The Gimp vs the Gipper--W's Reagan Mistake

[DrBB]

Billmon is one of the best out there in my book. Right now he's pointing out that W's attempt to associate himself with Reagan doesn't seem to be helping him in recent polls, and the reason may be that the campaign is committing an elementary marketing mistake.

The idea is that product comparisons can be critical, particularly in visual ads. To use a crude example: If you put a bouquet of carnations next to a bouqet of flowers, the carnations look ... ordinary, drab even. But if you put the carnations next to a dirty bucket, they look vivid, fresh, colorful, etc. For the carnations, the dirty bucket is a contrast gainer; the roses a contrast detractor.

It doesn't always work that way. Some or objects compliment rather than contrast each other: coffee and donuts, to use another simple example. It all depends on the product, I guess. I don't know. I only skimmed the book.

But for the past five days (and the next two) the Bushies have been quite aggressively holding their guy up next the iconic image of the late Ronald Reagan - not my idea of a great president, but a larger-than-life figure to many voters and an object of cult-like veneration to the Republican Party.


Care to guess who comes off looking like a dirty bucket in that particular contrast?

[malatesta1137]

1. it's like putting a bucket of excrement

next to a bucket of vomit. Both loose.

[Snellius]

2. Dowd has a good column about this today

Whether he was right or wrong, Ronald Reagan was exhilarating. Whether he is right or wrong, George W. Bush is a bummer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/10/opinion/10DOWD.html

[robbedvoter]

7. best part:

Bush hawks were visibly relieved to be on TV answering questions that had nothing to do with prison torture, phantom W.M.D. or our new C.I.A.-operative-turned-prime-minister in Iraq. What a glorious respite to extol a strong, popular, visionary Republican president who spurred democracy in a big backward chunk of the world — even if it isn't W., and it's the Soviet bloc and not the Middle East.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. Bush's latest campaign ad has him calling himself "optimistic..."

...the most common adjective being used to describe the late Ronald Reagan. Plus, his re-election campaign website now has a new index page (when you type in http://georgewbush.com you get this):


Personally, I think it's a HUGE mistake to compare himself to Reagan on any level. Reagan was elected by sizeable majorities each time, not to mention Reagan could actually speak in public, even when suffering from Alzheimers. Bush can't even pronounce the word nuclear, fer christsake!

[Snellius]

4. Someone isn't optimistic by calling himself "optimistic"

That's the whole bullshit of the Bu**sh** administration in a nutshell. A leader doesn't inspire confidence by going around telling everyone how optimistic he is, but by being optimistic, by inspiring -- by deed or by example -- a more hopeful path.

[bushwakker]

5. The same way that calling himself compassionate

doesn't make him compassionate. If Bush were truly compassionate he wouldn't have to run around the country telling us how compassionate he is - we could see if for ourselves. Clinton didn't have to remind us that he was compasionate and empathetic - we the people (even his detractors) could see that he was. The same way Bush always talks about peace and freedom. Listen to how many times he uses the word "peace". The more he uses it the less likely it is that he believes in it.

[DrBB]

6. It's the whole Bush I/Bush II PHILOSOPHY in a nutshell

It's one of the most striking commonalities between per et fils. It's a mistake to call it cynicism; it's more like a weird mental disorder. In the case of a cynic, you'd call it "giving lip service" to the idea. But I'm convinced that these guys simply don't see the distinction:

TALKING about values is what it MEANS to have values. TALKING about compassion is what it MEANS to have compassion.

As Bush senior put it in one of his speeches, "Message, 'I care.'"

[robbedvoter]

8. You forget W was FDR, Churchill and Cesar all rolled into one!

After 911.