Thelma's selective outrage, Part I

By: Rob
Published On: 7/18/2006 10:06:55 AM

Yesterday, we described Thelma's pretend outrage over a DCCC video's display of war dead in describing one part of Bush's failure in Iraq.

So, does anyone in the media want to bother asking her where her outrage is about this?

O.K., the ad is a tad political. But politicizing? You can't politicize a war--because wars are political to begin with. Political leaders decide to fight them; elections determine what course they take or if they are fought at all. And Republicans have used harsh pictures in advertising too. The 2004 Bush campaign used images from the World Trade Center, including firefighters carrying off a flag-draped body--and was criticized for it by the Kerry campaign. (Indeed, Bush admaker Mark McKinnon told the New York Times he thought the Democrats' use of the coffin pictures was entirely appropriate.) After 9/11, former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was one of the strongest advocates of showing horrible visuals of the attacks, to ensure that we never forget.

So she's smeared a war veteran and stayed silent as the President she now rubberstamps used 9/11 victims as his own campaign prop.  But somehow this DCCC video is outrageous to her!

Sounds like Thelma is the one playing politics here.


Comments



This debate has gotten silly (va.walter - 7/18/2006 10:21:57 AM)
First, Lowell accuses Allen of politicizing the war.  Then, the Republicans, including Drake, accuse the DCCC of politicizing the war.  Now, Lowell is saying that Drake didn't show as much outrage when her own party did it in the past implying that her "outrage" is just political and there's really nothing wrong with what the DCCC did.  All that brings me back to Lowell original point about Allen politicizing the war.  If you'd defend the DCCC and say Drake is just faking outrage then you must not have a problem with what Allen did.  Lowell, you sure Ms. Drake is the only one playing politics here?  (For what it's worth, I don't know Drake or Kellam and don't live in that district.  I'm just pointing out how Lowell has brought the debate full circle to apparently defend conduct he originally thought bad.)


you're whole point falls apart for one simple reason (Rob - 7/18/2006 10:42:51 AM)
I'm not Lowell.


: ). You didn't expect me to read that closely did you? (va.walter - 7/18/2006 10:55:49 AM)


also, ... (Rob - 7/18/2006 10:45:59 AM)
I'll add that you're missing the point.  I (Rob, not Lowell) am pointing out that Thelma Drake is insincere in this faux outrage.  I haven't made any comments about the content of the video - so you could hardly accuse me of implying anything. 



? (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 10:57:40 AM)
You are on Lowell's site. He might not have said it, but "Raising Kaine" said that Allen politicized the war, then "Raising Kaine" criticized Thelma Drake for calling the DCCC on politicizing the war.

You can't have it both ways!



Or course Allen politicized the war (Lowell - 7/18/2006 10:59:56 AM)
As has the Bush Administration. Are you seriously denying that?  If so, it's laughable.


... (Rob - 7/18/2006 11:03:29 AM)
First, Lowell and I are different people.  Raisingkaine is a group of bloggers who are allowed to disagree.

On to your point, I'm criticizing Thelma Drake for lying about being outraged about the DCCC ad.  Please, read more closely.



In other words, (I.Publius - 7/18/2006 11:35:34 AM)
Rob is stating why RK can be two-faced so often.

Nice punt.



where's the punt? (Rob - 7/18/2006 11:42:00 AM)
aside from your inability to grasp beyond group-think (yes, different people can have different ideas), I pointed out that I'm not criticizing the substance of her comments, but for her sincerity.


4th down!!! Another punt!! And the punt only goes 5 yards. . . (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 11:48:00 AM)
Well, then you are wrong. She was sincere. I am questioning the sincerity of Raising Kaine in all of this. I like seeing how opinions get changed quickly when it suites you. By the way, look at the link in my post below. I would like someone to tell me how Bush's ad was offensive to anyone, compared to the DCCC ad being offensive to the military.

Also, I found the ad in Youtube in about 5 seconds. Amazingly, it was not linked in the original article. I find that odd. With the resources you guys have, you could not find what I found in seconds.

