pudge's Journal: Vote GOP Or Die!

The Republican National Committee has a new ad on their home page. It notes, rightly, that al Qaeda still wants to kill us, that we are at war, etc. Then it says that if you don't vote Republican, the terrorists will win. It almost literally says that.

It was a good ad up until that part. You can argue the GOP will be better at fighting the terrorists. But you can't argue we'll lose if the GOP loses. Sorry, no cookie.

meh it's election time

[nocomment]

I'd like to think that only the dems run smears, but I think most people can sift through the garbage.

Vote GOP or die?

[bmetzler]

I don't know. I watched the ad and missed the "Vote GOP or die" part. Perhaps they removed it after you viewed it? j/k

What the ad seems to be saying is that there are people who hate us and want to hurt us collectively, and the Democrats don't feel it is important to defend us. At least they haven't told us how they plan to defend us.

I give this ad an A for message.

Re:

[pudge]

It said the "stakes" of this year's elections are whether or not al Qaeda kill us.

Re:

[bmetzler]

It said the "stakes" of this year's elections are whether or not al Qaeda kill us.

Yeah? That's a whole lot different then vote GOP or die.

No one argues that the overall political theme this year has been the difference in national defense strategy. Is the threat real? Yes. Do the Democrats want to fight the terrorists? No. These are the "stakes" in November. I don't really see what is objectable with the ad.

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

Because Republicans control Congress and the Presidency, this election is partly a referendum on how well they have dealt with terrorism and Iraq. Democrats want to protect Americans. They don't have to detail their plans though to the voters because this is about what Republicans have done. Making a big deal over a detailed plan will attract spin and attack ads to it and distract from issues where Dems are head-and-shoulders more popular than the Reps with voters. Dems have tried to get their amendment

Re:

[pudge]

Democrats ... don't have to detail their plans though to the voters because this is about what Republicans have done.

Unless they want to be responsible.

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

In general, it's harder to win the voters over with facts, opinions, and philosophy if the opposition is willing to flat-out lie or radically distort the truth. I'm sure plenty of Reps say the Dems do that, but I'd guess a greater percentage of Dems think the Reps do. Consequently, it's not in the Dems' interest to announce plans on all the issues since the Republican spin machine will jump all over it. It's not called spin for nothing.

Maybe you've already done a JE on this topic and I've forgotten, but

Re:

[pudge]

It said the "stakes" of this year's elections are whether or not al Qaeda kill us.

Yeah? That's a whole lot different then vote GOP or die.

How so?

The GOP ad says the stakes of the elections -- deciding which party wins control -- are whether al Qaeda kills us. I don't understand how that is not "vote GOP or die."

Re:

[bmetzler]

Well, if you consider the Democrat's national defense policy means that we will all die, then yes, I think that you can interprete the ad "Vote GOP or Die!" I think that's a little extreme though. Yes, the Democrats national defense policies are bad, and they don't take the threats seriously, but it doesn't mean that I believe if they are elected we will all die. We'll just go through a Clinton-era policy of attacks and negotiations until people realize that post-9/11 policies are better for America. An

Re:

[pudge]

Well, if you consider the Democrat's national defense policy means that we will all die, then yes, I think that you can interprete the ad "Vote GOP or Die!"

No. What I am saying is that the ad is saying that. It says the stakes of the election -- whether Democrats control things, or Republicans do -- are that al Qaeda kills us or not. That if the Democrats win, al Qaeda kills us. That is what the ad is saying.

Re:

[ak3ldama]

I fail to see how post 9/11 policies are better for America. We have lost freedoms, increased national debt, stretched our military thin, and our military is in serious need of better equipment. Not to mention: in all likelyhood we are just as succeptible to attack as before 9/11. The terrorists attacks on 9/11 were probably a long time coming and we were going to have some attacks happen eventually, what we are doing now as a result is in-excusable. Not only is our social security system in trouble, so

Re:

[pudge]

We have lost freedoms

Name one.

increased national debt

That is mostly irrespective of policies relating to 9/11. We have increased spending across the board, and could have cut to match increases in defense/homesec/etc.

stretched our military thin

Eh. Not really.

and our military is in serious need of better equipment

So say some. The people I trust, including some who were in Iraq, say differently.

Not to mention: in all likelyhood we are just as succeptible to attack as before 9/11.

Well, no, we are not. It i

Re:

[ak3ldama]

I don't where you get your information but i got most of mine (that i listed) from listening to unbiased people, such as a speech made in South Dakota by John McCain. We are using the National Guard currently at levels we never had in the past. Their equipment is no longer up to par. (That's what he said after he and John Thune made a trip to Iraq, they're on some appropriate committe to find out about stuff like that.) He also made several comments about our spending being out of control. He said that

Re:

[pudge]

We are using the National Guard currently at levels we never had in the past.

Yes, but recruitment targets are being met, and frankly, I do not consider the NG as "the military" in the context of "the military is stretched thin." If you meant that, well, then that changes things a bit. NG is being stretched thin, but I don't agree that our military is being stretched significantly thin.

Their equipment is no longer up to par.

Shrug. So they say. And others say differently. Do you have specifics?

(That's wh