Duck Soup Leftovers

Katie at The Resplendent Mango shares the e-mails she's received from both the Bush and Kerry campaigns on all the Nazi imagery flying around.

The current ad brouhaha is over Bush's "Coalition of the Wild-Eyed" commercial, which could also have been titled "Gore's Gone Wild" or "Democrats in the Mist."

The email that accompanies the ad reads: Dear Katie,

This new video shows something unprecedented in politics - the coalition that John Kerry is building to defeat our President - a Coalition of the Wild-eyed: [HERE]
As the video shows, the faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party are ones of pessimism, rage, and baseless attacks. The choice will be clear in November. This is not a time for pessimism and rage. It's a time for optimism, steady leadership, and progress.

The video shows, using the words of the Bush campaign, "the faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party." An odd choice of phrasing for the video that shows Hitler. But that's beside the point. As I said before, it is naive to think the Bush campaign or even some conservatives did not see the confusion that would arise from all of this. Let's move on.

Two hours and two minutes later, the voice of righteousness, Mary Beth Cahill, strikes back.
"Dear Friend,

Yesterday, the Bush-Cheney campaign, losing any last sense of decency, placed a disgusting ad called "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party" as the main feature on its website. Bizarrely, and without explanation, the ad places Adolf Hitler among those faces.
Not quite... First, the Hitler images are labeled as being from MoveOn.org, because that's who's ads they're from. Second, the only person who gets compared to Hitler in the ad is BUSH. Continuing on...

Again, it's easier to claim that MoveOn.org produced the ad, but remember the ad was part of a on-line contest sponsored by MoveOn.org. It was not produced by the organization and never ran as an official ad for the Kerry campaign. The ad was pulled shortly after it was posted. I will say that MoveOn.org should have take some responsibility for those images as they appeared on the website, and feel they did when they issued their apology.

I think the Kerry campaign is pretty factual here, however. The ad is called "The Faces of John Kerry's Democratic Party." It is the main feature on the website. It does not explain why Adolf Hitler is among the faces, only showing the clips come from MoveOn.org. It could just as well say the clips are pulled from Germanhistory.org. There is nothing there that makes clear why the clips are being used. The intention of the clips usage is not clear judging by the controversy brewing. A simple remedy for all the "brouhaha" would be a block of text before the clips stating the true circumstances of the images. That would dispel all confusion.

More:

P.S. It's hard to believe that the Bush campaign would use images of Adolf Hitler. See it for yourself: http://www.georgewbush.com

It's hard to believe that the Kerry campaign would be incapable of recognizing the irony and hypocrisy of these statements, or not realize that perhaps this could come back to bite them in the butt, but here it is.

Not hard for me to believe, because I do not see the "irony and hypocrisy of these statements" either.

The Bush campaign tries to point them out in their response, quoted by Katie again:

On Thursday, the campaign launched a web video titled Kerry's Coalition of the Wild-eyed. The video featured Democrats who support John Kerry making negative and baseless attacks against the President. Interspersed in the video were segments of two ads that appeared on a website sponsored by MoveOn.org - a group campaigning for Kerry - in January.

On Friday night, John Kerry's campaign denounced our use of these ads, and called that use "disgusting."

The Kerry campaign says, "The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong."

We agree. These ads, like much of the hate-filled, angry rhetoric of Kerry's coalition of the Wild-eyed, are disgusting.

This has to be my favorite moment. Read that again and let it sink in.

The Kerry campaign says, "The use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign, politician or party is simply wrong."

We agree.

I can't help but laugh. If the Bush campaign agrees that "the use of Adolf Hitler by any campaign politician or party is wrong," then why would they continue to try and defend the ad? I know they try and make a point here, but the whole thing backfires on the crux of that statement alone.

The Bush campaign email then goes on to denounce not the Kerry campaign, politician or official party spokesman for quotes not using Adolf Hitler. Aside from that, the campaign itself must be held to a higher standard then those of its supporters. The campaigns are the official word of the candidates, and they have little control over those that do not directly work for the campaign.

Finally:

Apparently the ad now features the following disclaimer at the beginning:
The following video contains remarks made by and images from ads sponsored by Kerry Supporters. John Kerry has denounced our use of these ads attacking the President. He has not denounced liberal supporters like Al Gore, George Soros, and many others who have made speeches comparing the President to Adolf Hitler.

Good start, but factually wrong. No liberal supporter has made a speech that I have read comparing the President to Adolf Hitler. They do make references to things occurring during Nazi Germany, but then as previously noted, Republican supporters who have access to the public airwaves of America make those same references to John Kerry.

On a sidenote, Katie now has a image saying she is "a proud member of Al Gore's brownshirts."

Please keep in mind that I believe neither side show be throwing around Nazi images, especially if they did not have to struggle through Nazi Europe. The brutal oppression of that era is something we hopefully will never see in this country, and to use images and make references to any of it shows just how jaded and full of vitriol both sides have become.

I was listening to C-Span this morning and listened to a man full of rage denouncing the liberal view. He went on to say that Middle Eastern children are being taught hatred for Americans. I wondered what he would teach his kids about the liberal viewpoint in America today.

I'm afraid that liberals and conservatives now seem to be teaching a hatred for each other in America today. This, first and foremost, is the greatest threat opposing America today. Not destruction from the outside, but destruction from within. Is this what the terrorists wanted? I'm not able to say, but I'm pretty sure they don't care how the country comes down as long as it does. Civil discussions are and lack of name calling is the key to turning this country around.