Bush in 30 seconds

Politics and religion
21

So here we go again, huh? Squirrel Killer makes a point–I haven’t read the underlying links, but certainly nobody seems to be disputing his account of the facts–about how MoveOn is being pretty lame, all while accusing the RNC of being lame. Rather than either saying “Yeah, that’s pretty lame,” or at least not saying anything at all, extarbags comes in and says that comparing Bush to Hitler is pretty appropriate anyway.

But that’s a completely separate issue. It’s not like when the RNC protested, MoveOn defended the ads. They claimed to have nothing to do with the ads. So whether the ads are or aren’t appropriate is irrelevant to SK’s point that the folks at MoveOn are, essentially, a bunch of spinmeister liars. As it happens, I think that on that tangential issue, SK is totally right and extarbags is totally wrong (i.e., much as I dislike Bush, comparing him to Hitler is ludicrous and incredibly offensive), but that really doesn’t matter one way or the other.

Then Jason comes in and says Well, who cares, they’re all amateur ads anyway. What does that have to do with anything? Does that somehow mean that it’s OK for MoveOn to lie about their involvement with the ads and lie about what the RNC said, because hey, nobody got paid to design the ads? What’s the relationship supposed to be there?

22

http://moveonvoterfund.org/smear/release.html

During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads that purported to tell the truth about the President and his policies. More than 1,500 submissions from ordinary Americans came in and were posted on a web site, bushin30seconds.org, for the public to review.

None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries.

MoveOn didn’t produce them, they didn’t choose the winners, and the people who did choose the winners - the voters - didn’t like them anyway. How is MoveOn responsible for this? They didn’t knock them out at the “check for offensiveness” stage? If I run a “why I don’t like Bush” essay contest for people to vote on for Jason’s Angry Democrats Club, and someone submits a “Bush = Hitler” essay, am I responsible for it? It’s tenuous at best.

This seemed obvious enough I didn’t see a reason to post a real reply. Guess not.

Edit: Oh, and if their filtering process was “won’t post anything inappropriate for TV,” how did they screw up? Since when it comparing someone to Hitler inappropriate for a TV ad? Christ, as pointed out, the RNC compared Daschle to Saddam Hussein.

23

Never assume that anything is obvious. When you have a populace that has the reasoning power of a burnt-out toaster, nothing is obvious. But then again, that begs the question: Why bother building a case?

BUSH IS TEH LIAR!!!

Seems to work about as well as facts or reasoning.

24

Quote from MoveOn.org press release:
“We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system.”

25

Um, because they posted the ads on the Internet? For someone who claims that the folks on the other side are overlooking the obvious, that’s a pretty big thing for you to forget to mention. If you run a “Why I Hate Bush” essay contest and then publish the one about how Bush is Hitler as a full-page ad in a national newspaper, would you expect to get out of responsibility by saying “Well, I didn’t write it?” or “Well, I didn’t pay for it?” Give me a break, Jason.

If what you’re trying to say is “Yeah, but the RNC shouldn’t say that MoveOn produced or endorsed these ads,” I agree with you, because MoveOn didn’t produce or endorse them. Luckily for the RNC, nobody there said they did; the RNC just asked MoveOn to apologize for posting the ads, and by implication asked that the ads be taken down. Who said that the RNC came down on MoveOn for endorsing the ads? Oh, right, MoveOn did. Why? Because they’re doing the same thing folks are doing in this thread: they’ve made a mistake, and rather than admit it, they’re pretending that their opponents made some different, easily disproved claim, and trying to turn the argument into one about that rather than about what was actually said.

In other words, rather than say “Whoops, these ads are inappopriate, Bush is definitely no Hitler, sorry for posting them,” they turn around and pretend the RNC said something it really didn’t, and then attack the RNC for saying it. Just to make sure they’ve completely derailed the point, they then attack the RNC for political ads that were run years ago. I assume they do it that way because nothing the RNC actually said in this case was objectionable, and MoveOn just can’t hack having to apologize to the RNC. You’ve followed exactly, exactly the same pattern in this thread, so I assume you’re motivated by the same thing–an unwillingness to admit that the RNC is right and MoveOn blew it.

