Would anyone see this as "poor taste" if it was Clinton instead?

President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama
31.08.06

Bush is shot by a sniper in a scene from Death of a President.

Held up by a secret service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach, this is President Bush being assassinated.

Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration.

But rather than a repeat of JFK's shooting or Ronald Reagan's attempted assassination, this shocking image is part of a new Channel Four show.

The dramatic scene, which has caused outrage among Americans, has been created by a British film company for a programme about the effect of the War On Terror.
<snip>
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365246-details/President+Bush+assassinated+in+new+TV+docudrama/article.do


I won't say anything pro or con about this because I haven't seen the movie, but I will ask this:

Would any right wingers complain about this if it was Clinton instead? I don't think they would. What talking points would they use against anyone who DID complain about it? I'm interested in hearing what DU'ers think they would say. How well can we predict their reaction if the shoe was on the other foot?

so it just goes to show, there is no fair and balanced.

make references to shooting one of our presidents, yet no one made a sound about it. Fair and balanced would be so far from what we currently have. What we currently have is 100% right wing garbage with only actors playing the left. It's pathetic.

so we could have our chance to have our say before it hits us complete with insults and blame. You know they will put the blame for this on us first thing.

that spot and it would be better to do that. I think.

works just fine for any plotline. I still wonder about the people who made this one. I wonder what their political leanings are and if they have an agenda. You are right though. It is over the top in any case.

In them, back with say Fail Safe, the President was always a non-named President like President Stevens or some thing. Stranglove I do not think used a named one either but just the persons in the office. One they held up showing with Langbury in it because it was to real or something and that was about killing and brain washing. Can not recall the name this early.

of course they can show whatever they want.

The film probably is in poor taste; but has anybody watched what's being shown on American cable these days? Even the so-called "news" broadcasts are in poor taste.

I'm sure the right-wingers would like to see such a film about Bill Clinton and am somewhat surprised Fox hasn't made one yet.

"Outrage among Americans"? What a joke. Any nation which engages in "Shock and Awe" against defenseless civilians has lost its right to feel outrage about anything.

Too bad America is no longer a free country.

I dont recall Clinton starting multi-billion wars based on lies & propaganda, or saying that God does not like his opponents, or gay baiting, or lying about policy, or using fear as a wedge.

I think it is a false premise to compare the two as if they are flip-sides of the same coin.

You cannot compare the two- you can only contrast them.

I wouldn't compare them otherwise. There is always the Clinton blaming by the conservatives and the comments some of them made back in the 90's. I asked the question based on that attitude they had back then and the attitude that respect only applies to a right wing Republican president. They lamblast us for daring to speak out against Bush and claim we have no respect for the office of the president when many of the things they said about Clinton bordered on grievous bodily threats. See the Jessie Helms post below.

...or at best, a sex scandal that now seems quaint by comparison.

While when we bash Bush, it is based on the fact that he lied us into a multi billion dollar war and has caused us to be hated all over the world.

I wont let you or the Republicans compare how these Presidents are treated as if their differences are mere perceptions based on political bias.

I'll put it this way- Clinton never gave anyone a real reason for such a harsh, tasteless parody. Bush arguably does open himself up to this kind of thing.

Comparing me to the Republicans is like comparing a lesbian to a Republican, literally. There is no comparison. Republicans and I are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. They do not want me to have equal rights and believe it or not, many here in GD do not want that either. Go figure.

You kill me.
:rofl:

Your headline could be read that if we are offended by tasteless, outrageous Clinton parodies, we should be equally offended by similar parodies directed towards Bush. I am not saying you are a Republican, but I am saying that this is indeed an argument that a Republican would also make. ON EDIT: (You did not make this arguemnt- my mistake)

I disagree with this argument- I think this kind of over objectivity leads us to error.

This parody WOULD be based on false or unreasonably held perceptions if it was aimed at Clinton, it is outrageous, but arguably understandable in being directed at Bush, since he really is destroying the world.

Sorry- but at some point we need to stop being "objective" for the benefit of Republicans.

ON EDIT:

HOWEVER- I re-read your OP and I realize this is not your point- but I still feel the need to make the above points. I apologize for mis-reading your post.

That's why I laughed.

I'm just asking the question I know the media will be asking soon in polls. I know we think better than they do on our feet, but truth is, things like this hit MSM with a blame already attached to us. It wouldn't hurt to jump out ahead and let it be known that we are curious about this movie as we do not even know who made it, why they made it, etc.

As far as you know, is this the first time they have used effects to add a real president to an assassination scene in a movie, or even in any scene in a movie? It's the first time I have ever heard of this. Curious, isn't it?

We are in agreement though- I have a bad habit of jumping the gun when I mis-read a post...

I come from a more aggressive school of thought than most- if I were a Democrat on TV, my comment would be:

"I agree that it is outrageous- but we never saw Europeans displaying this attitude towards previous U.S. Presidents like Clinton- it shows us how Bush, his dishonest policies and now the U.S. really is disrespected in the world."