Could it be that you knew once people actually saw Bush's ad, the main points of your argument would fall apart?? Hmmmmmmmmmm.



huh? (Rob - 7/18/2006 12:01:32 PM)
Are you losing it?  Too many misdirections to keep together?

Where are my opinions changing?  Thelma claimed outrage for the pictures being used for political purposes.  She didn't make the lame distinctions you're making about types of political use, she flat out criticized political use by itself.

Everything else is simple misdirection by you.  Can you address the central point - Thelma says political use of military death pictures was bad, but said nothing about Bush's  political use of the same?



Not Lowell's post (Eric - 7/18/2006 10:47:12 AM)
Rob is the author of this one.


Ooops - too slow. (Eric - 7/18/2006 10:47:58 AM)


DCCC ad (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 10:50:10 AM)
I think an analysis of what happened to the ads of each would be a pretty good indicator of how much voters were outraged.

I think the Bush and DCCC ad are different based on content, but I will not go into that for this discussion.

Bush shows the ad in question. Kerry campaign decried Bush on it. However, there was never really any voter outcry, except the Kerry campaign throwing mud. Bush continued with the ad. Bush wins campaign as Kerry goes down in defeat. Not too many Republicans call on Bush to take down the ad, and the ad stays.

Dems like to say Republicans were in outrage, but it was more than Republicans mad about the DCCC ad. Voters all over the country were upset when they learned about the ad. Granted, Republicans had to point it out to the country, but we only started the outcry. The DCCC took it down after three days of voter unrest, after Dems running for Congress started calling on the DCCC to take it down. Those Dems would not have called on the DCCC if only their Republican oppenents were calling for it to be taken down. Those Dems were hearing it from voters, and eventually the DCCC ad was taken down.

I know that Time and Raising Kaine would like to believe they showed the same ad, but they didn't. Bush's ad was about what America had overcome during his Presidency. The DCCC ad was about showing what had gone bad during Bush's presidency, and then asking for fundraising. There is nothing wrong with that, until you show soldier's coffins. There are many veteran voters in Virginia.



Thank you... (Rob - 7/18/2006 11:00:51 AM)
for the lamest attempt to distinguish two things I've ever seen.

Voter reaction?  How about a better coordinated attack by Republicans congressmen?  Please,  don't act like some great voter exists when it's the right wing machine that churns out results.

On to you ridiculous distinction.  Somehow showing a dead 9/11 victim is ok because it shows Bush success, but showing a dead soldier is bad because it shows Bush failure?  So the distinction is whether the death is pro-Bush or anti-Bush?  Care to rethink that one?

There is no distinction.  The point of the outrage is using military deaths "for political purposes" (Thelma's words).  And that's what Bush did - used an American civilian war casualty for his re-election.



The crux: (phriendlyjaime - 7/18/2006 11:03:05 AM)
On to you ridiculous distinction.  Somehow showing a dead 9/11 victim is ok because it shows Bush success, but showing a dead soldier is bad because it shows Bush failure?  So the distinction is whether the death is pro-Bush or anti-Bush?  Care to rethink that one?

Ex-fucking-zactly.



Bush ad (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 11:14:00 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s67qaViGNBU&search=Bush%202004%20ad

I think this is the link to the ad refered to here. I think it is the same ad.

Watch it, and tell me if you don't see a distinction. The commercial is shown as America overcoming 9/11.

The Dems commercial is American going down in defeat to Iraq. Might not be what is actually happening, but that is what the DCCC ad implies, amazingly enough. And military veterans came out in force against this ad.

You will have to see the distinction in your own mind by watching it.



Um, sorry again (phriendlyjaime - 7/18/2006 11:39:17 AM)
"America overcoming 911"?  How did we overcome 911?  Because I seem to remember this little event called Hurrican Katrina that basically proved that Homeland Security has done nothing to make this country safer.  Too bad for the Republicans though, they will be in a tough spot this year.  If another bad hurricane hits in September, that is only more fuel in the fire that will send voters running for the D candidate.


