USA Today has a piece on the torrent of visceral anti-Bush rhetoric from Hollywood and why it’s turning off voters. I’ve always said that the more of the hate-filled rhetoric that comes from MoveOn, Michael Moore, and the usual gaggle of brainless celebrities, the more people see how vapid and mean-spirited the left really is. After you’ve compared Bush to Hitler, accused him of perpetrating September 11, accused him of being a worse terrorist than bin Laden, etc, exactly where can you go from there?
I have a feeling that the hate that comes off groups like MoveOn will have the opposite effect from what its intentions are. I think a lot of swing voters who might lean towards Kerry will stay home rather than support this kind of filth. If one accepts that swing voters tend to lean towards the challenger (which is traditionally true), the very last thing one wants to do is make those swing voters disaffected with the campaign – yet that is precisely what the boorish anti-Bush crowd is doing.
So far the only voter I know of that’s been so repulsed by the hateful visceral attacks of a political party that she’s switched sides is Teresa Heinz Kerry after the Republicans put Max Cleland’s picture in between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Certainly, Whoopi Goldberg’s goofball comments are a liability to the Dems, but judging by the $108 million that Michael Moore has made with Fahrenheit 9-11, I don’t know if “repulsed” is the best adjective to describe Americans response to it.
It’d be an interesting experiment to put a barrage of campaign ads and partisan speeches from both parties in front of an audience of swing voters and see which they found most off-putting. Something tells me the Republicans would reclaim their long-standing crown of primary campaign gutter rats.
Yes, I’m sure that voters would be so enamored of the Democrats after watching one of Al Gore’s spittle-flecked, red-faced rants, or watching MoveOn.org directly compare Bush to Hitler.
The side that ran the disgusting James Byrd dragging ads has no moral ground to criticize the other side on the horrors of dirty campaigning…
Jay, long before the ACLU’s admittedly disgusting ad comparing Bush to James Byrd’s killers, the GOP ran an ad morphing the face of then Democratic Congressman Vic Fazio over the face of the rapist and murderer of 12-year-old Polly Klaas in northern California.
Also before the ACLU ad was the Bush campaign’s direct involvement in alleging that John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child during the South Carolina primary.
And even though you refuse to accept the obvious, Max Cleland was compared to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in the 2002 Georgia Senate campaign. Put the question up to swing voters and I suspect they’d agree.
Gore’s rants are an embarrassment, but you’ll never get any traction on the obscure and quickly removed MoveOn.org ads comparing Bush to Hitler. On the other hand, the GOP ad showing Hitler in the company of Al Gore, Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy was intentional and, in my opinion, far more likely to be viewed as sleazy by “swing voters.”
Try as they may, the Dems simply cannot compete with the GOP when its comes to being slimeballs. If my hypothetical campaign gutter rat showdown ever did happen, I’d put my money on the Republicans coming out victorious in virtually every round.
Mark: if you really want to go back in time, long before all the examples you cite there was LBJ’s ad against Goldwater with the girl and the flower and the nuke going off in the background.
I also well remember the attempts to smear Reagan…calling him “Raygun”…implying that if he was elected we’d end up in a nuke war.
Listen, let’s face…politics is a rough business and no side is perfectly clean.
However, I do believe the tone of the Hollywood left has escalated and that voters are turned off by it, whether there are comparisons to the past or not. People just know they are turned off by it, not whether some politician from so many years ago did this or that.
As for the Cleland thing…again, the ads were tough, but simply meant to show that Cleland put collective bargaining above Homeland Security. Cleland’s war record notwithstanding, that doesn’t make him immune from such criticism. In fact, such criticism was leveled at many Dem Senators and Reps, to great advantage, and justly so in my opinion. So this mock outrage at Cleland is just a bunch of garbage. So Boo hoo for Max Cleland. The fact that he was in a grenade accident while serving in Vietnam doesn’t earn him special consideration in politics. (Note: the truth is out about Cleland: while the Dem party would like to imply he suffered his wounds in battle, he suffered them while drinking a beer and coming across a grenade while at his base. The accident could just as easily have happened stateside. I give him credit for serving, but I don’t give him a political pass.)
Bottom line: in this election cycle, no one on the GOP side has done anything like Whoopi, like Moore and his propaganda, like the moveon ads, like Gore’s rants…
Oh, yeah, as for F911…I have heard from some friends of mine who are college students that many lefties are going to see F911 multiple times just to build up its box office numbers…also, that some leftist groups have been purchasing tickets in blocks to give away…and that many of these tickets can’t be given away (except to other left wingers), but of course still count on the overall box office sales…in one case, I’ve been told a left wing group actually dragged some homeless people into the theater to see the movie and make the theater look more full…and one homeless person was even promised liquor if he would go see the movie…
So, sure, F911 has done well at the box office for a “documentary”…but it plays to the choir…
Another Thought, you may wanna look places other than Ann Coulter’s columns for your news. The story about Cleland being blown up while drinking a beer en route to bang Vietnamese whores was a Coulter fabrication. The truth is that a grenade exploded and blew his limbs off shortly after dismounting from a helicopter.
