OT: Mock Outrage--Is This Something New? [Archive]

Swaggs

03-04-2004, 10:27 PM

While watching the news shows in the past few months, I have really started to notice and become disgusted by something I have heard referred to as "Mock Outrage." That is (in my opinion) folks speaking out and acting appalled over seemingly minor events in the name of partisian politics.

Now don't get me wrong, I am a very partisian person and have made little secret of that on this board, but I am getting disgusted by both the right and left on this item.

The news item that I am thinking about at the moment is the liberals showing mock outrage that President Bush is using 9/11 in his re-election campaigns. I am far from a fan of Bush, but I can admit that he acted in a strong manner in the time period immediately after 9/11. Of course, he is pandering and reminding his target audience that he was there for the country during that difficult time. Why wouldn't he?

What is disturbing me is that the democrats are wasting time being critical of the Bush ads, rather than putting their focus on issues. It is like when two kids fight and one acts like he is more hurt than he really is so that the other one will get in trouble.

Is mock outrage a new relatively new phenomenon brought on by two extremely polarizing presidents (Clinton and Bush) or has it always been around?

Desnudo

03-04-2004, 10:28 PM

I think it has always been around. Politics is politics as Tip O'Neill used to say.

Pumpy Tudors

03-04-2004, 10:35 PM

Well, gee, it must not be new, considering that it's been happening on this board for years.

Ksyrup

03-04-2004, 10:38 PM

It is ridiculous. So far I've seen exactly 2 victims' family members quoted as being "outraged" by the ads, yet that warrants the top headline on CNN.com and the top news story every hour on the local AM news station.

I know both sides do it, and it doesn't make it right for either side, but in this case, it is so obvious that this is nothing more than the Democrats attempting to overshadow the message of the ad by feigning outrage at the ad itself, that it is almost transparent. I mean, you can find a handful of people who will be outraged about pretty much anything these days.

And yet this is the lead story...

Tigercat

03-04-2004, 10:59 PM

Democrats? Where is Kerry out talking about this? I don't doubt that any negative reaction to this is politically motivated, but the stories I have seen the critsism has come from: victims, fire fighter's union, and police officers. Thats not to say that Bush is right or wrong, but to say that their is no clear indication of the democratic party or leardership saying anything about it yet.

And by the way, the democratic party and the press are not connected, no matter how liberal the press may lean. The democratic party isn't telling the press to air stories critisizing the ads, the media is just airing something they believe the public may be interested in hearing about. And, what do you know, heres a thread on it!

Fonzie

03-04-2004, 11:24 PM

I find this whole thread outrageous and demand compensation for the emotional distress I was forced to experience while reading it.

Fonzie

03-04-2004, 11:26 PM

Dola-

I think we can all agree, even the most partisan of us, that there are many aspects of the political process that we could do without (including the mock indignation crap). Alas, nobody listens to us poor FOFCers.

Peregrine

03-04-2004, 11:39 PM

It may be mock outrage on the part of Democrats but I can certainly understand people being upset to see their slain loved ones used to support any political campaign.

sabotai

03-05-2004, 12:17 AM

I agree Swaggs. I see it from boths sides on just about every issue and all I do is roll my eyes and change the channel.

BigJohn&TheLions

03-05-2004, 12:17 AM

I found it disgusting that Bush came here to get in a photo op (and dont try saying that it wasn't, because if it wasn't he didn't need to pose for pictures)

I live in NYC and was at the Trade Center the day before. The building I had class in sits half destroyed to this day. A friend of mine lost 12 drinking buddies. Unions took over the rescue operation almost immediately and the guys who bravely worked the rescue operation hauling buckets of debris made union overtime wages while volunteers like myself were turned away. I ended up volunteering at the Javits center loading and unloading trucks of supplies. Bush goes to "ground zero" for a photo op. Would Teddy Roosevelt have come in to get his picture taken? Would Lincoln? Washington?

I had a guy show up with a rental trailer full of water, work boots, gloves, canned food and other supplies. Told me he had just drove in from Chicago. I had just been told that we were to accept no more supplies. The man hugged me and told me how grateful he was for everything we were doing. I found it a bit strange, but thanked him and got some guys to unload his stuff. One of the guys then tells me what this guy's wife had told him. His brother was missing. I will never forget that man's hug.

