GeorgeWBush.com
A few days ago I noted a divergence between the websites of the two presidential candidates. John Kerry's website showed lots of pictures of John Kerry in all the expected poses of authority, empathy and so forth. Meanwhile, President Bush's website also showed lots of pictures of John Kerry caught, as you might imagine, in poses suggesting buffoonery, arrogance, indecision and the like. What the GWB website didn't have any of was pictures of George W. Bush.
Now, earlier today I noted how the Bush campaign has replaced the front page of their website with a Reagan tribute, with a huge picture of the late president backgrounded with flags, accompanied by links to a Reagan tribute video, links to President Reagan's most famous speeches and statement of his praise for President Reagan by President Bush.
That's the Bush website now. (You really need to see it to get the picture.)
Now, how many days of leaving the site that way will it take before people start to see the obvious: that President Bush's campaign staffers believe that pushing their own guy isn't a particularly good political strategy and that bashing Kerry or grasping on to Reagan nostalgia is far preferable?
Now to a related point. I've got a number of notes from people (few of them Bush supporters in the first case, of course) who are outraged by the Bush campaign's unabashed exploitation of Reagan's passing as part of their reelection campaign effort --- the morphing of the Bush website into the Reagan tribute website being a key example.
Yes, it's crass and cynical. But it's also a tad desperate. And that's the more important point, I think. Having watched the Bush White House for some time and seen them try all manner of crude and crass political gambits, very few of them, in my recollection, haven't ended up biting them in the behind.
I suspect this case will be the same.
Joshua Mitchell
Now, earlier today I noted how the Bush campaign has replaced the front page of their website with a Reagan tribute, with a huge picture of the late president backgrounded with flags, accompanied by links to a Reagan tribute video, links to President Reagan's most famous speeches and statement of his praise for President Reagan by President Bush.
That's the Bush website now. (You really need to see it to get the picture.)
Now, how many days of leaving the site that way will it take before people start to see the obvious: that President Bush's campaign staffers believe that pushing their own guy isn't a particularly good political strategy and that bashing Kerry or grasping on to Reagan nostalgia is far preferable?
Now to a related point. I've got a number of notes from people (few of them Bush supporters in the first case, of course) who are outraged by the Bush campaign's unabashed exploitation of Reagan's passing as part of their reelection campaign effort --- the morphing of the Bush website into the Reagan tribute website being a key example.
Yes, it's crass and cynical. But it's also a tad desperate. And that's the more important point, I think. Having watched the Bush White House for some time and seen them try all manner of crude and crass political gambits, very few of them, in my recollection, haven't ended up biting them in the behind.
I suspect this case will be the same.
Joshua Mitchell
Comments
The "real" home page then comes up as this:
Sorry for the huge images. But really...can someone explain the problem with the memorial and Bush's site itself? I have not seen evidence of the Bush campaign doing what you claim. What I have seen is Dan Rather, for example. saying that there has been "too much" coverage of Reagan and its taking the focus off other issues. I have also seen some truly hateful and horrific statments come from the Left before Reagan's body is even laid to rest.
I will say that I saw a Bush ad on TV after the state funeral. I thought that was wrong. Both campaigned should have stopped until Saturday..or perhaps even Monday.
Me thinks perhaps you overlooked the nice label on the side that read...photo album. I know that in liberal circles, photo album is understood as a conservaitve code word for "join the klan, get a gun, and kill someone in the name of Hitler" but in this instance, (probably just evil Republican echo chamber spin) it actually leads to photos. Not only photos of Bush but of the first lady, vice president, campaign stops, etc.
It even has an option to email them to others. Obviously this is just a tactic that only white men understand and would use to belittle women and minorities with, but maybe the reality is there are photos on there, and gasp they even want them spread around via email.
Nick
Originally posted by SDW2001
I have not seen evidence of the Bush campaign doing what you claim.
Your joking ...... right?
You know, we Democrats suffered greatly at the outrageous lies populated by Republican blowhards over the Paul Wellstone memorial. Those trumpted up charges cost us a lot! So, yeah, I'm watching Republican candidates and their actions VERY closely. Call it "Hypocrisy Watch" if you will.
So your silly little attemps at humor really proves who you guys... intellectually dishonest hypocrits.
Originally posted by Northgate
Of course no one's addressing the real issue here. And that is whether or not GWB is "politicizing" the death of Ronald Reagan for political advantage. It appears to me and many others that he is.
You know, we Democrats suffered greatly at the outrageous lies populated by Republican blowhards over the Paul Wellstone memorial. Those trumpted up charges cost us a lot! So, yeah, I'm watching Republican candidates and their actions VERY closely. Call it "Hypocrisy Watch" if you will.
So your silly little attemps at humor really proves who you guys... intellectually dishonest hypocrits.
