I agree that no one, not even the families of those involved, can "own" any kind of historical event like 9/11, but that doesn't change my opinion that using graphics of the event to "sell" your campaign is in the worst possible taste.*

I think it's also worth considering that, in line with what we've leared of Bush&Co's favored techniques (that plastic turkey in Iraq), we also know that parts of the "footage" were faked, like the supposed shots of firefighters.

Not only are they exploiting an international tragedy (let's not forget that it wasn't only USofA citizens who died), but they're further trivializing it by reshooting pieces to suit their own purposes?

That's just low.

*To be fair, I understand that these ads do, in fact, "help" Bush with conservatives, but I'm at a loss to understand why. Bush wasn't the one on television that day, helping people understand what was going on, after all. If anyone's leadership was "proven" on that day, it was Rudy Guliani's.

I suspect that the Bush campaign believes the ads will help him with independents, since that's really the voters he needs in order to win reelection. Personally, I think a shot of him with the bullhorn would be much more effective, but I'm assuming (perhaps unwisely) that the people running the campaign are competent enough to field-test ads before they run them to be sure they'll play well to the correct audience.

Of course, these ads might also be intended to shore up Bush's support with his base, I suppose. I still don't see how he wouldn't have done better with a shot of him and the bullhorn, though.

As for exploiting a tragedy, that's just wrong. 9/11 wasn't a tragedy, it was an act of war, and this election should be about that war. Half the problem we have right now is that too many people want to view 9/11 as a tragedy rather than as what it was. Reminding people that there are a lot of individuals in the world who would like nothing better than to kill as many Americans as possible is a public service for my money.

Bravo! Well said Andrew, well said.

Oh, I finished The Silmarillion just this January. The man is one of the greatest story tellers.

"... but none of us has the right to claim it as only ours."

That's the objection to Republicans using the day as a political issue.

I'm slightly of mixed-mind on the subject, actually. On the one hand, there's a valid point to be made that there are crucial policy issues revolving around September 11th (duh!), and that, of course, it's inevitable that some of the issues become political issues. I think that's inarguable and legitimate.

On the other hand, Bush initially took the (wise, and also politically astute) position that September 11th should be one of those issues that the parties don't use as a political football, that it was akin to the notion occasionally adhered to in American political history of certain politics stopping at the water's edge, that there are some things both parties can agree upon and choose to treat in a non-partisan way.

He and his party pretty quickly dropped that stance, and began milking the hell out of images and references to September 11th in fund-raising and other political support-raising.

I think it's utterly legitimate for he and his mates (and anyone else) to argue in a political way the virtues and faults of any policy issues related to September 11th.

What I feel pretty disgusted by -- and as best as I can tell, not, in this case, because I'm so negative about Bush or inclined to favor Democrats in many issues, though I agree I'm quite biased -- is the use of September 11th imagery in advertisements, be they political or for non-political tchochkes, or to sell cars or anything else. This applies to Democrats using images of the towers crashing down, or to real estate developers, or whoever.

That seems reasonable to me, but I'm opinion to having any blind spots on my part pointed out.

Anne, I'd strongly, respectfully, suggest giving the "plastic turkey" line a rest. There are plenty of important cases of the Bush Administration being slippery, deceitful, or simply untruthful-and-god-knows-why.

A positive banquet exists.

What kind of turkey he held up one day is about as furthest from being one of those important cases as might be imaginable, and using it as if it meant something important is the reverse of helpful to making an anti-Bush case. It's on par with the accusation that Gore is a "liar" or "has a problem with the truth," because he misremembered which date he went on one of many trips with the head of FEMA. Both are simple trivia and there's no useful point to be made out of either. In my opinion.

Out of curiosity, Gary, would you object to the Democrats using the September 11 attacks as a political issue? They're already on record as planning to use the investigations of the attacks as ammo to bring down President Bush this year, so it would hardly be surprising to see a Democratic commercial showing the carnage of 9/11 with a voice over accusing the President of failing to prevent it. Would that be acceptable to you?

"Out of curiosity, Gary, would you object to the Democrats using the September 11 attacks as a political issue?"

As I tried to explain -- I feel precisely the same about how the Republicans, Democrats, or car salesmen choose to use September 11th.

I think it's completely legitimate for Bush and Kerry to run ads saying their post-9/11 policies are better, safer, wiser, will build strong children twelve ways, and has special brightening.

I don't want them to use pictures of the WTC or Pentagon, because I think that's different from discussing policy. Policy is legit, and self-touting is legit, and tearing down the other guy is legit. Using pictures of dead people to sell your policies is, in my book -- and I recognize this is a personal position, not some sort of Objective Law -- not legitimate. Whover does it, including the Democrats.

So, no, I don't want to see those pictures in a Democratic ad. Stress, pictures. (Or voice recordings.)

As a tangential, separable, point, I don't think it's helpful to political debate to emotionalize it in the intensified way that use of pictures or recordings of mass death powerfully does. That's not my reason for objecting, but it's a secondary benefit. I think it's obvious that getting further outraged, angered, horrified, whatever, by the issue doesn't make a policy discussion more, or less, correct on either side.

Gary, fair enough; forgive my curiosity. I concur that, in a perfect world, emotionalizing debate is a very bad thing. On the other hand, the Democrats have been doing that very thing for close to a year now (see, in particular, Dean, Howard), because it's more effective in the mass media than reasoned debate. At least, that's my perception. I'd love to see President Bush and Senator Kerry sit down to a real debate where they were forced to abjure passion plays in favor of honest discussion of the issues and how they would handle them differently. But I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for that to happen.

I can certainly see your point regarding the use of the images, and it wouldn't break my heart not to see them put away from the political campaign, for whatever that's worth.

"I'd love to see President Bush and Senator Kerry sit down to a real debate where they were forced to abjure passion plays in favor of honest discussion of the issues and how they would handle them differently."

I very much want to see quite a few debates -- as many as possible before it bores people to tears. Anywhere from six to ten, perhaps. Maybe even more. I'd be happy to see the process start next week.

My bet is that President Bush will duck debating as much as possible, just as he ducks press conferences in an unprecedently extreme way, just as he ducked appointing either of the two recent commissions as long as was politically feasible, just as he's carried out as long as possible this kooky attempt to talk to the 9/11 Commission chairs only for an hour. I will be delighted, honestly, to be wrong on this. (Did you read that transcript of the White House press secretary "responding" on the "I'll only talk for an hour" issue? Amazing.)

Curiosity about my opinions, or polite challenges to my opinions, never bothers me, by the way.

I don't think either Bush or Kerry would be up for real debates, because honest debate would risk turning off voters when the candidates were forced to discuss their actual policies. (I think it would be a wash if they were both honest and straightforward, but I don't think either of them would risk it).

I'm willing to bet that, barring something that somehow puts Kerry in an overwhelming lead, and maybe even then, Kerry will offer and be willing to engage in as many debates as he can get.

I'm also willing to bet that Bush won't give him the opportunity to prove me wrong, unless Bush gets significantly behind, and maybe not even then.

I don't doubt it; that's pretty standard politics. Or are you suggesting that, in the past, incumbents have been eager for many debates, and President Bush is somehow unique in this respect? I'll bet they end up debating two or three times, in highly-structured formats that result in no real debate.

"Or are you suggesting that, in the past, incumbents have been eager for many debates, and President Bush is somehow unique in this respect?"

No, it's standard, and I agree with your assessment of what is likely. Bush will possibly also push to include Nader. I'm not saying any of this is brilliant original insight on my part. Just remember: a stitch in time, saves nine.

I prefer to remember that a niche in time saves Stein.