I hope one day we can have a president who doesn't give a damn about polls or photo-ops or fund-raisers and just does what is right. Bush is not that man. Neither is Kerry. The closest man running is Nader. Damn I wish McCain hadn't been pushed out the way by the Bush royal court... He could have been a great leader for a nation who needs one.

Abe Sargent

03-05-2004, 03:09 AM

Republicans were outraged that Grover Cleveland had a bastard kid. Supporters of John Q. Adams were outraged that Andrew Jackson's wife never officially devorced her first husband, thereby technically making her a polygamist. Andrew Jackson's supporters were outraged that John Q. Adams played prissy games like Billiards while Jackson wrestled bears. Later, after Jackson lost and his wife died, he and his supporters were outraged that J Q Adams killed his wife with the accusations of polygamy (which were true and which J Q had never used in his own speeches). From being outraged that a sitting preseident could be so fat when people were starving, (Wilson to Taft) to being outraged that a president did exactly what his highly popular predeccessor outlined that he would do before dying (Andrew Johnson), to being outraged that a certain vice president was rumored to be gay (Dallas) - "outrage" has been a classic staple of politics going back to Parliament and Britain. Nothing new under this sun.

-Anxiety

cthomer5000

03-05-2004, 05:45 AM

I find this whole thread outrageous and demand compensation for the emotional distress I was forced to experience while reading it.
What! How dare you! I call for the swift banning of Fonzie, and furthermore for the immediate locking and deletion of this thread!

This is a (mock) outrage!

Super Ugly

03-05-2004, 06:03 AM

CamEdwards

03-05-2004, 06:25 AM

you would have preferred the President NOT visit Ground Zero? Wow.

Damn that Lincoln for visiting Gettysburg just do deliver a partisan political speech.

Damn that President Clinton for visiting Oklahoma City after the Murrah bombing.

I'm just stunned that with all the crass commercialization of 9-11, what you and others choose to speak out about aren't the vendors selling cheap t-shirts by Ground Zero, not the commemorative plates at the Franklin Mint, etc. You complain about the president visiting the rescue workers at Ground Zero.

In the immortal words of Kyle Brovlofsky, "Dude, that's pretty ****ed up right there."

Ksyrup

03-05-2004, 06:29 AM

BigJohn&TheLions, that was a great post. I had the misfortune of being in NYC that day as well, and I get fucking pissed off anytime I see people trying to spin September 11 for their own gain, even I have no role to play in the American political system. That day is so deeply embedded in the world's consciousness, it's pea-brained and ham-fisted to use it in a political ad. Everybody involved with that ad should be fucking ashamed of themselves.
Bush isn't allowed to tout his leadership through the 9/11 tragedy, but the supposed intelligence failures that lead to 9/11 are fair game for attack by the Democrats? Aren't they using 9/11 for political gain as well? I don't see what's wrong with it in either instance. 9/11 may have been a tragedy, but it is also an event that took place and shaped our country. Bush wants to show that he handled it as President as well as anyone could; the Dems want to show that none of it should have happened. I have no problem with either of them trying to make their points, because both are valid and germane to the election.

Look, I can at least understand an objection to certain images, although that's all they are - images. But to suggest that the subject is off-limits. Huh? Part of being a President - a larg part - is showing leadership, and that's what Bush is reminding everyone of. If you say he can't do that, then no incumbent should ever be able to "rehash" their terms in office, since "we all remember" what occurred.

And let's not forget that if Gore was in Bush's place, he'd be running these same kinds of ads. And of course, Republicans would be feigning outrage at them as well...

Ksyrup

03-05-2004, 06:30 AM

I'm just stunned that with all the crass commercialization of 9-11, what you and others choose to speak out about aren't the vendors selling cheap t-shirts by Ground Zero, not the commemorative plates at the Franklin Mint, etc. You complain about the president visiting the rescue workers at Ground Zero.
...or the money made off of 9/11 by Bruce Springsteen and every other artist who felt "moved" and rushed a song to pressing for sale at your local mall.

Dutch

03-05-2004, 08:35 AM

I remember how happy everybody was that President Bush went to visit the workers and the fireman and the policeman. We were all stunned and wondered, "When will the President show up to provide leadership?"

We asked that. The news asked that. If anybody here would not have gone to that site as President their intentions would have been villified.

Those bashing Bush now are being partisan in their thinking, whether they understand it or not.

