DCCC pulls ad featuring flag-draped coffins

posted at 12:11 am on July 15, 2006 by Allahpundit

Two days ago, I said, “If they’re willing to sow the wind with death photos, so be it. They’ll reap the whirlwind when the backlash comes.”

And now they’ve reaped it.

Stupid ad, stupid controversy. And the nutroots whining that will surely follow about how their leaders never fight is stupider still.

Stupid.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Are you sure you don’t think it’s smart?

StephC on July 15, 2006 at 12:22 AM

They may have pulled the ad, but it doesn’t change their shameful actions. As much as they complained about Republicans showing World Trade Center footage in 2004, they turn around and pull this stunt.

It would reeally be a shocker to ever see them supporting our side.

LewWaters on July 15, 2006 at 12:24 AM

They will never, ever support our side.

StephC on July 15, 2006 at 12:27 AM

No wonder. From LBJ until the present, the Dems have increasingly become the party of lies and deceit.

speed647 on July 15, 2006 at 12:29 AM

Hannity the other night never was able to answer as to why it’s different when Republicans use WTC footage. Exploitation of the dead, in both cases. A desire to portray your party as wanting to stop the deaths in question, in both cases. Fairly equivalent.

I actually don’t have much of a problem with either. They’re honest images… this isn’t like that LBJ one with the little girl and the nuke. The images have to do with a core issue for the party (security against terrorism for Republicans, a faster exit from Iraq for Democrats). My reaction is about the same as when pro-abortion people complain about anti-abortion protesters showing pictures of aborted fetuses. If you can’t handle the consequences of your position, maybe you should reconsider. While images of dead soldiers or their coffins affect me emotionally, I don’t feel the need to suppress such images. Saddam in Kuwait or with chemical/biological/nuclear weapons is unacceptable, from an economic standpoint, from a national security standpoint and from a human rights standpoint. I supported the effort to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and topple his terrorist regime, and the only responsible follow-up to that action is occupation. If some of our soldiers die in the process, we’ll have to deal with that.

There’s definitely an emphasis on negative news about Iraq and Afghanistan, but the problem there lies in the lack of reporting of good news, not that the bad news hasn’t been suppressed and sanitized.

Mark Jaquith on July 15, 2006 at 1:36 AM

To me, there is a definte difference between WTC shots and flag draped coffins. We were attacked viciously and suddenly on 9-11 with a large loss of life. We are at war, whether people wish to agree or not, or enemies have declared war against us.

We have troops in harm’s way receiving little or no praise for their efforts and in some cases, denigration is what they hear. Displying flag draped coffins is a continuation of that denigration, to me. Yes, several have given the ultimate sacrifice, more than I would like, but war is war.

As a Veteran myself, I see the difference in displaying destroyed buildings that people died in different than the flag draped coffins as the coffins are being used to minimize the great sacrifices and good works our troops are performing. They deserve praise, not used as pawns in the left’s anti-war rhetoric.

Had the Democrats used footage showing support of our troops or their good accomplishments, it wouldn’t bother me near as much. The sacrifice of our fightng forces is cheapened when their deaths are used as messages against their good work.

At least, that’s how I see it.

LewWaters on July 15, 2006 at 1:51 AM

The sacrifice of our fightng forces is cheapened when their deaths are used as messages against their good work.

I don’t think that wanting to bring the troops home is necessarily a message “against [the soliders’] good work.” There are many reasons for wanting to bring our soldiers home soon, including:

– you think their mission is accomplished
– you think they’ve done all that can be done
– you don’t think that any further progress that could be made is worth the loss of life

I don’t agree with those reasons, but they’re legitimate reasons and have nothing to do with denigration of the soldiers or their mission.

Mark Jaquith on July 15, 2006 at 2:47 AM

That’s too bad. It would have been fun to hear the Dems explain why the only person depicted with an identifiable religion is an Orthodox Jew who has just pled guilty to a number of federal crimes. Obviously that was not the only Abramoff picture that could have been used, so why was it? It is just the sort of trivial matter that the Left would gin up and about which they would make hay, so you might as well hang it on them, especially in light of the recent “Protocols of the Daily Kos.”

