Pretty much says it all (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20041022/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp).

Bush suggested his Democratic rival "does not understand the enemy we face and has no idea how to keep America secure." His campaign reinforced that theme with a new television ad with chilling imagery of prowling wolves in a dense forest. "Weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm," an announcer says.

Just when you thought the Republicans couldn't stoop any lower, they pump out even viler propaganda...

Check this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Techniques_of_propaganda_generation

The Bush camp has obviously been doing their homework, because their campaign is using pretty much every trick in the propaganda book. God help America...

If this man gets re-elected, there will nothing that can help America, plain and simple.

Let's all hope that doesn't happen.

That's really not so bad when considered what kind of propaganda has been used in some of the earlier campaigns for American presidency. I read an article somewhere about a campaign where the other candidate actually scared people with the possibility of a nuclear war if his opponent was chosen. I can't remember which election this was but it natuarlly must have been something during the cold war somewhere between Trueman and Raegan.

I'm sure they'd use the same methods in Europe too if it only was possible. Now they're just forced to settle with scaring us with high unemployment rates. :D

[ October 24, 2004, 02:12: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

LBJ and Goldwater - My understanding is that Goldwater had said that he would use nukes to end the Vietnam War. I don't know if that's true or not, (it's a bit before my time) but it produced one of the most effective TV ads in the history of the media.

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/2004race/adwars/n_10185/

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/ad.archive/daisy_long.mov

Let's hope this BS tactic doesn't work as well in the US as it did in Australia. What galls me is that not only did it work here, it worked TWICE - in 2001 and now in 2004. This is just a defensive rearguard policy - it's not leadership, it's not statesmanship, it's just visceral, emotive rubbish.

I've long held the belief that most people are either ignorant, uninterested, or stupid, with Australians and Americans probably rating at or near the top. Please, prove me wrong about at least one of these.

The Bush camp has obviously been doing their homework, because their campaign is using pretty much every trick in the propaganda book. God help America... ...because nobody else will. I think they have a very different view on what attracts people who want to do America harm than many of us.

Yes, I agree we're in for a very rough ride if Bush is re-elected. He has the agenda of a fanatic and the mentality of a gunslinger. Even Pat Robertson, the Fundamentalist TV evangelist--very big audience--admitted this week that he was frightened by Bush's "total self assurance". But Bush has the Evangelicals pretty well roped in with his stands on abortion, school prayer, and stem-cell research, even as he ships their jobs overseas and cancels their healthcare.

@Spellbound: Well there IS nothing that can help Australia.

If Kerry wins I will publicly announce that Americans are more intelligent than we Australians (on average).

Yes, the Bush campaign is basically, "If you vote for Kerry you will die!"

Here's one thing that I don't understand. They filmed wolves in a dense forest. And it seems that it was a real forest. Given Bush's environmental policies of the past four years, I was unaware that the U.S. still HAD any forests.

i love how bush says kerry doesnt understand the enemy after the understanding bush has shown.

Here's one thing that I don't understand. They filmed wolves in a dense forest. And it seems that it was a real forest. Given Bush's environmental policies of the past four years, I was unaware that the U.S. still HAD any forests. Oh but that was ofcourse filmed in Canada to symbolize the huge terrorist threat America will be facing in the future from Canada! Watch out America, Splunge will strike you when you least expect! :shake:

Again the poor wolves get the bad rap. Anyone who falls for that one deserves what he/she gets. Unfortunately the rest of us will go with them.

We still have forests but you'd look a long time before finding wolves. Morgoroth is probably right about where the film came from. Awaiting Canada eagerly. Maybe I can get my prescription at a reasonable price.

I wonder why no Bushists are commenting on this, it's been up for 3 days now so they HAVE to seen it.

I'm going against my grain by replying, but what the hell I'm in the mood.

I believe I covered this in a different thread. Everything that Bush is being accused of in this thread the Kerry campaign is doing the same but different. In politics there are three types of people. Rabid right, Rabid left, and the middle. The rabid left (a large population here at SP) obviously considers Bush the personification of evil. There is nothing that a rabid right or a middle grounder could say to sway them. Lord knows people have tried. It is a major weakness in politics that the rabids can only see their point of view. Trust me for every negative link or thought about Bush posted here a "Bushist" could post a corresponding one about Kerry. However, I don't have the time, energy, or inclination to do so.

Off topic here, but I can't resist. For both forests and wolves, all you have to do is look to Wyoming and Yellowstone National Park.

