Naked Bush
I know that sounds bad, but keep reading. Some guy named Brian Ellner is running for Manhattan Borough president in New York. He produced a nice little TV ad that features President Bush's face on a naked torso (you can see the ad here). The local Fox affiliate, though, is refusing to run the ad on the basis that it's disrespectful to the president. It is disrespectful. There should be some minimal level of civility in politics and portraying a nude president is significantly below that level. I'm not talking about Bush specifically here, I'm talking about whoever holds the office. Even if you don't like its current holder, at least respect the office itself.
When asked about the Fox station's refusal, Ellner said, "Fox claims that this ad is disrespectful to the president. What is truly disrespectful to Manhattan voters is to deny them the chance to hear a serious message from a candidate for public office." I can't stand it when people use this line of argument. It's not even an argument really, it's just a bad deflection. Though he may think it's disrespectful not to air the ad, that doesn't absolve him of the fact that the ad is in bad taste and is itself disrespectful.
Feel free to use this technique whenever you like, though. Imagine you find yourself in the following scenarios:
1) You're late turning in a report and so your boss asks you about it. "You say it's a problem I haven't submitted my report yet. But the real problem here is that the Bush administration hasn't yet submitted all the reports on John Roberts."
2) You lost the family's savings to gambling, about which your spouse is understandably angry. "Sure I lost all our money on blackjack, but what about all the money the government is gambling on Iraq?"
3) You're Charles Manson. "Yeah, I murdered several people, but that's small potatoes compared to how many people the military is killing in Iraq."
Try it and see how well it works for you.
The real moronic part of the ad, however, is that the first several seconds are spent bashing Bush and this is for a guy running for Manhattan Borough President. He's not running for president and he's not running for a national office. Hell, he's not even running for a statewide office. He really doesn't have much at all to do with Bush. He's just using a hit piece on the prez to coddle favor with local liberals. The message is this: "Vote for me! I hate Bush too!" Productive.
(check out Wizbang's Carnival of Trackbacks)
Ugh, your post just gets dumber, and much less humorous as it goes on. You are right about respecting the Office of the Dear Leader. Of course, you hold to this standard with all world leaders and properly revere Kim Jong IL and Castro, right.
I’m a Christian, there is only one person I must revere based on their status. This guy speaks the truth about what everybody with family in Iraq, or New Orleans knows, “The Emperor has no clothes.” The guy diverts firefigthers to serve as backdrops for his photo-ops. That is what is disrespectful to the office of the president, not some local pols ad.
Comment by James — 9/8/2005 @ 9:08 am
James, first, revere does not equal respect. I argued for the latter, not the former. I assume you respect more people or entities than just God?
Second, you’re conflating an office with personages when you compare the Office of the President with Kim and Castro. A proper comparison would either have been between the presidencies of the U.S. and Cuba or between Bush and Castro.
Third, as I said, the office of the President deserves a minimal level of respect. Disrespecting it as Ellner did tears down the office as much as it does Bush and makes it that much worse for the next guy… who may be someone you like. If you want to make the aforementioned claim that the Office of the President does not deserve respect because then we’d also have to respect the office of dictator of NK, then you have made a poor comparison in saying the presidency of the U.S. is no better than a dictatorship.
And finally:
“The guy diverts firefigthers to serve as backdrops for his photo-ops. That is what is disrespectful to the office of the president, not some local pols ad.”
I’m pleased to see that you learned the stupid deflection technique I noted. If you want to leave intelligent comments that argue I’m wrong, you should try to avoid unintentionally backing up my point through delicious irony.
Comment by Dangerous Dan — 9/8/2005 @ 1:42 pm
[...] Ok, first note that in that last quote, Pelosi is using the stupid deflection technique I’ve previously complained about. Keep an eye out for this technique - it’s everywhere and I tend to notice liberals using it much more than conservatives. I think that’s because they like to take the righteous indignation tactic in arguments and this helps keep them from actually arguing the merits of their position or defending a point that’s under attack. Pelosi hasn’t demonstrated that her point is fair, she has just deflected attention away from the issue by talking about something else. [...]
Pingback by Dangerous Dan » Pelosi — 9/9/2005 @ 3:52 pm
If James is a Christian, then surely he’s familiar with 1 Peter 2:13-17:
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”
When Peter wrote this, the “king” was Nero, one of the cruelest leaders Rome ever had.
Comment by marcus — 9/10/2005 @ 12:51 pm