Bush uses fake firefighters in ads


I about blew my drink through my nose at this line:

“There’s many reasons not to use real firemen,” retorted one Bush media adviser. “Mainly, its cheaper and quicker.”

Man, I’m feeling pretty good about this election.

Yes, Bush personally went out and hired these actors. He is an EVIL actor hirer.

I bet no “actor” has ever been paid to appear in a Democratic presidental ad. You have convinced me of that fact.

I have seen far too many of this type of campaign ad screw up. It’s an amateur mistake. It obvious to your opponents and easy to avoid. Campaign ads aren’t product ads. If you have a fire fighter who’s not really a fire fighter talking about Lava soap, big whoop, everyone expects them to be an actor anyway. But if you have a fire fighter who’s not really a fire fighter supporting a candidate, that’s a pretty big faux pas. And for the record Bob, I’ve seen Rs screw this one up far more than the Ds.

“Mainly, its cheaper and quicker.”

Isn’t that the same reason given for outsourcing so many of our jobs? That’s not the kind of attitude I want coming from the staff of elected officials.

If this sort of thing pisses you off, you’re a wanker.

There ARE real issues you know.

Bah, the real question is whether or not the fake firemen were SAG/AFTRA members! :lol:

Many firefighters are forbidden from appearing in political advertisements or carrying out political activities while in official uniform.

How ridiculously unimportant.

If this is your defense, I hope you’re ok with losing in November. It matters because it’s politically stupid.


Kerry up 52-44. Man.

The ads promote his leadership in “tough times” and “times of change.” Even before they ran, Bush was put on the defensive by complaints from families of people who died in the Word Trade Center attacks, firefighters and Democrats that he was politicizing a national tragedy by using images of the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

More than half of those surveyed, 54%, said Bush’s use of the images was inappropriate. “It was not an auspicious debut for the president,” says Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University.

Kausfiles, on Slate, says this (re: the actor/firefighter thing)

Who do I believe? The “on background” guy, or the documents I can’t see, which I don’t trust Newsweek to interpet correctly?

A little paranoid Jason?

Nah, I just think the media’s incompetent at this point.

Jason, you’re losing it. It’s very clear that employing actors in his ad was the right thing to do. We need to get this economy going so which do you do, give the role to some burly hero who already has a paying job, or some desperate actor who could use the residual checks for ramen noodles? Using actors is the American way!

Funny how you believe any crackpot story when bush can be shown to be evil, but then regain a healthy skepticism when anything else turns up.

Yeah, I’m just jumping to unjustifiable conclusions. After all, they only lied through their teeth to get us into a pointless war.

Just noting the extremely high variance of skepticism based upon the content of a report.

Like speculating that the CIA funded the rebel takeover in hati on orders from bush. The CIA hates bush.

Or the actors/firefighter thing. You have so many legitimate issues to take beef with, but you lend your ear to the most cockamamie ones and give them serious credence.

It’s like the whole clinton/ron brown plane crash thing in reverse.

Err, so you think the CIA would have refused to be involved with overthrowing Haiti?