OK. If you have some of this evidence, then please post it. The "real issue" as you put it is only such because people like you WANT it to be. Seriously...name one thing that has been done to exploit the situation. Today, Bush stayed at Reagan's coffin for whopping 30 seconds. No remarks. No lingering. No gestures. He didn't even wave to people in the rotunda. Explain to me how this is exploiting anything.
As for the Wellstone memorial, you don't have a leg to stand on. They turned it into a full blown rally. I saw it with my own eyes. There is no comparison nor defense for this.
Originally posted by SDW2001
OK. If you have some of this evidence, then please post it. The "real issue" as you put it is only such because people like you WANT it to be. Seriously...name one thing that has been done to exploit the situation. Today, Bush stayed at Reagan's coffin for whopping 30 seconds. No remarks. No lingering. No gestures. He didn't even wave to people in the rotunda. Explain to me how this is exploiting anything.
As for the Wellstone memorial, you don't have a leg to stand on. They turned it into a full blown rally. I saw it with my own eyes. There is no comparison nor defense for this.
You saw it with your own eyes. Really? Did you attend? Or did you watch the "edited" version of it?
From AlterNet:
Here's another example: I do a sort of a case study with the Wellstone Memorial and about the complete distortion of that event in the right-wing media. And that did get into the mainstream media, and it did affect how people around the country thought of the Democratic Party. And I think it had an effect obviously in Minnesota, and in Missouri in the Senate races, and gave the Senate to the Republicans.
There was a piece where Connie Lewis gave the eulogy for Sheila Wellstone, and she started off by saying there was this day where she picked up Paul for one of these 14-hour days on the campaign trail, and Sheila had already left for her campaign day. Paul pulls out this note from a pile of stuff from Sheila, and Sheila tells him in the note where dinner is, and how to put it in the microwave ? you know, he's an absent-minded guy in all these things. And then, at the bottom of the note, it says, "We will win." And Paul looks at Connie, and just gives her this look like, isn't she the greatest? Isn't she the greatest? The whole thing was about their love story. They got married at 19. I barely ever saw Paul without Sheila there. They were a truly incredible couple. And that's what the whole part of that piece was, in the middle of the campaign.
Well, Hannity's show cuts it together and just keeps the "We will win" part to show how partisan the event was, and then puts it together with Rick Kahn's speech and with something from Mark Wellstone. And my image of that was Alan Colmes walking past the Fox edit room that day saying "What are you up to, guys?" "Oh, we're just editing a piece on the Wellstone memorial." "OK." You know what I mean? The right wing machine cranked out lies. There was Christopher Caldwell who wrote the editorial for the Weekly Standard. The only thing he saw, I think, might have been the piece I just described from Hannity and Colmes.
Originally posted by SDW2001
He didn't even wave to people in the rotunda.
Of course he didn't, that would have been disrespectful.
He gets to say the eulogy at the funeral - so he obviously isn't going to risk looking like he's taking advantage of the situation.
Having the splash page as a salute to Ronald Reagan with a list of speeches is pushing pretty hard IMO. That kind of material doesn't belong on a campain website.
Can;t say i blame him though - with Fahrenheit 9/11 coming out in a few weeks - he might as well sponge up all the good press he can.
Originally posted by Northgate
Of course no one's addressing the real issue here. And that is whether or not GWB is "politicizing" the death of Ronald Reagan for political advantage. It appears to me and many others that he is.
You know, we Democrats suffered greatly at the outrageous lies populated by Republican blowhards over the Paul Wellstone memorial. Those trumpted up charges cost us a lot! So, yeah, I'm watching Republican candidates and their actions VERY closely. Call it "Hypocrisy Watch" if you will.
So your silly little attemps at humor really proves who you guys... intellectually dishonest hypocrits.
You know North, you can be pissed off, belittling, whatever you want to be. The reality is that you posted this....
What the GWB website didn't have any of was pictures of George W. Bush.
The reality is that they do have a large photo section with the means of emailing them to others. You claimed this they were hiding Bush. They didn't.
I was trying to be nice about what is a clearly ridiculous claim. But you obviously can't even appreciate that.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Bush photos
Me thinks perhaps you overlooked the nice label on the side that read...photo album.....
That was a nice, long nasty post that totally missed the obvious point (replace "website" with "main page" which should be the "home page" instead of the attempt to exploit reagan's death), a point summed up in the earlier TPM post:
Now, look at how often, candidate A's face appears on the front page of candidate B's website, and vice versa. For instance, as of the early morning hours of Monday, John Kerry's face appears 6 times on the front of the Kerry website, while President Bush's face appears not once. On Bush's website, Kerry's face appears 4 times. Bush's face, not once.
And that was something like a week or two ago, though it continues through today.
*locked*