route to work and around my apartment.

but where does their popular support from?
Why is vast swaths of the Islamic world in the bed of islamofacists, you don't see a parallel in western countries? There will always be lone nutters from every walk of life, look at that cult leader in Japan as an example; but only in certain conditions will they garner this kind of popular support.

We've got entire nations that are impoverished and feel impotent. Their extreme faith gives them something to cling to and be proud of, no different to neonazi kids in Russia or Scotland or those that rally around the extremist calls of others throughout history. Extremist leaders prey on anger to fuel their campaigns, they take that anger and give it a target and this galvanizes people in a way nothing else can. There are angry people across the Middle East. They're persecuted the west bank and the gaza strip, they're impoverished everywhere and they're politically impotent. Did you know there is a strong collation between political power and general happiness?

You're underestimating the power of repression too. Egypt, home to many of the middle-upper class backers of these guys suffers from an extreme kind of political stagnation and apathy, the political process has failed them as have their leaders, so they look to other methods.

Where does their popular support come from:

http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

Collective failure of large numbers of the Arabic world, leading to religious resentment, fueled by the governments of the area in an attempt to deflect blame, followed by cult-like adherence to the notion of victimhood.

Not showing up at the polls is apathy, not protest. You will probably have half a dozen candidates to choose from, not just the top two. Surely someone is close enough to your personal philosophy to support. You can even walk in, not select anyone, and pull the handle, casting a true non-vote.

You can write in 'none of the above' as a candidate. I think that idea was floated in some Libertarian science fiction novel.

A true non-vote is a statement. Enough of them would appear in statistics. Not showing up just lets the press and everyone else lump you in with the lazy jerks who won't get off their asses a travel a few miles to fulfill their civic duty.

BTW, I do not count people who are too sick to make it and did not have time to get an absentee ballot, which is harder to do than it should be. I'm just talking about people who can get in the car and stand in line for beer and cigarettes but who think voting is too much trouble.:rar:

I'm also voting for Bush. No surprise there. But the fact remains, anyone who has the character to be a good president is too smart to even consider putting themselves into the current system. Both Republicans and Democrats are sellouts to their respective special interests, while single-issue parties like the Greens are about as useful as tits on a boar hog. A true Libertarian would be refreshing, but they tend to be wackos.

I want my dad to run. He's a good dad, which is IME a good 40% of the job. He never raised his hand against us kids unless it was to swat our butts, and that was mostly form over function - never left a mark. The only exception was when my brother tried to pick a fight with him, and was launched about 10 feet into the air on the toe of dad's boot. Also, he won't watch a movie that has the F-word in it, because it's 'crude'. He listens to old country music from his childhood. He refuses to ask for medical disability from the government even though being a Navy radioman screwed up his hearing. He likes guns, but thinks the NRA is full of shit. He builds things with his hands, and was a college professor for 30 years. He hates liberalism though. And gay marriage makes him turn 4 shades of mottled purple. So does Britney Spears, whom he has deemed "a heifer". So don't be expecting a moderate. At least he's honest though, which puts him above the rest of the politicians.

Vote my dad.

You know, I think you're the first person on this board to make that statement.

Fortunately, both my sons just got registered, so we're still one up.

There is nothing at all wrong with the ads, and nothing wrong either with the Ds overnight response, which so far has included bringing out 9/11 widows to morning television the day after this broke. The shots in the ads are understated and brief compared to the massive media overresponse, which has only served to put everyone on notice that the day will in fact be politicized by both sides and we all know it.

I agree that this will focus the debate, which will be helpful. Personally, I think someone in the Bush campaign misjudged the reaction of the public and they are opting for brazening it out.

I actually do think that bringing bodies into commercials, even for an instant, is in bad taste, simply because noone can get the consent of the deceased. The White House probably felt that they could do so since they 'owned' the rights to 9/11. I'm looking forward to a lot of that kind of hubris from the Republicans. It's affected (or infected) their domestic and foreign policy and I'm looking forward to them bringing it to their campaign policy with, I'm hoping, equally disasterous results.

I just can't believe that anyone was actually offended until told they were supposed to be.

Both sides will (if they haven't already) start the ad campaign season off with horrified, offended gasps that the "other side" could run such vile, filthy attack ads. That way, any vile, filthy attack ad they themselves run can be justified as a defensive maneuver. I'm shutting off my TV until next year.

If they're are real lucky the debate over these ads will continue all the way to November. Never mind the economy, unemployment, debt,......what about those damn ads? Huh? Huh?

I knew it was impossible to get 9/11 family members on TV the next morning without severe pre-planning on someone's behalf. If you want to know how you're getting rolled, read this.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/20231.htm

The only question now is whether the Reuters reporter knew the connection when writing the story. We'll never know. But we do know how much the rest of the media jumped on it... with both feet, and eyes closed.

We actually have a choice...well maybe
 

I'd have to agree. I felt the way rusetto felt when I was 18. I said that I wasn't going to register to vote, and ha, that'll learn them.
Basically, that was at a time when none of the candidates were pleasing to me. But then came 1992, and then...*grins*

However, I wanted to ask more about the absentee ballots. Why is it so hard to get, and can I get one now? (just in case I have a day like I'm having now...extreme low blood pressure, and just enough energy to go to my doctor's appt. in an hour).

Thanks in advance. :)

While I don't 100% agree with the outrage, I can see where the families of the victims would be offended at the first sight of the ads (in other words, without someone "telling them").

However, I *think* that the "offensive" material have been removed from the ads now.

I saw the ad last night. There is still an image of the WTC "cathedral wall" but the body being moved out of the site is gone.

Manufacturing emotion must be big for getting the base out. From Republicans telling us to be offended when Dems "play politics" with the war as if war isn't political to Dems crying about a wisecrack about the NEA being terrorists, the silly season is upon us, to bad I don't have the heart to follow either of these idiots over the cliff.