According to an Associated Press report, the Bush campaign unveiled a new TV commercial designed to depict John Kerry as weak on terrorism. The commercial, which states that "weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm," features "chilling imagery of prowling wolves in a dense forest."

In related news, the real-life wolves used in the commercial mauled their White-House handlers just after the filming ended, disappeared into the forest, and are now living it up somewhere on the Pakistani-Afghan border.
Posted by: Evan | October 23, 2004 at 10:16 AM
In other related news, John Kerry announced to an animal rights group that he would never use a symbolic wolf in a commercial. Later in the week, Kerry clarified his position by saying that he personally believes it is wrong to use a symbolic wolf, but he would not impose his personal beliefs on a wolf. Kerry stated, "I know that many wolves make their livelihood by portraying trial lawyers, terrorist, and countless other despicable creatures. I would not want my wolf to appear in a commercial, but if your wolf wants to, that should be his/her choice." The Senator's wife could not be reached for comment.
Posted by: Jeremy Richey | October 23, 2004 at 11:04 AM
If the Bush Campaign had used sharks, they could have gotten a two-fer, saving money on their next trial-lawyer ad. Maybe even a three-fer, going after antibusiness, trug-hugging specie-savers.
What ever happend to fiscal conservatism and thrifty Republicanism?
Posted by: David Giacalone | October 23, 2004 at 11:29 AM
Using wolves to symbolize terrorists shows how this administration misunderstands terrorism, and the north american natural environment. They do understand how to scare people who share their ignorance, though.
Posted by: Nic | October 23, 2004 at 12:30 PM
Nic,
Are you unfamiliar with literary significance of wolves? What wolves actually do in reality is irrelevant.
Posted by: Jeremy Richey | October 23, 2004 at 12:47 PM
Yes, I get the allusion to the Big Bad Wolf. That is how they are frightening the people. I understand very well that the purpose of the commecial is not to inform, but to mislead.
Posted by: Nic | October 23, 2004 at 01:09 PM
How would that commercial work, say, if it were to have all the same content except use images of al Qaida terrorists in the mountains of Tora Bora, instead of wolves?
Posted by: Nic | October 23, 2004 at 01:18 PM
The allusion wasn't to crying "wolf"?
Posted by: Ted | October 23, 2004 at 06:22 PM
I think sharks would have been a better choice as well. A forest full of sharks would incorporate trial lawyers *and* the Bush administration's environmental policies. *shiver*
Posted by: -Dave! | October 24, 2004 at 10:34 AM
I've noticed over the past few days that a link from my f/k/a weblog is virtually assured to get the linked post on the Blawg Republic homepage "hot links" list -- e.g. this post; Bainbridge Replies and Sigh posts; MyShingle on Solos and CLE, and more. What shall I do with this new-found power (besides linking more often to myself)?
As I mention in a blurb today, the new Blawg Republic format is virtually useless as a way to keep on top of new weblawg postings. The original format was great, in my opinion.
Posted by: David Giacalone | October 24, 2004 at 06:04 PM
I do not want to cross genre or species, Schaeffersan, but who taught you to put ALL of your commentary in the title of a post? Did you paste your thoughts in the wrong window?
There are enough syllables in the headline for 3 of those old-fashioned 17-syllable haiku, and enough for 4 or 5 really good haiku.
headline
is the story -
Evan nods
Posted by: haikuEsq | October 24, 2004 at 07:56 PM
David: It's just one of those crazy things I do. All the posts in the "headlines" category are structured similarly. Many find it absurdly confusing, but there's some precedent--I stole the technique from Esquire Magazine's "Dubious Achievement Awards." They used to do it once a year back when I used to subscribe; I'm not sure if they do it any more.
Here's how it works: First you have to read the headline, which shouldn't be clear on the first reading; then the post; then the headline again, which now works as a punchline. After reading the punchline, you're supposed to laugh uproariously and think about what a clever guy I am.
Get it?
Posted by: Evan | October 24, 2004 at 09:27 PM
there is indeed a madness to his method! ("so funny I forgot to laugh!")
Posted by: haikuEsq | October 24, 2004 at 09:39 PM
madness in method,
funny headlines are so long
i forgot to laugh.
Posted by: Abnu | October 24, 2004 at 10:50 PM
www.wolfpacksfortruth.org
Posted by: Abnu | October 24, 2004 at 11:23 PM