I remember when he's trying to give his impromptu speech the fireman yells out, "I can't hear you!" and Bush responds, "Well, I can hear you! And pretty soon, whoever did this, will hear from all of us."

That should be something he should get credit for, and a vast majority of Americans do. Those who can't see past the politics are the only ones bitching about it. That's a fact.

Butter

03-05-2004, 08:42 AM

Those who can't see past the politics are the only ones bitching about it. That's a fact.

These 2 sentences are perhaps the most hilarious I've ever read here.

Thanks for the laugh, Dutch!

Maple Leafs

03-05-2004, 08:46 AM

Bush flying around in a jet like a goof in a jump suit in front of a "mission accomplished" banner = photo op
Bush visiting the site of an unspeakable tragedy to lend his support != photo op

Butter

03-05-2004, 08:51 AM

When considering instances of mock outrage, I'm struck by all those so mortally wounded by Janet Jackson's boob.

Crim

03-05-2004, 08:58 AM

Bush isn't allowed to tout his leadership through the 9/11 tragedy, but the supposed intelligence failures that lead to 9/11 are fair game for attack by the Democrats? Aren't they using 9/11 for political gain as well? I don't see what's wrong with it in either instance. 9/11 may have been a tragedy, but it is also an event that took place and shaped our country. Bush wants to show that he handled it as President as well as anyone could; the Dems want to show that none of it should have happened. I have no problem with either of them trying to make their points, because both are valid and germane to the election.

Look, I can at least understand an objection to certain images, although that's all they are - images. But to suggest that the subject is off-limits. Huh? Part of being a President - a larg part - is showing leadership, and that's what Bush is reminding everyone of. If you say he can't do that, then no incumbent should ever be able to "rehash" their terms in office, since "we all remember" what occurred.

And let's not forget that if Gore was in Bush's place, he'd be running these same kinds of ads. And of course, Republicans would be feigning outrage at them as well...

Crim hearts Ksyrup.

Look, noone's clean in all this. I am a registered, Republican, I voted for Bush, will vote for Bush again. There. Now that's out of the way.

Having said that, the Crim says this: Outrage is a tool used by politicians. Unfortunately, it works, as some posters here have demonstrated. There is no bi-partisanship. Each party sincerely wants the other party to fail miserably in every endeavor.

This is why when Clinton intervenes in Kosovo, Republicans are outraged.
This is why when Bush intevenes in Iraq, Democrats are outraged.
This is why Republicans made such a fuss about Clinton being a draft dodger.
This is why Democrats are making such a fuss about Bush being a draft dodger.

This is a product of our system of government. I'll take it. And I'll have a grain of salt on the side, please.

Crim

Crim

03-05-2004, 09:08 AM

Bush flying around in a jet like a goof in a jump suit in front of a "mission accomplished" banner = photo op
Bush visiting the site of an unspeakable tragedy to lend his support != photo op

Clinton kneeling in somber reflection on the beaches of Normandy = photo op

What's your point? That's what they do. The Bush Administration even used a picture taken of Bush on the phone on 9/11 for fund raising. Same thing.

On the other hand, Bush did show up for the aformentioned ground zero photo op. Remember in the debate when the Texas floods were mentioned, and Gore spoke about having visited the site, and grieved with the families who'd lost so much, and a day later it was revealed that he had not in fact ever made that trip?

Bah. It's all the same crap, they all do it, and if they didn't, they'd be hacked up for not doing it.

Crim

JonInMiddleGA

03-05-2004, 09:10 AM

A) There's nothing new under the sun, as several have pointed out already.
B) Dutch covered most of the rest of my take.
C) Ksyrup summed up my reaction to the ads pretty well, this is a valid issue & either party would be foolish not to make mention & use of the subject.

As to the wording of the original question, IMO it appears that it may dismiss too much as "minor events".

From where I sit (and have mentioned quite a few times), I believe more & more of the divisions along party lines stem not from anything the parties themselves do nearly so much as the parties are merely reflections of the divides that exist on not just "issues" but moreso about "values". In other words, the divided state of American socio-politics is illustrated by positions on issues, but determined by what values we each hold most strongly. And the things I value most seem to have little in common with the values of those on the other side of the political aisle.

Once again, at the risk of repeating myself, I don't really get upset about "divisive politics", they're merely a reflection of what already exists in society. It's effect, not cause.