Common tactic (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 11:42:08 AM)
So instead of debating the ads, you switched topics on me. Good job.


so rather than rethink... (Rob - 7/18/2006 11:54:40 AM)
you're ridiculous distinction, you've embraced it. 

So, pro-bush political purposes are ok for such images, but not to point out Bush's failures.  Sounds like you've embraced the whole Thelma Drake opportunism for yourself.



Didn't watch, or ignored (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 12:27:24 PM)
Looks like you have not watched the video yet. Tell me what in that video offends anyone?


How did I switch topics? (phriendlyjaime - 7/18/2006 12:40:07 PM)
You said: 
Bush ad  (0.00 / 0)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s67qaViGNBU&search=Bush%202004%20ad
I think this is the link to the ad refered to here. I think it is the same ad.

Watch it, and tell me if you don't see a distinction. The commercial is shown as America overcoming 9/11.

The Dems commercial is American going down in defeat to Iraq. Might not be what is actually happening, but that is what the DCCC ad implies, amazingly enough. And military veterans came out in force against this ad.

You will have to see the distinction in your own mind by watching it.

I then answered as to how we haven't "overcom(ing) 911."



If the topic is politics in general, then you did not switch topics (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 12:59:05 PM)
I think we have overcome it, for one. But then, you went off on a tangent. I still have not heard from any of you what is offensive about Bush's ad.

I heard plenty of what is offensive about the DCCC ad.

I have a new link for the video . . .my own site

http://hrconservative.blogspot.com.

Just in case you crash YouTube's server going to it. What is offensive about Bush's ad? You have got to give me more than rants about unrelated topics.



Bottom Line (phriendlyjaime - 7/18/2006 10:41:43 AM)
The Republican party politicized the war so that they could win the election in 04.  Now, bc they are pissed at their sad ass approval rating and the fact that people hate the war and BLAME them instead of looking at them as heroes, it's suddenly bad to use war footage and coffin footage in commercials.

So, to put it simply, it was ok for the Republican party to do it, but the Democratic party better not.

It's shameful and disgusting, and it is no wonder that soldiers come home as Democrats.



Majority of military still on the side of George W. Bush (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 10:53:51 AM)
HA!

I would love to see some kind of proof about that!! Soldiers coming  home Democrats??? You may have met some or something, but the majority of military, past and current, is still in favor of George W. Bush, and why they vote 75% Republican every election. You are going to have to show me something more than your statement that "it is no wonder that soldiers come home as Democrats".



Your proof. (Bubby - 7/18/2006 11:11:38 AM)
In addition to Tammy Duckworth in Illinois, there was Paul Hackett in Ohio that nearly took out Mean Jean (Jack Murtha is a coward)Schmidt in the most Repub. district in the state. Eric Massa (Army) is running Dem. for congress in New York.  In fact of 9 Iraqi vets running for Congress this year - 8 are running as Democrats.  These are the guys, like James Webb that continue in service - after their military service. 

Iraq veterans running for Congress:

Chris Carney, 46, is a lieutenant commander in the Naval Reserve and was called up in late 2003 to serve as a special Pentagon adviser on intelligence and terrorism. The Democrat is running unopposed for his party's nomination in a northeast Pennsylvania district. He will face Republican Rep. Don Sherwood, whose recent settlement of a lawsuit by his mistress could prove a factor in the race.

Andrew Duck, 43, is a former Army intelligence officer in Iraq who currently works as a Pentagon contractor. The Democrat is running in rural Maryland for the seat held by Republican Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a House Armed Services Committee member. The district voted 65% for President Bush in 2004.

Tim Dunn, 45, is a lieutenant colonel in the Marine Reserves who served in Baghdad in 2004 as a legal adviser to the Iraqi Special Tribunal trying Saddam Hussein. If the Democrat wins a party primary, he would face GOP Rep. Robin Hayes in a North Carolina district with a strong military presence that leans Republican.