26

I find it terribly ironic that the RNC is demanding an apology for two amateur ads comparing Bush to Hitler when the RNC greenlighted and produced two ads comparing democrats to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. I assume their apology will be forthcoming?

27

and by implication suggesting that MoveOn was much more involved with the ad than they really were. You’re absolutely right, if we carefully parse out the language and see exactly what they said, the RNC is correct. And how many yahoos do you think will actually carefully read something? The RNC knows what they’re doing… and MoveOn responded to the innuendo, not the actual words.

Who said that the RNC came down on MoveOn for endorsing the ads? Oh, right, MoveOn did. Why?
Because MoveOn was correctly responding to the insinuation. Usually, posting content to the Internet implies some sort of endorsement. If I post a picture of Das Fuhrer, it’s very likely I’m endorsing him somehow. (Unless it’s obviously a satire of some kind.) However, posting all the entries to a contest doesn’t imply endorsement of any kind… they didn’t put any “offensiveness filter” on, nor should they have. What they did was the equivalent of this bulletin board… they posted whatever they got. But the RNC made it instead sound like a mild endorsement.

Because they’re doing the same thing folks are doing in this thread: they’ve made a mistake, and rather than admit it, they’re pretending that their opponents made some different, easily disproved claim, and trying to turn the argument into one about that rather than about what was actually said.

So quick to assume fault in others, so slow to realize it in yourself.
<insert goddamn idiot comment here>

28

I’m still not seeing what mistake MoveOn made here. Running a contest where they didn’t throw out submissions that violate good taste?

Formally:

Party A runs a contest.
Party B votes for a winner.
Parties C, D, etc. submit entries.

You’re saying party A is responsible for the submissions, right?

29

So it’s okay for MoveOn to assume that the RNC means something above and beyond what they actually said, but not okay for the RNC to do that to MoveOn, even though they actually didn’t?

Your reasoning is… dizzying.

30

No. Ry said:

Party A runs a contest.
Party B votes for a winner.
Parties C, D, etc. submit entries.
Party A posts the winners on its website.

Party A is responsible for posting the winners on its website.

I, on the other hand, would argue that MoveOn is also responsible for the submissions, insofar as it created the contest and all of the governing rules, owns the website, and has sole authority over what things do and don’t get posted there.

I’m still not seeing what mistake MoveOn made here. Running a contest where they didn’t throw out submissions that violate good taste?

By their own admission, they did screen entries for good taste. From the Rules and Regs:

Sponsor reserves the right to disqualify and remove from the web site any entry which is, in the judging panel’s discretion, inappropriate, offensive, defamatory, or demeaning to Sponsor’s reputation or goodwill.

31

No, Jason.

Party A runs a contest.
Parties C and D (to keep to your nomenclature) submit entries.
Party A posts entries C and D on the Internet
Party B votes for winner (irrelevant)

It’s that step 3 where party A takes on responsibility. You can’t post libel on the Net and then claim you’re not responsible because you didn’t write it (especially where, as here, you screened all the ads before posting them).

I’m not going to keep going around and around with you on this. If you think MoveOn bears no responsibility, fine. I’d be interested to see your reaction if the RNC ran a “Why I Hate Dean” contest, and someone submitted an entry saying “I hate him because he gets drunk and hits his wife every weekend, plus he gave her AIDS and then hushed it up by locking all his records away.” If the RNC posted that on the Net, and then said “Hey, we didn’t write it, don’t yell at us,” what would you say? You probably wouldn’t say anything, because you’d be dead of an aneurysm.

That’s because it is. I mean, the RNC literally says “You posted this and you shouldn’t have.” Your argument is, “Yeah, but everyone knows that posting something is sort of endorsing it, even if it’s not a formal endorsement.” So? All that means is that MoveOn is getting whatever they deserve. Yeah, people think that posting something is sort of vaguely endorsing it. Those people are right. MoveOn might say, “Well, we didn’t technically endorse these spots, we just posted them.” That’s a BS dodge, but the RNC responds appropriately: “Okay, fine. We’re not bashing you for endorsing the ads, just for posting them.” If MoveOn’s complaint is now that people will draw a connection between posting and endorsing, my response is that maybe they should have thought of that before they posted the ads.

