George Bush Ad

[jonb]

So there's this new Bush ad with him and Laura sitting and talking and he says something like:

"I can't imagine the total agony of a parent trying to figure out which child to pick up first on September 11th."

OK, aside from the fact that it's fairly annoying how much GWB is using the fear of the terrorist attacks to convince people to vote for him, there remains the fact that I simply don't understand what he's saying. I don't get the point at all...

Anyone want to clue me in???

[enrious]

My guess is that he's trying to prey on the fear than many parents felt on that day - which child do they pick up from school to take them home in the wake of the attacks.

I think the implicit statement is that with him in power, parent's won't have to decide because he'll keep the US safe (even from its citizens but I digress).

It's fear-mongering at its finest.

It's also political opportunism at its lowest.

[Orin]

Until we get back to the stage of having leaders like FDR who say "we have nothing to fear but fear itself" - fear will be used in democracies to get votes.

Fear is used in totolitarian states to keep the population in line.

Fear is built into the way our civilisation works. Many people don't commit crimes because of the morality - but because they fear the consequences.

[jonb]

Interesting that he didn't mention the "total agony" of parents watching their children head off to war, not knowing if they would ever see them again. That to me seems a lot more agonizing than trying to figure out which child to pick up at school after the terrorist attacks...

[Orin]

Speaking of which - I have a dumb question. In the West Wing the President always rings the family personally every time a member of the armed forces dies on a mission he has authorized. Is GWB doing the same? With all the hoo-har about not showing coffins or attending military funerals - does the President still ring to offer condolences or does someone else have that job?

[marklutes]

Originally posted by jonb
Interesting that he didn't mention the "total agony" of parents watching their children head off to war, not knowing if they would ever see them again. That to me seems a lot more agonizing than trying to figure out which child to pick up at school after the terrorist attacks... The presumption being, of course, that nobody signed a kid up for school or daycare with the advance knowledge that the kid might die during the regular course of school or daycare activities. An 18-year old kid who willingly joins a volunteer military force, on the other hand, knows that risk exists. Not trying say that there's no agony when a parent's child leaves for war, just suggesting that perhaps your relative agony scale is a bit skewed.

That said, I was every bit as confused as you were the first time I saw that ad. I kept thinking, "is there something I missed here?" It's like there was a conversation about "which kid to pick up first" that the rest of us weren't privvy to that suddenly became a big topic. Or I suppose there's a possibility that this horrible choice was a topic of conversation in NYC and we just never heard about it. In any case, weird ad.

[marklutes]

Originally posted by Orin
...does the President still ring to offer condolences or does someone else have that job? I've wondered this too. Sometimes on TV I'll see an interview with a distraught family who says in the interview that the President called them with condolences and thanks for their loved one's service. But I don't know if it's something he does every time. I'd like to think so.