NationStates Jolt Archive

Remember how the right-wing got their collective panties in a twist over an ad submitted to Moveon.org's "Bush in 30 Seconds" contest because it compared Bush to Hitler? Well, it's back, and it's in G. W. Bush's newest campaign commercial. Click here to view it. (http://www.georgewbush.com/blog/archives/week_2004_06_20.html#001194)

It's funny this should come up, since I blogged about a similar topic yesterday, (http://incertus.blogspot.com/2004/06/michael-moore-and-r-word-r-as-in.html) namely, the linking of filmmaker Michael Moore with Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl, and how comparing anyone today to people who were part of the Nazi regime was indecent.

I noted that the people who got upset at Bush being compared to Hitler had reason--in typical right-wing fashion, they blamed the wrong people, but they still had reason to be upset. Bush is no Hitler--he's a top notch asshole, but he's no Hitler.

But now the Bush administration is releasing this ad that links prominent members of the Democratic party to Hitler in much the same way other Republicans linked Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden in 2002. It's disgusting, it's hypocritical and it's just another example of why G. W. Bush is unfit to be President of the United States.

Ouch. That is pretty damn hypocritical.

Ouch. That is pretty damn hypocritical.

Pretty much.

my computer must have a liberal bias, it crashes every time I try and view the ad.... :shock: :lol:

Funny. Tell me something, CTOAN. As a filmmaker, how would you feel if you were compared to Leni Riefenstahl the way Moore has been in recent weeks? My take on it is generally negative, even when people aren't using it as an insult, mainly because of her politics, but how would you feel?

Pretty shitty, though the film world has a wierd view of ol' Leni. In fact, many filmmakers have had questionable backgrounds and politics that we've had to reconcile ourselves with.

Take D.W. Griffith and movies like Birth of a Nation or Broken Blossoms. Racist films from a racist filmmaker, but Griffith also gives us sequential editing. (Before Griffith they would show one sequence, then the other sequence. For example, in A Day in the Life of a Fireman shows the firemen driving to the rescue and rescuing the woman, then shows the woman in peril and being rescued again. It's wierd.) Then there is the propaganda films that Eisenstien made that where also breathtaking and inovative.

However, they are not comparing Moore's asthetic to Leni's, and his asthetic isn't even close. So I'd take it as its ment-an insult. And a poorly placed one at that. Moore is rallying against the state in many ways (people forget that he is critical of Democratic leaders as well) and is in no way trying to push the common line, nor is he being supported by the 'state' to push anyones agenda but his own. As he said on the Daily Show last night "I have a point of view and I put it in this movie." It is assinine to make that accusation(the Leni one), and reflects poorly on those who would do so.

The second one is pretty much what I argued on my blog--that Moore is the anti-Riefenstahl, attacking the state instead of glorifying it. The people who have compared Moore to Reifenstahl and meant it as a compliment have argued that he's as good a propagandist and as visually entertaining as Leni was. I don't think he's that good, to be quite honest about it. Moore seems to be at his most effective when he's finding footage other people have shot and runs it together into a narrative, but I find most of his antics a bit weak.

At his core, he is a sensasationalist(sp) which has it's values and it's detractions. I do not look forward to the scene where he rides around in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot Act, and while I like the core message, I will likely be uncomfortable when he ambushes senators to get them to sign up thier children for the armed services. Much in the same way a lot of the truth ads bother me. It drives home a point already made in the biggest asshole way possible. But it also underlines the anger of the situation that has been lacking. Anger is good at this point, because it demands change.

To quote a Simpsons joke: some times you need a three prong attack, sub-liminal, liminal, and super liminal ("Hey you! Join the navy!")

At his core, he is a sensasationalist(sp) which has it's values and it's detractions. I do not look forward to the scene where he rides around in an ice cream truck reading the Patriot Act, and while I like the core message, I will likely be uncomfortable when he ambushes senators to get them to sign up thier children for the armed services. Much in the same way a lot of the truth ads bother me. It drives home a point already made in the biggest asshole way possible. But it also underlines the anger of the situation that has been lacking. Anger is good at this point, because it demands change.

To quote a Simpsons joke: some times you need a three prong attack, sub-liminal, liminal, and super liminal ("Hey you! Join the navy!")

Interesting Video, although I don't see it getting too much airplay, it contains too much of the opposition message even if it they are attempting to ridicule it. I find it funny that they label the attacks on Bush as 'pessimism', I actually find the idea of attacking what one thinks is wrong with an administration and trying to change it optomistic.

I really really really hope the Bush campaign shows this ad on TV in the swing states. The Miller Lite vs Budweiser spoofs of campaign ads were supposed to be sillier than real campaign ads and then Bush goes and makes one even sillier