Maple Leafs

03-05-2004, 10:15 AM

On the other hand, Bush did show up for the aformentioned ground zero photo op.I still don't think it was a photo op. Just because there's a photo of an event doesn't mean that the event took place for that reason.

sooner333

03-05-2004, 10:16 AM

All I have to say is that of course Bush is going to try to use the September 11th attacks as something that proved his leadership and character. He delivered probably his best speech in front of Congress after it happened and he made quick decisions. This was an event that DEFINED the first two years of his presidency for sure, and probably all four. It was event that DEFINED our society. He was President, he called a lot of the shots, and quite frankly, its one of the best things he's had to do while in office (dealing with the tragedy, not the event itself, let me make that clear).

Super Ugly

03-05-2004, 10:19 AM

I'm not criticising the president making a speech to all the people at the site. I'd expect any leader to do the same thing. However, what I take offence to is the way the imagery of September 11 has been exploited, both for political and commerical gain (I agree 100% with Cam when he complains about the T-shirts and commemorative plates).

Ksyrup talks about it 'just' being a series of images, but I think that this plays down the force of those images. You can have an argument with somebody over foreign policy, or national security, and by cutting and pasting a picture of the WTC on fire you've played a very powerful trump card that can give your argument illegitimate weight. That's what I mean about people spinning September 11 for their own benefit, and the ad is a good example.

p.s. I'd be equally pissed if it was a Democrat using the ad, too. And I think it's pathetic if they imply that September 11 wouldn't have happened under a Democrat president. Republicans, Democrats, they're all the same to me and the other 95% of the world that doesn't get to vote on who their sugar daddy is going to be ;) .

panerd

03-05-2004, 10:19 AM

I still don't think it was a photo op. Just because there's a photo of an event doesn't mean that the event took place for that reason.

I agree with this 100%. I don't believe the current issue has anything to do with Bush using 9-11 as a photo op at the time. It is that he is using it in his re-election ad's. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other as I think this is a more personal issue for the firemen and the New Yorkers. I also don't feel that one or two people speak for everyone, and if Bush really wants to alienate even one voter with his ad that is his own problem. I do feel however that the current news story is being spun by both sides here at FOFC and being turned into an entirely different issue all together.

Glengoyne

03-05-2004, 10:20 AM

I think it is a powerful message, and the Democrats are afraid of it. So they pull out the "How Dare he exploit those victims" card, so the Republicans will pull the commercial.

panerd

03-05-2004, 10:21 AM

I think it is a powerful message, and the Democrats are afraid of it. So they pull out the "How Dare he exploit those victims" card, so the Republicans will pull the commercial.

Once again this is total spin on what is really happening. All comments I have read in articles have been from firefighters and people who lost friends/family. Are they Democrats? Maybe. Is Kerry and/or his campaign saying anything? Not to my knowledge.

Glengoyne

03-05-2004, 11:23 AM

Once again this is total spin on what is really happening. All comments I have read in articles have been from firefighters and people who lost friends/family. Are they Democrats? Maybe. Is Kerry and/or his campaign saying anything? Not to my knowledge.
Most of the news stories I have heard regarding this start with "Congressional Democrats are outraged by". I have seen interviews of victim's families, and both of those family members said they were angered that the President doesn't completely cooperate with the 9/11 commission, but will use the event in his campaign. I have yet to hear any firefighters speak out against it, but I certainly don't doubt it. They lost a lot of friends that day. I am also pretty certain that there are a lot of folks affected by 9/11 that don't have a single problem with the ads. I think the folks complaining have agendas. I think the thread's title and first post indicate I am not alone in that assessment.

That said. How can September eleventh NOT be discussed in the campaign. That attack is central to what government is doing today. Like it or not 9/11 is driving the bus. Saying it is off limits is ridiculous. Especially when you do figure in the fact that Democrats are attacking the President for "allowing" it to happen.

GrantDawg

03-05-2004, 11:30 AM

mgadfly

03-05-2004, 12:01 PM

I don't care which way either side "spins" it. I don't like somebody using 9-11 in their commercials. I wouldn't do it, and I don't want to vote for somebody that does. That includes all the commercial vendors selling T-shirts down by ground zero and all the people who rushed out and produced songs. I hope none of them get elected president either.

Going to the site during September of 2001 was a great move. Both as a person and a politician. Making an ad campaign on the subject, basically using the deaths of those people to his advantage 3 years later, is not cool to me. And that has nothing to do with spin.