Regardless of how Cleland was maimed and regardless of his war record, for a political party or candidate to suggest they’re opponent is in collusion with the enemy during wartime is the lowest imaginable ploy. Such an advertisement could be run against John McCain this year showing McCain’s picture in between Bin Laden and Hussein for the reverse….for fearing the collective bargaining rights of federal employees more than fearing terrorism in the Homeland Security Dep’t vote. Same premise….only the Dems wouldn’t sink as low as you guys.
Cleland’s war history is effective for the Dems to exploit because it shows how disingenuous the GOP’s flag-waving “support the troops” propaganda is. Similar to the impoverished would-be aborted baby being a liability to the GOP after the umbillical cord is cut, the soldier becomes a liability to the GOP as soon as the uniform comes off. Republicans are always Dr. Jekyll to our soldiers when the soldiers’ service-to-country means their own kids can party at Yale….and when they’re lobbying to count illegally postmarked military ballots in Florida. Max Cleland is a perfect example of what the GOP thinks of the much-revered “American soldier” once he’s no longer a means to an end for them…and if he dare stands in the way of the GOP’s destructive vision for America’s future as Cleland did, they’ll use whatever means necessary to destroy him.
Yes, the LBJ ad against Goldwater was wildly over-the-top, but I would hope we could make a distinction between the Democratic party of 1964 and the Bush campaign of just four years ago that inferred to South Carolina bigots that John McCain fathered a black child.
It’s also good to know that you have a conspiracy theory related to Fahrenheit 9-11’s success. A tiny number of hard-left partisans have actually seen the movie, but these “college punks” have spent more than $100 million to make it seem like everybody’s watching it???? That’s funny. The theater I went to in Rochester, Minnesota was standing-room only, and that was in the movie’s second week. And you guys accuse us of having tinfoil hats…..
So Boo hoo for Max Cleland. The fact that he was in a grenade accident while serving in Vietnam doesn’t earn him special consideration in politics.
And there we have the typical Republican respect and admiration for our nations veterans, summed up nicely by AT. Thanks, AT!
Here’s one example of why the celebs are turning people off…quoting Ronstadt:
“It’s a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I’d rather not know.”
So now we know that Ronstadt is a bigot…she is prejudiced against Republicans and what she calls “fundamental Christians.” Nice.
Precisely what I talked about today at The American Mind with What’s Dave Think?
Dave Mustaine says “Hey, shut up, you’re a musician/actor/filmmaker.” Not so much right-winger or Republican, but enough to get the point across.
These entertainers need to realize that no one cares what their personal political opinions are, and that in fact, we generally regard them as clueless when it comes to real life issues.
We are talking about people who make extravagant sums of money by doing things like acting and singing…which is fine…but ultimately they generally live in a bubble reality and have little or no education or experience in the issues they comment upon.
However, unfortunately, many of these entertainers have such huge egos that they can’t believe the little people can form political opinions without their input.
So they can prattle on if they want to, but the election they should be concerned about is the one where people vote with their wallets as to which entertainment products to consume.
Another Thought….busted!!!
You thought you would see if you could get away with passing off Ann Coulter’s lie about how Max Cleland got injured as the truth….but you got caught. Better luck next time.
In classic damage control mode, you’re attempting to distract everyone from getting busted in your own lie by focusing on my ad lib of Coulter’s lie. And aren’t the “born again” one among us. I’d be interested in seeing what your fellow volunteers at the ministry would say at your being outed as a filthy liar. Hopefully, it’s not too late for your soul to be saved.
You’re really getting desperate for an angle if you’re now trying to parallel Democrats not voting for Bob Dole and George HW Bush to Republicans comparing Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in wartime. You’re not exactly helping your cause here. After all, you may have noticed that the Democrats didn’t compare Bush, Sr. and Dole to our political enemies. We respect former soldiers AFTER they leave the uniform even if we disagree with them….something you guys would know nothing about.
Mark: your feigned outrage over Cleland is quite transparent.
First, the ad did not compare Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein; it merely pointed out his weakness on the national security issue. But you have your talking points and that is all that counts with you.
Again, it is one thing to respect a former soldier for his service; it is another to let him have a free pass politically. You simply want to use Cleland for political gain; you expect him to be given a free pass politically, just like Kerry wants his Vietnam service of over 30 years ago to give him a free pass politically.
