Bush in 30 Seconds: Finalists

Jan 06, 2004 8:41 AM
Tags:

update Apparently my favorite is liked by others more left-wing than me.

update Here is the RNC response to their defending the decision to include the two "Hitler" clips.

update Of course, there are also dangers to sponsoring an open competition but, much as I loathe the Bush-Hitler (or Sharon-Hitler, or damn-near-anyone-Hitler) analogies, I don't feel MoveOn.org deserves to be bashed for the fact that 0.1% of the submissions (and none of the winners) were so tactless.

The finalists have been announced for "Bush in 30 Seconds", a competition among short anti-Bush political ads submitted by people (i.e. not ad agencies or PR firms).

I personally think "Child's Play" is the best. Cinematically, it's gorgeous. It's not as shrill as many of the others. And it's an issue (I don't want to spoil it) that even resounds with Republicans.

(You need Quicktime to watch the clips.)


Comments: Bush in 30 Seconds: Finalists

Tactless? Have you actually seen the ads with the Third Reich analogy? If not, you can watch them here (near the bottom of the page):

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010504/content/across_the_fruited_plain.guest.html

Anyway, I don't understand what the problem is. I would have expected those who feel affected by Hitler to appreciate the message. They aren't saying that Bush is Hitler or that he will commit genocide. The message is that Bush and friends commit abuses of power and exhibit some traits of fascism (such as the suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship). They are saying that such acts are *dangerous*, and Hitler is the poster child for such actions.

Also, the RNC ran ads not too long ago showing a couple Democrats morphing into Osama, not even making an analogy to anything. That didn't get much press at all.

But in the end, I agree that comparisons to Hitler and certain other "blunt" messages (like the ones that came out and directly said "war for oil) aren't good commercial choices. Those are pretty much preaching to the choir. They need to affect the swing voters, so they have to get the message across, and it has to be one that those people won't find offensive or too extreme (the average American doesn't like to hear the war for oil accusation, for example).

Posted by: O'dell on January 6, 2004 3:48 PM | permalink

Yes, those RNC ads were disgusting. I hadn't heard of them.

I think the Hitler-Bush link is tenuous, exaggerated and insulting.

Howard Dean supports single-payer healthcare, but I'd think an ad comparing him to Stalin or Mao would be similarly vomitous.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 6, 2004 5:15 PM | permalink

1. Comparisons to Hitler are a rhetorical device, but it doesn't work since it understandably offends people and predictably knocks the conversation off course. So, why use a rhetorical devices that you know is going to fail?

2. FWIW, Dean doesn't support single-payer healthcare:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/cg/index.html?type=page&pagename=policy_statement_health

Kucinch does:

http://kucinichodyssey.com/comprehensive_background.html

Posted by: David Weinberger on January 7, 2004 1:35 PM | permalink

David:

I should have said "increasing the government's role in healthcare".

Thank you for the correction.

Posted by: Joe Grossberg on January 7, 2004 1:50 PM | permalink

No more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.