Patrick Murphy, 32, is a former West Point professor who deployed to Iraq as an Army lawyer in 2003. If he wins a Democratic primary in suburban Philadelphia, Murphy would face GOP freshman Michael Fitzpatrick in the fall. The district backed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004.

Van Taylor, 33, is a former Marine Corps captain who worked with special operations forces in Iraq to locate and help plan the rescue of American prisoner of war Jessica Lynch. The Republican faces a primary. If Taylor wins, he would face Democratic Rep. Chet Edwards in a heavily Republican district that includes President Bush's Texas ranch.



What happened to HR whats-his-name? (Bubby - 7/18/2006 1:56:59 PM)
Mom call him home?


I'm here (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 2:16:26 PM)
Still waiting on a response to a question I asked multiple times up here. . .Watch the video of Bush's ad either at my blog or on youtube and tell me what is offensive. Discussion has come to a screaching halt since I posed that question.

No doubt now that I said that, discussion will explode.



Here's one (phriendlyjaime - 7/18/2006 2:27:25 PM)
I was in NYC 911.  I am from there, and it was my second day of work.  I was trapped all day; scariest day of my life.

Bush had nothing to do with the way the city came together for the rebuilding and the clean up afterwards.  Mayor Guiliani and the amazing PEOPLE of NYC did that.  I know the people, and I am one of the people.  I and the majority of NYC (another BLUE state to get attacked that is financially responsible for carrying poor red states like Alabama, btw) am offended by the commercial bc he uses an event that had nothing to do with him for votes, and I find it disgusting.

Now unless you were there too, I don't want you chastizing or insulting me.  It is disrespectful.



Bubble (hrconservative - 7/18/2006 2:45:06 PM)
No one is chastizing or insulting you.

You did not explain what was offensive about that video. You only explained why you did not like that he showed us overcoming 9/11 in that ad. It was effective, and the voters rewarded him for it. That ad, while you may think so, was in no way offensive to NYC citizens or others. In fact, it showcased how NYC and the rest of American had overcome hardships faced. It was a positive, encouraging ad that showed the ENTIRE COUNTRY overcoming 9/11, and was in no way offensive. That was a tragic day, and that ad put the best light on that day and reminded the entire country who had led them through it.

Do you not hear debate that often? You must not ever get challenged, because if you thought I was insulting you by challenging your views, then you must live in some liberal bubble, only hearing your own views parroted back to you.

Even using "disrespectful." Wow, good job. Creative.

And you just had to get in a shot at the heartland while you were at it too, huh? Alabama is a fantastic state, so is New York. Don't cloud your argument by attacking states.



I'm sorry (phriendlyjaime - 7/18/2006 11:11:41 AM)
how many "fighting reps" are there, as opposed to the "fighting dems?"


Oh, plus there is this common knowledge (phriendlyjaime - 7/18/2006 11:37:03 AM)
Dems that have served vs Reps that have served


That's simply not valid. (va.walter - 7/18/2006 11:38:14 AM)
There is a push by the Democratic party (a smart one if you ask me) to identify Democratic military people and getting them run.  Therefore, you end up with a handful of "fighting dems."  That doesn't mean droves of republican soldiers are becoming democrats.  Also, if you're including Webb as a fightin dem you have to include every Republican veteran as well.  Furthermore, many of the "fighting dems" were already democrats so it isn't like the war changed them all.

The reality is, war is an incredibly life altering event and it changes people.  No question some people change political affiliations because of war and no question some current soldiers and vets have become Democrats because of the war.  However, there is also no question that an overwhelming majority of military people, vets and their families continue to support the war and support Republicans.  It might not make sense but it's reality.



The Fighting Dems (David M - 7/18/2006 2:37:09 PM)
were not created in a vacuum nor miraculously brought to life in a petrie dish at the DNC. They experienced first hand the failed policies of an incompetent administration that marched off to war on false evidence and then refused to provide adequate armor for them and their fellow soldiers on the ground and also a Republican congress that cut their funding to benefits back home.

Don't kid yourself, the outrage is real.