And speaking of respecting soldiers, it seems to me that Kerry did not exactly respect the soldiers when he came home from Vietnam and slandered them with false accusations of war crimes…something for which many veterans still do not forgive him.
Interesting how the latest polling has veterans going for Bush by a wide margin, and this in a CBS poll to boot.
Mark writes “In classic damage control mode, you’re attempting to distract everyone from getting busted in your own lie by focusing on my ad lib of Coulter’s lie.”
Mark, you are one for hyperbole. You write as if I am some public figure and this is some huge public debate between us. Get real. Who am I trying to distract? You say “everyone.” What kind of writing is that?
But then you are the same one who is on record as stating that you believe my conservative views, especially as they relate to my contention that (gasp!) citizens in this country can be successful economically, is more dangerous than the philosophy of radical Islamic jihad.
It also seems to me that you have this huge well of anger regarding religion.
Again, Mark, I can understand why, with your cloudy thought processes and poor communication skills, why you underperform your parents economically.
Back on track, it is obvious the American public is losing faith in its entertainment figures, just as it is losing faith in the mainstream media.
The American people are too smart to swallow the steady diet of hate and lies from the loony left.
The philosophy of many in Hollywood seems to be that they just need to properly educate us little people and bring us up to their level of enlightenment…
Another Thought, I hold no outrage about Max Cleland personally. I hold outrage about a political party suggesting their opponent is colluding with the enemy in wartime. The ad showed the faces of Max Cleland, Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein on the same screen. The only people who could suggest that isn’t a direct comparison are so blinded with partisanship as to be completely irrational. Argue till you’re blue in the face that it wasn’t partisan bomb-throwing. It’s a debate you won’t win unless you’re arguing fellow right-wingers.
As for the veteran vote going for Bush, it may happen this time. Whether it’ll continue to happen as Republicans close VA hospital after VA hospital remains to be seen.
As for your getting caught in a lie about how Max Cleland was blown up, do you really think framing your lie in the context of “this is not a public debate” will keep you from spending the rest of eternity with the Prince of Darkness? Unless your ministry buddies can successfully exorcise you of your sins, I’m afraid you’ll be turning crispy brown shortly after your passing. I hope for your sake hell isn’t too hot. I hear pathological liars are sent to the hottest spot. The irony is you may be sharing a cell with Bill Clinton. 😀
And I fully stand by my statement that the average American has a much greater risk of being ruined by the economic and social blueprint advocated by you and your ilk than just about any attack a terrorist could wage. With the working-class devastation you wish to bestow upon blue-collar America, every day will seem like September 11 to the poorest third of Americans.
My only anger towards religion is that people like you always manage to slither into its power player positions….people who wear priests robe like the wolf wore Little Red Riding Hood’s red bonnet, hoping to mask your venomous fangs. Unfortunately for all of us, there are enough gullible “Grannys” out there to fall for your con jobs.
Mark writes “With the working-class devastation you wish to bestow upon blue-collar America, every day will seem like September 11 to the poorest third of Americans.”
Aside from the debate as to the merits of the various economic policies…your statement is absurd. You basically equate being in the poorest third of Americans wiht getting killed in a terrorist attack…in other words, in your mind these people have the equivalent of death, or perhaps worse.
How sickening. What’s next from you…some suggestion to euthanize these people?
You’ve been reading too much Karl Marx lately…
I wish someone could approach these people and poll them if they’d rather be killed in a terrorist attack…my guess is that they would not agree with you…
Mark also writes “My only anger towards religion is that people like you always manage to slither into its power player positions….people who wear priests robe like the wolf wore Little Red Riding Hood’s red bonnet, hoping to mask your venomous fangs. Unfortunately for all of us, there are enough gullible ‘Grannys’ out there to fall for your con jobs.”
Again, Mark, your comments degenerate into the absurd. I do not wear a priest’s robe, nor am I an ordained minister or cleric. I don’t know of any “Granny” out there who is giving money to me, or in any way supporting me.
So I don’t know why you keep leaping to these incorrect generalizations. You seem to have a problem with logic.
I have mentioned in our previous exchanges on this blog the fact that I have done volunteer work for various ministries (hardly a “power player position” as you assume), am active in my church, and have offered support for the idea that faith can be a good thing. On that basis, you proclaim me to be some sort of priest in a power player position who apparently is soliciting from “Granny” and ripping her off. That’s quite a leap.
Mark, you should take a course in logic. Your thinking needs to get more grounded and specific before you can expect to achieve any credibility in arguing for your points. I have liberal friends who disagree with me, but at least we can have intelligent discussions without the absurd types of attacks and generalizations you toss out there.