Easy Mac

03-05-2004, 12:02 PM

An example of "mock outrage" by "republicans" but not the republican party.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113061,00.html

Easy Mac

03-05-2004, 12:04 PM

I remember driving down the roads the days after 9/11, and I remember all these people selling American flags by the road... I remember Wa-Mart having flags all over the place for sale. All I could remember thinking was that, if these people really cared that much, shouldn't they be giving these flags away?

GrantDawg

03-05-2004, 12:10 PM

An example of "mock outrage" by "republicans" but not the republican party.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113061,00.html
Does that prove anything? O'Reilly has been complaining about this stuff forever (and he is not alone on either side of the aisle. Lieberman, anyone? Tipper Gore, anyone?). Bad example.

I’m not saying that sometimes outrage is moved by party politics, but this one (backed by the Firemen’s union that has already pledged support to Kerry) is pretty blatant, and it would take a blind man not to see it.

Easy Mac

03-05-2004, 12:14 PM

all mock outrage starts some time... doesn't make it any less stupid if its been going on 3 years or 1 year.

Glengoyne

03-05-2004, 12:35 PM

An example of "mock outrage" by "republicans" but not the republican party.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113061,00.html

I am not sure O'Reilly reaches outrage in that article. I'd still classify that as "much ado about nothing". I am not disagreeing with you. Both sides do this. It is really just our job to wade through it.

BigJohn&TheLions

03-05-2004, 12:41 PM

Cam... I did not say that he should have NOT visited the site of the terrorist attack, but my commentary was not aimed only at him. I am no fan of George "Dummy-Ya" Bush, nor was I a big fan of Bill Clinton (like the BJ, hate NAFTA.) I think the way our land is shaped by tabloid journalism is appalling. A recent story about a sanitation worker killed by a dump truck had pictures of the woman, a similar truck, and just about any other thing you could think of other than a picture of actual garbage! 80 years ago the story would have been in the paper, but not covering two pages with full color pictures to show the dumb folks out there what a garbage truck looks like.

Bush went to the Trade Center site, posed for pictures with a bullhorn and his arm around a fireman, then left. What did he do afterward? Afghanistan... well that script was pretty much written for him. If Dudley Do Right was president we would have went into Afghanistan. The Department of Homeland Security? Well, to me sounds like a way not to blame The Defense Department. Did we need another layer of bureaucracy, or just reorganization after a thorough investigation into how this got fucked up?

What has Bush laid out in any kind of plan to change American society to destroy the circumstances that led to this? We still fund terrorist nations by consuming most of the world's oil. We still rely way too much on air travel. We still allow way too much leeway in legal immigration and anyone can walk across the border that wants to.

Leadership is more than kissing babies, taking pictures, and making speeches approved by your advisors. Leadership is telling people what they don't want to hear and getting people to follow you anyway. Jimmy Carter (yes, he had his faults too) showed more leadership when he told Americans to conserve energy and put on a sweater if they were cold. Today that would be political suicide. This nation has become way too partisan for true leadership to emerge on top.

By the way... I find the vendors selling hats, t-shirts, photos and anything else you can think of sickening. The city could outlaw street vending anything but food in a 10 block radius and that would fix it, but they won't.

I pretty much hate everything! :D

Jon

03-05-2004, 12:46 PM

I think that the problem that many are having with the ad is not that Bush is pushing his leadership, but the fact he is making visual references to the wreckage. That has nothing to do with his promotion of his post-September leadership. If the Dems had shown the same footage and criticized his leadership, Republicans would be questioning the Dems patriotism. It's a fact of American politics.

GrantDawg

03-05-2004, 12:49 PM

sabotai

03-05-2004, 02:20 PM

Remember in the debate when the Texas floods were mentioned, and Gore spoke about having visited the site, and grieved with the families who'd lost so much, and a day later it was revealed that he had not in fact ever made that trip?

Nothing to do with mock outrage, just wanted to address this. Gore did make that trip. What the fuss was about was that Gore said he made that trip with a certain somebody (who's name and job I have forgotten). It turned out he did not go there with this person, but with someone else. The republicans made a huge deal out of this (even though Gore did make 17 trips with this person to different places. He obviously just forgotten he did not make this one trip with the certain somebody.). But Gore did go there.

And this thread has shown many examples of mock outrage. Congrats all around. Bravo. :D