Posted on 10/24/2006 5:40:33 PM PDT by BigChiefEddieLightningFrog
Zucker's Point
by Edward Wronka
Modern day politics had appeared to reach its boiling point during the last U.S Presidential election in the release of Fahrenheit 911. It combined polished Hollywood production values with blatantly inflammatory political rhetoric and grand allusions of wicked deception at the highest levels of our GOP-infested government. There were many on the Republican side who thought the film was simply over-the-top. Despite all the hoopla, when all was said and done, people chose George W. Bush for their President, evidently dismissing this sinister portrayal by Michael Moore. After all, fact is still fact, and fiction is still fiction.
Two years later we have new short film that many GOP party-establishment are dismissing as being too over-the-top for the American public. But all of us who favor a serious debate on our nation’s increasingly important foreign policy should give this little film a more serious second look, no matter what sort of psychological problems it may inflict on leftist commentators like Keith Olberman.
Hollywood Producer David Zucker’s 90-second political attack ad was made as a pro-bono service to try and help Republicans in the imminent mid-term elections. It hits hard and right to the point as to why people who call themselves Republicans do so, namely because they favor a foreign policy derived from a position of strength, rather than from a position of wishful thinking. More importantly, the commercial steamrolls passed Jimmy Carter’s deer-in-the-headlight faction of the Democratic party and heads straight on to downtown Clinton street.
The ad specifically conveys a rather crude, but partially accurate portrayal of President Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s last visit with the arch-enemy of the world, Kim Jong Il. While Albright’s lawn mowing and cheerleading depictions are quite plainly false and obviously satirical, Albright did in fact bestow upon North Korea’s dictator a Michael Jordan-autographed basketball, and she did share a champagne toast with him for all the world to see. A far cry from the Bush administration’s hardline Axis-of-Evil speech, and absolute refusal to one-on-one talks that do not inlcude among other nations, China.
So there you have it for all to see, the differences between to two sides. So who’s right?
Well quite clearly the Scary Movie 4 producer thinks Bush approach is right. The mostly exaggerated cartoonish exploits of Madeline Albright concludes with a soberingly serious statement: “In a post 9/11 world, making nice to our enemies will not make them nice to us. On the contrary, to them it is a sign of weakness....The security of the United States is not a game. Can we afford a party that treats it like one?”
In contrast, too many liberal media figures from Andrea Mitchell to the editorial board of the New York Times have perpetuated a ridiculous idea that somehow Bush’s tough rhetoric towards North Korea is somehow the source of all our problems. On Bill Maher’s HBO program recently, self-proclaimed foreign policy genius Richard Clarke lamented, “shouldn’t we be talking to them?” That remark was immediately followed by a Michael Moore-ish type of derision that alluded to Bush’s lack of interest in North Korea being derived from their lack of oil. These statements led to much applause from the studio audience.
Republicans often pay a great price for such a creeping pop culture messages that instill non-logical prejudices on very complicated issues. A vigorous response is needed to correct these plainly false notions lingering in the American psyche.
Bush’s multilateral talks in place of Clinton’s uniliateral talks are the policy key.
While China and Russia’s nuclear ownership is tempered by the ever painful but reliable principle of mutual assured destruction, no such principle can be guaranteed against a rogue nation like North Korea. A potential strike by them against Seoul, Tokyo, and/or Los Angelese cannot be responded to mutually since the entire annhilation of North Korea can hardly be an acceptable trade to any American President.
Unfortunately such deep thoughts on national security rarely translate into good political commercials. A long time ago, Ronald Reagan ran an ad about the Bear in the Woods. Maybe David Zucker’s South Park approach will work for this new generation of voters.
You wouldn't happen to have a link to the ad, would you?
Thank you! That was terrific. It should at least run on MTV or someplace where younger voters can see it.
The ad is juvenile and poorly done.
Democrats on the other hand go too far, but keep in mind they held power in Congress for 40 years as opposed to the Republicans' dominance of 12 years. The GOP needs to counter attack decisively and effectively to get their message across and to move the voters to the voting booth on election day.
I think this ad is good and any other ad that conveys a strong rebuke to the Democrat's agenda is welcomed. However, they won't use this ad for fear of offending someone. Never mind the gratuitous insults the Democrats and their surrogates generously pour upon the Republicans 24/7.
"Republicans often pay a great price for such a creeping pop culture messages that instill non-logical prejudices on very complicated issues. A vigorous response is needed to correct these plainly false notions lingering in the American psyche."
I concur.
Yes I agree - the Republicans have never seemed comfortable with power, so they wield it clumsily. As I have said before, they are not the best we have, they are simply the best we've got. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.