Of course, the reality is that they did think of that. I mean, we’re all dancing around it, but it’s pretty obvious that MoveOn is sort of unofficially endorsing the ads, since they ran the contest, put up the website, and screened the ads before posting them. And although I was originally willing to let them off the hook for “officially” endorsing any ads, upon further thought I realize I was mistaken: MoveOn did endorse one of the ads. One of the Hitler ads says it’s “Sponsored by MoveOn.org,” which MoveOn saw, and then decided to post. Like I said earlier, though, it’s sort of irrelevant whether or not they endorsed the ads, because RNC only bashes them for posting the ads. Although it does make MoveOn’s “We don’t endorse these” statement a lie.

32

Well good thing they didn’t post this ad.

MoveOn was wrong for posting those 2 ads. They admit that.
RNC was wrong for leaving out details in their press release like “these 2 ads were one of 1500 submitted over the internet for a contest.”

33

Ok let’s look at those ads…Here’s what the AP wrote on the Saxby Chabliss ad:

Here’s Roll Call’s description of it:

Hrm…the ad was done by the Chambliss campaign, not the RNC. The ad doesn’t directly compare Osama and Saddam to Cleland, but uses Osama’s and Saddam’s pictures while talking about the treat that they posed, and then moves on to Cleland’s supposed lack of support for Bush’s policies.

On the Tim Johnson ad, Spinsanity.com describes it this way in their discussion of the previously mentioned Chambliss ad:

You’ll note that, like the Chambliss ad, the Thune ad (also not run by the RNC) presents the threat, and then criticizes the opponent for not dealing with the threat sufficently. There’s no comparision of either Cleleand or Johnson to Osama or Saddam, rather just a statement (admittedly a negative one) that neither is doing enough to prevent the threat. This follows the form of virtually every other campaign ad ever; “X is a problem, (optionally - Candidate Y isn’t doing enough), Candidate Z is the solution.” John Kerry is currently running ads with a couple with serious medical issues, he then says that Bush isn’t doing enough to help them, then he says that, as president, he’ll help them.

Contrast that with the MoveOn.org-hosted ads which draw a direct comparison between Bush and Hitler. Thule never said that Johnson was Osama. Chambliss didn’t say that Cleland was Saddam. MoveOn.org’s hosted ads said, however, that Bush is effectively Hitler.

34

Oh please (oops, I mean “JUUURRRRR”):

And before you huff “But there were 1,500, not just hundreds!” note that most people would shortcut “one thousand, five hundred” to “fifteen hundred.”

35

Fading from a picture of a dictator and a terrorist to the picture of a political candidate isn’t seeking to compare or link them. Riiight. Okay. It’s good to know we can have a rational discussion here, SK.

36

I don’t really remember how the transition plays out. MoveOn.org refers to “TV ads morphing the face of Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) into that of Osama Bin Laden”, but then again, they also say that the RNC claimed that MoveOn.org “sponsored” the ads, and morphing is an expensive little effect, so I’m a little reluctant to trust that description. USA Today doesn’t mention any morphing (“Images of both bin Laden and Saddam are on the screen in a TV ad that Georgia Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss…”). Every description of the ad that I’ve read merely says that pictures of Osama, Saddam and Cleland appear in the ad. You say it’s a fade from Osama to Cleland, so I’ll take your word. Regardless, a fade from Osama to Cleland is a far cry from a video of Hilter with Bush quote running like subtitles.

As for rational discussion, how do you rationalize your demand of an apology from the RNC after I pointed out that they didn’t run the ads?

As for rational discussion, how does XPav rationalize his criticism of the RNC for not mentioning that the ads were just two of hundreds, when the RNC did, in fact, mention it?

As for rational discussion, how does extrabags rationalize his accusation that my argument was a strawman, when he obviously doesn’t even know what a strawman argument is?

As for rational discussion, how does Jason…nah forget it… :wink:

37

So it’s okay for MoveOn to assume that the RNC means something above and beyond what they actually said, but not okay for the RNC to do that to MoveOn, even though they actually didn’t?