And Aldeth, coming from Maryland, I'm surprised you'd say something like that. Step off the beaten path in Maryland and you're in the trees. ;)

Heck, I'm in Tarzana BTA, just a little north of you, and I can reach a forest in less than half an hour (not in traffic time, of course).

TGS - agreed, the rabid of each side can't see through their biases to the opposite shore. Those of us in the middle are stuck with a barrage of nonsense from both sides trying to sway us for their side (actually, it's more like against the other side). The real problem I have with this is very similar to what Jon Stewart told those schmucks on Crossfire -- they are doing everyone a disservice by failing to promote rational discourse.

As in just about everything in life, everything in moderation is a fine mantra. Both Republicans and Democrats have good points and bad ones. I'm sure that Bush has strengths and I know Kerry has weaknesses. To me, we need to restore some of the waning authority in our legislature, and the best way to do that is make sure that the President isn't a Republican, because I don't see the Democrates taking over Congress.

That won't solve the basic polarization issue, but, then again, not much has and people have been polarized in this country since its founding. There was just no internet, am talk radio and/or television to ram it home quite so ardently.

That won't solve the basic polarization issue, but, then again, not much has and people have been polarized in this country since its founding. There was just no internet, am talk radio and/or television to ram it home quite so ardently. There are always promises of a more civil tone in government and political atmosphere after an election. Here is a comparision of two of the most bitter: One the most recently completed (2000), and one closer to the beginning (1800). This is Bush in 2000:

America, at its best, matches a commitment to principle with a concern for civility. A civil society demands from each of us good will and respect, fair dealing and forgiveness. Some seem to believe that our politics can afford to be petty because, in a time of peace, the stakes of our debates appear small. But the stakes for America are never small. We all know how this turned out. Partisan politics turned out to be the order of the day. Many feel that this has been the worst political season they have seen in their lifetimes. And they may be right. It is without a doubt the worst I have ever seen.

Jefferson remains an American touchstone. Bush alluded to him in his address as does many others these days. This is still from Bush's first address as prez:

After the Declaration of Independence was signed, Virginia statesman John Page wrote to Thomas Jefferson, "We know the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Do you not think an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm?" Much time has passed since Jefferson arrived for his inauguration. The years and changes accumulate, but the themes of this day he would know, "our nation's grand story of courage and its simple dream of dignity." But Jefferson has his share of detractors as well these days. He gets very rough treatment in a new volume on Hamilton, written by Ron Chernow. My point is that Chernow could not take Hamilton's side without attacking Jefferson, as if he were reliving for himself the old politial rivalry.

Jefferson's first inaugural address is a masterpiece; Bush's pales in comparision. This is Jefferson:

But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. We have called by different names brethren of the same principle. We are all republicans, we are all federalists... Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government.After Jefferson became prez, his Republican party completely overwhelmed the Federalists, with Jefferson, Madison and Monroe as presidents. But partisan politics still continued. But what Bush left out of his first inaugural address are the Jeffersonian themes to which he alluded. Jefferson did list them in his address:


Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political;
peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none;
the support of the State governments in all their rights, as the most competent administrations for our domestic concerns and the surest bulwarks against anti-republican tendencies;
the preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor, as the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad;
a jealous care of the right of election by the people, a mild and safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of revolution where peaceable remedies are unprovided;
absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism;
a well disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them;
the supremacy of the civil over the military authority;
economy in the public expense, that labor may be lightly burthened;
the honest payment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith;
encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its handmaid;
the diffusion of information and arraignment of all abuses at the bar of the public reason;
freedom of religion;
freedom of the press, and
freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus, and trial by juries impartially selected IMO, when a leader lays out what he wants to achieve in a concise way, one which people can clearly understand, and there is a real attempt to follow through on the stated princples, successful leadership is a real possibility. Who could argue with Jefferson's list? The Federalists tried and became all but extinct in the process.

I remember the first moments of the Bush administration - there was a bit of optimism that the nation could unite in some way. And that there would be an agenda that many could agree upon, at least in principle. Bush even invited Ted Kennedy over for a movie. It lasted about a month and then went steadily downhill.

My point is that the partisanship is more than just rhetoric. It is also a matter of policy. Look at Bush's big issues, besides the war on terror and tax cuts: gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion. And of course we have to have democracy in Iraq.

These are issues that divide America. They are sometimes called "wedge issues." The idea is to divide and inflame both sides for political gain. This is what we have now. Principled people can no longer disagree. If one does, then he or she is the "spawn of Satan" for doing so. It really is much more than about left vs right. It should be that simple.