"He better watch out if he comes here," said Senator Helms about President Clinton visiting North Carolina. "He better have a bodyguard."

Notice no one on the left or right demanded he take that back and no one left or right complained that he said that in poor taste?

One of these days soon I'm going to find out if he has a porcelain tombstone with a drain at the base, as I recommended.

(Just to show that I'm no purveyor of good taste, myself.)

is really an IV with heroin and other fluids in it and that he has really been dead for years. That is pretty much the end of my analogy here. Keith Richards is no repub. In regards to the repubs though, it is amazing how long hateful old republicans live, isn't it?

Strom Thrumond is another one that comes to mind. They say around these parts that he wasn't even aware of half the things he voted on, but his handlers merely pointed him in the direction they thought he would like. I heard that on more than one ocassion.

I really think Helms was just trying to be as outrageous as he could possibly be to gain the support of the hate groups and their semi-aware followers over in the western part of NC.

At one time, I was invited to a party in NJ when Helms finally does go. The guy who at one time ran the "Is he Dead Yet?" satire web site said I could bring a big ol' bottle of champaigne when I came. Well, I'm not so sure I care as much if he isn't actively harming our interests in the senate any more. He did enough harm when he WAS on the senate floor, IMHO.

I hate to say it, but Bush is doing worse. At least some people realized Helms was an outrageous jerk who was pandering to the extreme right. Even MSM was mildly aware of that back then. Now, we are the only ones who understand that Bush is to the extreme right, unfortunately. We need to make people more aware of his real agenda.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I don't understand why they have to mention it's a President Bush. It's in poor taste no matter who is the president.

I question their motives in this case. None of us would write something like that. Who are they, I wonder?

...one in particular was demanding that the Democrats dis-associate themselves from the film, as if it was produced with DNC approval or something.

Never mind that the DNC had nothing to do with it. Or that it was produced by an independent media outfit. In another freakin' country.

They have a compulsive need to blame things on people they don't like. That's why they're Rightards.

- as

They immediately associate it with us as if we wrote the screenplay, directed, and produced the movie. :wtf:

and see what you come up with.

A lot of people had websites actually advocating or planning the assasination of Clinton in the 1990s, I've seen them.

And a lot of people still want to do it.

I don't see any comments on this so far, and yet it's the part that pissess me off the most. I'm not gonna be one of those people who condemns a film before it's even released, like the Reagan fans did to CBS's bio or the religious fundies did before "Life of Brian." But this description really scares me:

Surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers, the American leader is pictured just seconds after being gunned down by a sniper following an anti-war demonstration.

The conflating of anti-war demonstrators with snipers and terrorists -- and wannabe president assassins -- plays right into the hands of the fascist bastards who create "free speech zones" to corrale us safely away from Bush (and cameras).

Of course it may be that the finished product is entirely different, and the description in the article is to blame. Still, does anyone find this as disturbing as I do?

We who love peace should be outraged and demand that we are portrayed accurately. People who love peace do not go around shooting those we disagree with. That's a right wing warmonger thing.

I agree on holding a final judgement until the movie comes out, but we may never get a chance to see it here in the US. There is already talk about banning it here.

the lead suspect is a syrian born man, and the film revolves around the consequences of the shooting.

Sounds like it's going to be similar to "The Siege."

movie. It does sound similar to "The Siege."

would be shot if he ever went to his state..jesse Helms said it

He was allowed his free speech because it was against a Democratic president. Think he got a visit from the Secret Service? I doubt it. If any of us said the same exact thing about a Republican president, we'd be under the jail awaiting the death penalty.

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/001574.php

State Rep. Jennifer Carroll, R-Green Cove Springs , is not commenting further after defending a joke she made Saturday about U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y.

At the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Miami Beach, Carroll said Clinton was visited by the ghosts of Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. According to The Associated Press, the joke had Clinton asking each president what she could do to help the country, and Lincoln told Clinton to go to a theater. Lincoln was assassinated in Ford's Theater in Washington.

After Democrats raised a stink, saying the joke was inappropriate, Carroll defended her comments. Democrats, including their Florida chairman, Scott Maddox, called for an apology. But Carroll has not apologized.

apologize, yet we dare say we disagree with Bush and we are considered bad people for it. You nailed it.

said in the past 16 years about how they wanted to treat Clinton ...

Suddenly the techno music and pyrotechnics return, and a bull is let loose. He cuts a fine figure against the spraying lights. Bucking bulls are the ultimate rodeo event, but like a roller coaster ride, it's short and a little anticlimactic. After throwing its rider, one bull gores a dummy that's wearing a Bill Clinton facemask. In spite of all the ceremony, the rodeo ends abruptly and we rush to the car.

http://notinmybible.blogspot.com/2006/03/brokeback-to-future-mountain.html

I don't recall freepers and fundies complaining about this...

In poor taste? Sure, but since when did "poor taste" ever cancel an entertainment event?

deal where they had a standup of Bill Clinton with the dog attacking it. If we tried that, they'd fry us right where we stood.