Huh?!? (va.walter - 7/18/2006 3:15:08 PM)
Thanks for knocking down all those strawmen.  I have no idea what relationship your post had to mine.  I was responding to specific post above and I clearly acknowledged that the war had created some "fighting dems."  My point was simply that veterans aren't returning in droves as Democrats as implied above.


More than a Handful (David M - 7/18/2006 3:27:26 PM)
Do your research...

61 Fighting Dems on the front lines for 60 districts in 26 states.
44 Fighting Dems advancing to General Election including 30 nominees and 14 unopposed in upcoming primaries.
17 Fighting Dems facing primaries in 16 districts

Summary: 44 to 60 Fighting Dems, barring serious mishaps, will challenge Republican incumbents for Senatorial or House of Representative seats. Another 1 -17 Fighting Dems may run if they win in their primaries. A figure at around 45-50 vets is a reasonable projection (if about half of them win) - four dozen vets running. We need 15 seats to win back the House.

Of the original number of 90 vets running, 30, or one-third, are no longer in the race. However, 8 of this number were "strategic withdrawals" to make way for another vet, so it involved no loss of district challenges. An additional 4 strategic withdrawals were to non-vets for a total of 12 seats that cannot be considered a "loss" when the FDs withdrew in favor of these candidates, vets or non-vets.

There are many more Vets and even Republicans who are tired of the Bush administration, his failed policies and the entire Republican Congress that has so far Rubber Stamped their agenda.



75% No (seveneasypeaces - 7/18/2006 3:19:20 PM)
http://www.awolbush.com/  click on 'who served'

I've talked with military people who felt comfortable telling me their politics but they are terrified to be public about it.  So it may appear that "75% are for bush and war" but I don't think so. 

Also, there is a thing about having family or friends in a war.  They won't speak up as long as their loved ones are vulnerable.  Or they won't speak up as long as they have friends still stuck there.  They want to go back to protect their friends.  They feel guilty for not being there doing that.  It is not about loving this war or this idiotic puppet.  It is about duty.

And then there's the group unable to think for themselves, they like being treated as expendible and having their families treated as expendible.  So be it.

As far as September 11 being used by bush.  I will always view that as his second biggest failure.  He should be ashamed, not proud.

 



GOP Hypocracy - I'm Appalled! (David M - 7/18/2006 11:07:54 AM)
Well said Phriendly,

This is pretty much standard from the GOP playbook and Democrats have been getting bitch-slapped for the past 6 years. The DCCC even took down what was a very good ad. I can tell you that Republicans certainly wouldn't cave in the face of "liberal" protest.

Even now in Ohio, Senator DeWine is

Using vivid images of smoke pouring from one of the towers of the World Trade Center...DeWine unleashed a...TV commercial, which also flashed images of the 19 hijackers who took part in the Sept. 11 attack...an apparent effort by the DeWine campaign to jar Ohio voters into remembering the terrorist attack in New York and suburban Washington and to convince them that the senator will support tougher anti-terrorism measures than Brown, a congressman from Avon.

On top of this, comes an even more sinister attempt to spin the Middle East crisis by Contract on America creator Newt Gingrich over the weekend. Gingrich talked about it in terms of the 2006 election and public relations ploy:

Gingrich said he is "very worried" about Republicans facing fall elections and says the party must have the "nerve" to nationalize the elections and make the 2006 campaigns about a liberal Democratic agenda rather than about President Bush's record.

"Bush needs to call it WW III."

There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language" of World War III. The message then, he said, is "'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?"

I suppose all this is fine because it's from Republicans. They can obviously use any threat or gross distortion of someone's record to get elected and its fine, it advances thier bottom line.



"Hey guys, let's declare WWIII so we can run off with an election!" (RayH - 7/18/2006 1:50:20 PM)
I have no respect for strategies like that.


Who in God's Name Could (David M - 7/18/2006 2:31:41 PM)
except a bunch of hypocritcal Republicans who attack Democrats when they start acting like Republicans. I suppose they want to keep their monopoly on outrage and corruption as well.