Your reasoning is… dizzying.[/quote]

Your lack of comprehension is… amazing.

There are respectable arguments to be made against my position… Rywill made one of them, actually. However, your argument just misses the boat. First off, work on your writing style. You say “even though they didn’t”. Who didn’t do what? That RNC didn’t really imply that? That MoveOn didn’t really respond to the insinuation? Something else? C’mon Mr. Sones… if you’re going to try your hand at argumentation, at least be clear with it.

As for the RNC meaning something above and beyond, etc. etc. that’s pretty much understood. Rywill explicitly said that such an implication is inherent in posting such material. Your average-man on the street will of course understand that to be the case. Now, arguing that the implication is true… that posting something indicates an endorsement of it, is a reasonable line of argumentation. To deny the implication at all is absurd. If you really think that people are such dim-witted buffoons that they won’t in any way infer any extra ideas beyond what is explicitly stated, then you have an even lower opinion of the masses than I do.

38

That’s because it is. I mean, the RNC literally says “You posted this and you shouldn’t have.” Your argument is, “Yeah, but everyone knows that posting something is sort of endorsing it, even if it’s not a formal endorsement.” [/quote]

This is really bizarre. You completely misrepresented my argument, yet your argument against it still holds. It’s not a knock-down, end-all-discussion argument, but it is a respectable one.

First, a clarification on my argument. What you said is true, but then I made the distinction, which the RNC didn’t, of saying that a mass posting of third-party content doesn’t necessarily indicate endorsement of those ideas. I do see your point, and it’s reasonable.

However, I view it as more along the lines of this message board. The Entity aren’t responsible for what’s posted here. Even if they had to manually click a Validate button before any post made it onto the board, I still don’t think they’re responsible. They’re merely providing a forum for free speech. Similarly, MoveOn was doing the same thing… “Say whatever you like, we don’t care, but the only entries that we really endorse are the top fifteen, or the top 5, or whatever”. Basically, they only endorse the ads that they highlight by putting them front and center.

39

Yeah, it’s sort of a misplaced modifier, though not a particularly confusing one. I guess you might assume that “they” refers to MoveOn, though I’m not sure why, since that doesn’t make any sense. Unless you are feigning ignorance so that you can bitch about my grammar rather than make a meaningful response.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt, and provide a more explicit argument:

Your argument (and correct me if I’m wrong) seems to be this: Normally, it’s reasonable to assume that “post” is synonymous with “endorse,” for all practical purposes. However, in this specific context, it is not reasonable to assume that “post” is synonymous with “endorse,” because the MoveOn did not screen the content that it posted. Therefor, the RNC’s complaint was inappropriate.

Here are the problems:

  1. The RNC did not actually accuse MoveOn of endorsing the ads. They complained because MoveOn posted them. And if it is not reasonable to assume that “post” is synonymous with “endorse” in this context, then why is it reasonable for MoveOn to assume that when the RNC said “post,” they really meant “endorse?”

  2. Your argument is predicated on a factual error. You say that it is not reasonable to assume that MoveOn endorses the ads, because MoveOn didn’t screen them for inappropriate material. But MoveOn claims, in the contest Rules and Regulations, that it did screen them for any material that might be “inappropriate, offensive, defamatory, or demeaning to Sponsor’s reputation or goodwill.” Furthermore, MoveOn is not a neutral organization. The whole purpose of that site is “running an ad campaign against President George W. Bush and his administration.” The whole purpose of the contest is to choose the ad spot that MoveOn will endorse on national television. It seems reasonable to assume that MoveOn would screen out any ads that it would not be willing to endorse before allowing people to vote on them. Therefor, I also disagree with your argument that it is unreasonable to assume, in this context, that posting the ads equals endorsement. In fact, I think that assumption is very reasonable.

Additionally, I think MoveOn’s failure to screen out those ads was extra lame because it’s drawing so much attention away from all the other ads in the contest, some of which are excellent.

40

So when the government lets a Candidate A run in an election, its responsible for his views?

I’m just not seeing how it matters a damn.