With the thwarted attack in London already being attributed to Al Qaeda and our threat level being raised to red, it looks like we are in for a repeat of the 2004 election. “Terror, terror, terror, only Republicans can save you.”
We all know this is bull, and it shouldn’t be to hard to reverse with a series of commercials targeted to each district.
My idea:
Open with the famous clip of Bush saying he just doesn’t spend much time thinking about Bin Laden anymore, with the date in the corner of the screen. Believe it or not, many Republicans have never seen this because the media didn’t make a big deal of it even though it is probably the stupidest thing a US President has ever said.
Follow that with a clip or clips of the local Congressman or Senator professing their support/love/undying admiration for Bush, with dates in the corner as before. Preferably there would be a clip from roughly the same period as the Bush clip, plus another recent one, though it might be hard to find many Republicans saying anything positive about Bush recently.
Next, play a clip of someone in the administration saying Al Qaeda is responsible for the London attack that was thwarted, with date stamp in the corner as before. No one has gone before a camera saying that yet, but I assume Tony Snow will at some point. If no one does, newsreaders have already quoted unnamed administration officials as saying Al Qaeda is responsible, so there will be clips of people like Daryn Kagen and Wolf Blitzer to use.
Finally, finish the commercial by running the clip of Bush again, looping if necessary to get it to at least 10 seconds. Superimpose over that the text “Time For A Change” for 5 seconds, then “Vote Joe Smith for Congress”. Fade to black, and that’s the end.
That’s one idea. Hammer away with other commercials on the same theme, tailored to each competitive district, and it should be a landslide victory in November.
I like it. Mine would be satirical. Opening to a screen of people (some wearing burkas) sitting in a circle, wearing Birkenstocks, holding hands and singing Kumbaya. On the screen would be: “The Republican view of how Democrats handle national security.” Cut to a new screen “The Reality” with a scene of hard-nosed legislators and/or negotiators at work in a large chamber, speaking in passionate tones. Conclude with a new screen “Vote Democratic for real security”.
That’s good. A commercial that paints Democrats positively instead of just attacking has to be part of an effective series.
In addition to that one, another commercial in the series could be one that presents a well-thought out Democratic strategy for fighting and defending ourselves from our actual enemies and then asks the question “Does this sound crazy or weak to you?”
Obviously, the key is condensing an effective strategy into 25 seconds worth of bullet points. My program would focus on defense and keeping potential terrorists away from american people rather than expensive adventurism overseas, along with the kind of investigative and undercover work that the British seem to have done in infiltrating the latest plot. Money is important here, the vast sums we have wasted could have been used to actually make us safer and voters need to start thinking about what their priorities would have been.
Let’s expand it a little. Sorry for the rotten formatting. I did this quick and dirty with a table rather than elegantly with styles, which would have taken me longer to figure out:
Reminds this old codger of the LBJ adds from 64 showing the little girl picking pedals off a flower, while the countdown to a nuclear explosion was going on. Remember?? It won LBJ the White House, as the PEACE candidate!
I wasn’t alive then, but I have seen it. It’s one of the most famous campaign ads ever, probably the top.
BTW, I hope some Dem PR type has read your excellent idea Shalimar!
Thank you. They have to do this or something else, this notion that Republicans are strong anti-terror fighters is the absolute stupidest idea I have ever heard and our side needs to hammer away at how poorly they have done. They have done very little since 2002 to eliminate an Al Qaeda organization that isn’t that large, just about nothing has been done to protect the various entry points to our country, and all our focus has been on killing people in Iraq whose families become an entirely new enemy. I don’t see how it could have gone worse.
Just about anyone could manage this war better, and Democrats have to point that out repeatedly.
Be careful saying that, things are never so bad that they couldn’t get worse and in this case I have no desire whatever for them to get worse.
True, what I mean is that they couldn’t possibly do worse while also continuing to convince people they are doing great. At some point all but the most unthinking of followers have to realize their leadership sucks.
You have got me thinking.
Show headline articles from every national election since 94. GOP wins both houses of congress. Bush wins White House, Bush win White House again, GW packs Supreme Court. Flash to a blank screen. In rather bold letters spelled out one letter at a time, ask the following. If the GOP knows what they are doing, how come things are sooo messed up? Vote Democratic.
I like it. Add in the 8/06 “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” PDB and a headline about 9/11 after the first Bush win to make sure people remember who had been in charge for almost 8 months when we were attacked.
