Tuesday, September 19, 2006

Democrats on Bush on Osama

The Democrats have created yet another simple, effective advertisement. I wonder how long it'll take them to apologize for it.


Paul said...

I'm afraid it's a bit too simple and not as effective as it could be. Appears to appeal to those who would agree, lead to "yes, but" from those who don't and doesn't offer a basis to persuade undecides.
Style (matter of preference) with the binLadenbinLadens strikes me as the style of those who say "hey, look at this neat feature on the video editor."
I think it could have been more effective if it would have followed:
-Bush vowed to "get bin Laden"
-bin Laden escaped
-Bush says it's not a big deal if he's captured or not
-He's right (that phrase will make people do a double-take) because his escape allowed time for bin Laden to establish terror cells and operations that don't depend entirely upon bin Laden. Like a virus that's not stopped early, it's spread.
-Here's what we'd do to protect you and your families: (be real careful here. Specifics are nasty. You'll be held to account. Which is why many never offer specifics).

Yeah, I think those points could be done in a one-minute commercial - and it would be effective in persuading voters, or at least getting them to consider an alternative.

I don't see much to apologize for. But that doesn't mean they won't, anyway!

Anonymous said...

Huh? "Yes, but?" Yes, but what? First Bush is concerned, then he's not, and then right before an election he gets all concerned again. How can you "yes, but" that observation?

Anonymous said...

"Style (matter of preference) with the binLadenbinLadens strikes me as the style of those who say "hey, look at this neat feature on the video editor." "

I forgot to add that I thought the same thing, until I noticed the "Osama" counter at the bottom of the image.

Paul said...

Missed the counter - cute.

The "yes, but" refers to people who would say, "yes, Pres Bush said he'd get bin Laden. Then bin Laden escaped to Pakistan. Now he says capturing/killing him isn't important. BUT al Qaeda is rather decentralized and al-Zawahiri's running day to day operations so removing bin Laden isn't a large factor, given the jihadists independent of him who want to continue the war against the West."

Thought illustrating that line of thinking was a bit long for an original post.

BTW - Dems may have sown a minefield around themselves (military allusions abound) as their Real Security: Protecting America and Restoring our Leadership in the World" says on page 2: we will eliminate Osama bin Laden.

I've already seen a couple of prominent Democrats embarrassed when they've repeated that line and the followup question is "so you want US forces to invade Pakistan?"

EK said...

Invade Pakistan? Y'know, I think we don't have the political capital to pull that off. But if we'd done it right after Afghanistan instead of going into Iraq, the world probably would have understood and Democrats like me would've been all for it, as long as we left immediately after catching Bin Laden and didn't become an occupier.

What Dems have always complained about is that Iraq had nothing to do with Bin Laden or 9-11. Pakistan is a totally different story.

Doug said...

They can't go too hard after Bin Laden. They need a boogeyman to hold over our heads.

Anonymous said...

Goddamn ridiculous. I can't believe I voted for that m-f'er. TWICE. I can't wait until November.

Doug said...

I only voted once. Then I saw how bad he did "freeing Iraq."

Bush and his dog Rummy couldn't plan a way to maintain peace if they had it mailed to them by Sun Tzu.