Another Thought, once again I overestimated you. I thought your literary capacity was advanced enough to include “Little Red Riding Hood” and thus enabling you to comprehend my “wolf bamboozling granny” analogy. I guess your literary background never reached “Little Red Riding Hood” stage. Next time I’ll see if I can quote “Cat in the Hat” in hopes that it’ll be within your comprehension. 😀
I know you are incapable of understanding the difficulties faced by working-class Americans, so I’m not surprised you consider my statements extreme. Nonetheless, the chances of a worker being devastated by globalization and the GOP’s agenda of wholesale blue-collar disempowerment is infinitely higher than their chances of being killed in a terrorist attack. Living a life of privilege where the closest you’ll come to hard times is lecturing poor people about their “poor life choices”, it’s not surprising the terrorist bogeyman is the only thing in life you have to worry about. Tens of millions of Americans are living in a state of day-to-day survival that has nothing to do with hijacked planes or train bombs, it has to do with choosing to buy groceries or pay the rent. Again….nothing you’d ever understand.
AT, one more thing. You knowingly lied (you LIED!!!!!) about how Max Cleland was injured in Vietnam, and now you’re roast in the fires of hell for all eternity as punishment. Just thought I’d remind you and anyone else in case you’ve forgotten 😀
Mark, you clearly wrote that “every day will seem like September 11 to the poorest third of Americans.”
Thus, you equated being in this class with being killed in a terrorist attack. Clearly for you being in the lowest third economically is at least as bad as a violent and early death.
I tell you what I’ll do…you always denigrate WalMart. Well, next time I’m at WalMart I’ll ask some of the employees if they view their lives as being as bad as dying in the Sept 11 attacks…and I’ll see what they say.
Mark, you also write “I know you are incapable of understanding the difficulties faced by working-class Americans.” Again, you make some ridiculous generalization. I’ve devoted many volunteer hours to helping the poor; have you? I’ve given a large part of my lifetime earnings to charities; have you?
And in the process of really trying to help the chronic poor, I’ve realized there are internal reasons why people are in this situation…that’s not a radical or cruel conclusion. Sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists, etc…all back this up.
You also fail to distinguish between the chronic poor and those just starting out, who are temporarily in this classification…big difference. Also, you fail to note that many classified in the “poorest third” still have a car, cable television, cell phone, etc. In other words, being “poor” in America is not always the same as being poor in other countries, such as those in the third world.
Mark: One more point you might want to consider before declaring the “poorest third of Americans” to be no better off than victims of a terrorist attack: the poverty rate in America is approx 11 to 12% (depending on what method is used), and so your poorest third by definition extends well out of those below the poverty level…
Another Thought, the threshold for poverty in this country is far below the threshold for living even a modest existence. A girl I work with makes less than $16,000 a year, lives alone in a $250 a month rat’s nest, and can’t pay her bills. Do you seriously believe that once one earns a penny more than the arbitrary “official poverty rate” figure, they’re no longer financially vulnerable? Hell, Republicans claim that the tens of millions of Americans who earn less than $26,000 per year are non-tax-paying, freeloading parasites. Of course, the GOP reference for people too poor to pay income taxes as “lucky duckies” pretty much shows your true colors on this issue. To you guys, there’s no greater suffering on this Earth than having to pay taxes, so therefore the Wal-Mart clerk is better off than the heiress who has to pay an inheritance tax. The only thing that puzzles me is that if people too pay to qualify for income taxes are really the “lucky duckies”, then why don’t the wealthy Republican spokespeople quit their high-paying jobs and live the good life in the McJob economy…
Anyway, I digress. Claiming that everyday is September 11 for the poor in this country was metaphorical. Certainly those working at Wal-Mart have it better than those vaporized in the World Trade Center. The point was that everyday is an attack on their well-being and survival, not that they’re suffering violent deaths behind the checkout counter.
By the way, while you’re questioning those Wal-Mart cashiers, make sure you let them know that they’re standing there because of poor life choices. We’ll see if they’re still inclined to answer your questions after that heartfelt opening.
I’m always amused at how Republicans try to justify poverty at home on the context that “our poor have it better than Kenya’s poor”. Given that we’re “the best country in the world”, as you repeatedly exclaim, shouldn’t we aim for better for our people? Shouldn’t we be above rationalizing despair for Americans on the grounds that “it could be worse”?
And just for the record, I volunteer dozens of hours every year constructing Habitat for Humanity homes and I donate several pounds of canned goods and used clothing to the Salvation Army and other local charities. I rarely contribute money to long-distance charities because I don’t often find them trustworthy, but when I do, it’s anonymous and never used as a tax break gimmick. You see, I don’t have to go around boasting about the goodwill I try to spread to others. Do you?