I’m not a Clinton fan at all (too moderate, compromised and enacted too many Republican programs), but blaming him for 9/11 is just stupid. Clinton’s staff was focused on stopping Al Qaeda and considered them a major enemy, Bush’s people didn’t think they were important. Catastrophe followed from that inattention. I don’t see how anyone could argue otherwise from the actual evidence. I’m convinced it would have been prevented by a President Gore (or just about any competent President for that matter).
I’ve been saying for quite some time that the networks should re-run the 2004 Presidential debates (I know they won’t, but it’s an idea). Create a “buyers’ remorse” type effect, then contrast that with the positions of Democrats showing a better way. I think it’ll also be helpful for someone prominent to finally say in front of the cameras very clearly that they are a bunch of effing liars and enablers that have killed scores of people across the world for their thirst of money and power.
“Buyers’ remorse” is exactly why they won’t do it, the Corporations that own the networks have a vested interest in stability and undermining the President isn’t in their best interest unless they choose to go all-out and get him impeached/replaced.
Another commercial I like along the same lines though I’m not sure it would be successful, is replaying that open mike babble from last month especially the “Russia is a big country, yours is a big country” crap, with the tagline “Does this remind you of your 8-year old? Would you trust him or her to protect us from terrorists?”
I guess you would need testing to determine whether that message would reach people or just piss them off. I personally don’t see why what Natalie Maines said upsets people, replace “Bush” with any other person on earth and I still wouldn’t think it was a big deal, but it pissed off a multitude of people off to such a degree that there are probably half a million americans now who would shoot her on sight just for saying out loud that she’s embarrassed her President is from Texas.
People’s reactions often don’t make sense to me. I also don’t get the continued hatred of the French just because they turned out to be right on Iraq.
Nice concept!!
In fact, it’s such a fantastic idea that I don’t think we should count on the DLC Dems to actually use a good idea like this if it kicked them in the ass.
But why wait around for them? I propose that we do it ourselves and make it viral, post it here, put it on YouTube, etc.
I’ll even offer my services and my boyfriend’s (video production) for free.
If this is agreeable to diarist (after all, it is your idea), let me know and my boyfriend and I will start working on it!
I grant anyone and everyone free use, my main interest is in winning everywhere possible. Change anything you like to correspond with the clips you find and make it more general than a single race, I would love to see the results (though it will take me a little while on my dial-up connection it will be worth it).
Thanks! I really think it’s a great idea.
Could you point me in the direction of where I could find the video clips you were speaking of (especially the one of Bush saying he doesn’t think much about Bin Laden anymore)?
The transcript is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
About a third of the way down the page, this is the key part, his answer to an incredulous followup after he indicated to the first question that Bin Laden wasn’t really their focus:
“Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run.”
I couldn’t find video in a brief google search, but John Amato at http://www.crooksandliars.com/ probably can. He has been very responsive when I have emailed him in the past.
The full transcript of the two Bin Laden questions is below. He also talks about regime change in Iraq just prior to that.
Steven
“Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part — deep in your heart, don’t you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won’t really eliminate the threat of —
THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he’s alive at all. Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not; we haven’t heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is — really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he’s just — he’s a person who’s now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He’s the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is — as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide — if, in fact, he’s hiding at all.
So I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I’m more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did.
And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There’s going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I’m just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We’re tough, we’re strong, they’re well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.
Q But don’t you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won’t truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven’t heard much from him. And I wouldn’t necessarily say he’s at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him. I know he is on the run. I was concerned about him, when he had taken over a country. I was concerned about the fact that he was basically running Afghanistan and calling the shots for the Taliban.
But once we set out the policy and started executing the plan, he became — we shoved him out more and more on the margins. He has no place to train his al Qaeda killers anymore. And if we — excuse me for a minute — and if we find a training camp, we’ll take care of it. Either we will or our friends will. That’s one of the things — part of the new phase that’s becoming apparent to the American people is that we’re working closely with other governments to deny sanctuary, or training, or a place to hide, or a place to raise money.
And we’ve got more work to do. See, that’s the thing the American people have got to understand, that we’ve only been at this six months. This is going to be a long struggle. I keep saying that; I don’t know whether you all believe me or not. But time will show you that it’s going to take a long time to achieve this objective. And I can assure you, I am not going to blink. And I’m not going to get tired. Because I know what is at stake. And history has called us to action, and I am going to seize this moment for the good of the world, for peace in the world and for freedom.
Mike Allen. I’m working my way back, slowly but surely. Michael. “
Some one in the gaggle should do it today. If the White House Press Corps can’t ask that simple question, they ought to abandon the whole show. It’s pathetic to think that one has to put up a TV spot to do what responsible journalists are paid to do.
How about this one:
Osama Who?