There’s Nothing Wrong With Using Bin Laden & Hussein In Campaign Commercials
We’re still being treated by the Democrats to a lot of phony outrage about a commercial that was run in the 2002 Georgia Senate race. Here’s a description of the ad from the Cleland friendly Veterans For Peace website….
“It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. “As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators,” said a narrator, “Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead. He says he supports President Bush at every opportunity, but that’s not the truth. Since July, Max Cleland voted against President Bush’s vital homeland security efforts 11 times!”
That ad was denounced at the time by RINOs like Chuck Hagel and John McCain and the Democrats are still carping about it today. But, while you’ll often hear that ad called “vicious” or an “attack on Cleland’s patriotism,” the real problem the Dems had with it was that it was effective.
Chambliss didn’t say Cleland supported Saddam or Bin Laden, he was just pointing out that Cleland was making life easier for them. You can agree or disagree with that point, but I don’t think it’s the least bit unfair to make it. To the contrary, given the “lies, d@mned lies, and statistics” that are often repeated as fact in campaign commercials, I’d say that ad was better than most of them you’ll see in a Senate race.
Which brings me to the 2004 presidential election. There would be nothing with running a campaign commercial like this one suggested by Jonah Goldberg, that portrays Al-Qaeda as being thrilled with the idea of a John Kerry presidency. Given the ruthless way that the Bush administration has hunted down Al-Qaeda, the best thing that could ever happen for Bin Laden & company would be for an internationalist liberal who views terrorism as a law enforcement matter to become President. So why would be “vicious” to note the obvious truth?
Furthermore, despite voting for the war, John Kerry bent over backwards in the Democratic primaries to make it clear he didn’t think we should have gone to war in Iraq. So what would be wrong with putting Saddam’s pic in a campaign commercial, talking about the ricin, terrorist ties, and mass graves, while pointing out that if John Kerry had his way, Saddam would still be in power? Nothing.
Last but not least, the Democrats have been trying to find a way to blame Bush for 9/11 since 2002 and they’ve been complaining that W. hasn’t gotten Bin Laden (don’t be surprised to see Dem campaign commercials hitting those themes this year either). So there’s certainly nothing wrong with nailing Kerry on Saddam and/or Osama in a campaign commercial if it works with the focus groups.