The other interesting bit is not what was depicted, but what was omitted. In the final bit with the uplifting music and the montage of all the diverse members of the Dem party, there is one voting block missing. What happened to the gays? The coffin issue does not violate the Left’s rules, but omitting gays does violate their code of conduct. It would get the nutroots all in a tizzy arguing about the pragmatism of the decision, and it would be fun to hear the excuses made to explain the omission that was probably driven by focus group polling.

Sow a little disagreement in the ranks of the opposition and sit back and watch each side back down and apologize to the other…

rw on July 15, 2006 at 3:44 AM

According to John Kerry these dead soldiers were “terrorizing” women and children in the middle of the night.

gary on July 15, 2006 at 6:26 AM

The Dems have been asking for pull out since what? 3 months after the Iraqi war?

Any statements the dems say in regards to Iraq will be disengenious. It’s like impeaching Bush. The dems were planning on impeaching him before the election. (well, maybe they waited for the SC to rule on Florida)

Wyrd on July 15, 2006 at 7:03 AM

The difference when the Republicans show those kinds of images and Democrats is quite stark. When Republicans do it’s a reminder of why we fight. When Democrats do it’s to undermine the mission those very soldiers gave their lives for.

Capitalist Infidel on July 15, 2006 at 8:05 AM

Wyrd,

Actually, sooner than that. They yelled “Quagmire!!” during the first week of the war during that big sandstorm that lasted for days. Heck, they’ve yelled “Quagmire” nearly every week since the war started….until it became “Vietnammmmmmmmmmm!” (voice of John sKerry).

Kokonut on July 15, 2006 at 10:19 AM

Yeah, remember the days when we were never going to be able to take Baghdad?

Pablo on July 15, 2006 at 12:24 PM

The difference between using draped coffins and WTC footage is that WTC footage focuses on the act of terror that created it. But draped coffins of our soldiers is focusing on the loss of those particular men. That is a big difference. One is highlighting an attack made on the country, the other is merely trying to provoke emotions about dead soldiers.

One is a rallying cry to get justice, the other a way to provoke anti-government feelings to STOP us from getting justice.

If Hannity couldn’t figure that out, he is less eloquent than I previously thought … and I never thought he was that eloquent in the FIRST place!

Warner Todd Huston on July 15, 2006 at 2:23 PM

Well the differences to my mind are less than the similiar intent: both are being used to support the election of one candidate (s) over another. And both are smarmy.

honora on July 15, 2006 at 3:38 PM

They’re honest images… this isn’t like that LBJ one with the little girl and the nuke. The images have to do with a core issue for the party (security against terrorism for Republicans, a faster exit from Iraq for Democrats). My reaction is about the same as when pro-abortion people complain about anti-abortion protesters showing pictures of aborted fetuses. If you can’t handle the consequences of your position, maybe you should reconsider.

Well said, Mark. I think we must be willing to accept the truth. Doctoring the DeLay photo is another story.

Also, I think it was Mike Reagan who was being pushed by Alan Colmes to answer the question in, uh, question.

mikeyboss on July 15, 2006 at 4:56 PM

Because they pulled the ad that makes them smart. Had they run the ads on cable in the family hour, that would have made them stupid, and a lot of enemies. But floating the story of the ad in test waters gives the base the message they crave, and the double pleasure of seeing outrage in their enemies. Until the ad is played in some family hour, during Desperate Housewives or the football game it doesn’t register.

There is a big difference between WTC footage, and flag draped coffins of soldiers. It is more than just honest images.

The equivalent would have been the flag draped coffins of 911 victims in a political ad. Every victim has a name. Every coffin has a name. The WTC has a meaning, not a person’s name. Crowd scenes have meaning, but not a person’s name.

It has never been appropriate in this society to use the burial of a recently dead person for a promo. The dead person belongs to the family of the dead. That is why picketing the funerals of dead soldiers is so resented. You have to be family.

It doesn’t have to be put in the rule book.

Using the coffins is exactly like showing Bush’s picture under the cross hairs of a rifle scope. It is a dirty pleasure. You do not do either, if you have any decency.

Both images say a lot about the opposition. Most people catch on that the target picture shows a gleeful craving for the death of the one in the cross hairs. but there is also the creepy glee of the trophy hunter in the display of a victim who can never give consent to his own desecration.

entagor on July 16, 2006 at 11:25 PM

There was an image of a flag draped coffin–albeit background–in the Bush/Cheney ad. Let’s stop splitting hairs.

honora on July 18, 2006 at 9:29 AM