Department of Communication

Ad Analysis

Susan Allen, University of Maryland

Kerry/Edwards "Can't Win"

 

  • Ad Title: “Can't Win”
  • Ad Sponsor: Kerry/Edwards
  • Issue of Focus: President Bush's unwillingness to fund Homeland Security; the President's statements that the War on Terrorism is unwinnable
  • Type of Advertisement: Negative
  • Release Date: October 11, 2004
  • Length: 30 seconds

"Can't Win" Script

Narrator : 95 percent of containers coming into America go uninspected.  But in the first debate, George Bush said we can't afford to fix it.  Bush gives Halliburton $7 billion in no bid contracts.  $200 billion for Iraq.  But to inspect containers, secure bridges. tunnels, and chemical plants -- Bush says we can't afford it.  And on the war on terror, Bush said:  “I don't think you can win it.”  Not with his failed leadership.  It's time for a new direction.

Analysis of "Can't Win"

Ad Context

"Can't Win" taps into a 2004 campaign debate over how to fight the war on terrorism. Moreover, it expresses fundamental differences between the candidates in how they view the global threat of terrorism. According to journalist Matt Bai, "Bush casts the war on terror as a vast struggle that is likely to go on indefinitely...." (2004, October 10). On the other hand, Kerry said in an interview with Bai, "We have to get back to the place we were, when terrorists were not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance" (Bai, 2004, October 10). In "Can't Win" and a comparable Republican ad entitled "World View," each candidate claims that his opponent fundamentally misunderstands terrorism and, consequently, places Americans at risk.

This ad's tentacles reach back to remarks President Bush made on NBC-TV's Today show on August 31 (Bush: Can't win terror war, 2004, August 31).

Lauer (Interviewer): Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?

President Bush: I have never said we can win it in four years.

Lauer: So I'm just saying can we win it? Do you see that?

President Bush: I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world . . . . . (Bush: 'You cannot show weakness in this world,' 2004).

The Democratic campaign consultants pounced on the statement as evidence of the President's failed leadership (Bush changes war on terror tune, 2004, August 31). The Kerry-Edwards Web site accuses the President of rushing "into Iraq with no plan to win the peace"--implying that his choice to invade Iraq with traditional military force cannot reduce the terrorist threat (Kerry campaign response to Bush distortions, 2004, October 11). The final frames of "Can't Win" deliver this message:

"And on the war on terror, Bush said: 'I don't think you can win it.' Not with his failed leadership. It's time for a new direction."

In turn, Republican messages question Kerry's plan to counter terrorism with law enforcement and intelligence gathering (Bush-Cheney '04 launches new television advertisement, 2004, October 10). Their ad "World View" (2004, October 10) leaves the viewer with this question: "How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"

Homeland Security and Misspent Money

"Can't Win" charges President Bush with failures in two areas: homeland security and spending on the war. It uses the grim and evocative images that have become a hallmark of ad campaigns in the build-up to Election Day 2004 (Rutenberg, 2004, October 17). According to Darrell M. West, political science professor at Brown University, "What we are seeing this year are direct plays to fear and anxiety" (Rutenberg, 2004, October 17). This ad raises fears that terrorists will again attack the United States directly and our country is not prepared.

"Security Moms"

This ad may play to the fear and anxieties of the so-called "security moms"--a demographic group of white mothers with children under the age of 18 (Malkin, 2004, July 20). Columnist Michelle Malkin (2004, July 20) quotes Republican pollsters who estimate that 11-14% of the US electorate falls into this demographic group. "Hell hath no fury like a momma protecting her babies," says Malkin, and these security moms want a president who will barricade the US borders against suicide bombers. Malkin's analysis implies Kerry has an opportunity to sway these "security moms" because Bush "continues to fight only a half-hearted battle to defend Americans on American soil from hostile invasion or attack."

Fact Check: Malkin's claims about the influence of "security moms' has been challenged by Democratic columnist Ellen Goodman (2004, October 7). Goodman lowers their numbers to 22 percent of all women, not 11-14% of the electorate. She agrees that women are concerned about security, but only "one in four put terrorism at the top of her list." These women, according to Goodman, see healthcare, retirement funding, and jobs as security issues and these issues give Democrats an edge.

Homeland Security Threats

"Can't Win" displays US bridges, tunnels, and power plants as vulnerable targets because of Bush's failure to protect American soil. The first two frames show the cargo containers that could import terrorist attack materials into the United States . "95 percent of containers coming into America go uninspected," the ad claims. In a Breaking Debate Fact sheet, the Bush campaign counters that 100% of containers are inspected (2004, October 13). 

Fact Check: What causes this huge difference in statistics? The two camps define "inspected" differently. The Republicans admit that 95% of containers are not hand inspected, but they claim that electronic inspections do the job and all 'high risk' containers are hand-inspected (Breaking Debate Fact: Setting the Record Straight on Port Security, 2004, October 13). Democrats do not specifically call for increased hand-checking of containers (Kerry campaign response to Bush distortions, 2004, October 16).

Misspent Money 

"Can't Win" blames Bush for not funding Homeland Security initiatives. Twice, the voice-over quotes Bush: "We cannot afford to fix it." A white caption directs us to the Presidential Debate, 9/30/04. What, the ad indirectly asks, has Bush been spending our tax money on instead of homeland security? The answer is displayed over the silhouette of an oil rig: "$200 billion for Iraq " and "$7 billion for Halliburton." Halliburton refers to the top government contractor in Iraq , a corporation that Vice-President Cheney ran from 1995-2000. Viewers can make the logical leap that President Bush cares less about their safety than fighting a dubious overseas war and paying back political contributors.

Fact Check: To date, the Iraq war had NOT cost $200 billion, although the total will no doubt reach that amount before war's end (FactCheck, 2004, September 13). The actual dollar amount varies with different sources from $119 billion according to the Office of Management and Budget (FactCheck, 2004) to $14, 560 billion according to the National Priorities Project that maintains an on-line running total (2004, October 16). The Democrats accurately report the $7.5 billion no-bid contract awarded to Halliburton "shortly before the war in Iraq to repair any damage to the country's oil fields" (O'Harrow, 2004, October 7).

How the Ad Works 

"Can't Win" relies on a hodge-podge of "information," quotes, and scary visual images to make its point about George Bush's failed leadership. The ad may well be trying to achieve too many goals at once: answering a Republican ad, raising serious issues about Homeland Security, accusing George Bush of playing politics during wartime. It will work most effectively with viewers who follow the political debates. At best, the ad can create a sense of vague anxiety about American security and raise doubts about an opponent who claims, "We can't afford to fix it." Rapidly-moving iconic images of America, shots of a President limited by the corridors of power, and alarming sounds punctuating the message spoken by a woman work to create a feeling of threat.

Scenario for a terrorist attack

The ad's images create an entirely visual narrative of how a terrorist attack can happen. We see cranes and cargo containers at the Newark , New Jersey port. Terrorist weapons escape the poorly conducted inspections. A container with smuggled weapons is loaded onto a truck bed. Quick cuts show us the terrorist targets: the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco , a low traffic tunnel during rush hour, a power plant. The power plant appears to have been already struck by terrorist explosives. Smoke billows from a low building. The sky has turned orange in the aftermath of the attack. To cap the narrative we see the source of the attack: a crowd of Arab men brandishing their semi-automatic weapons before a white arcaded building--presumably located in the Middle East.

Corridors of Power 

Three times the camera focuses on President Bush and Vice-President Cheney walking rapidly through a narrow white corridor somewhere in the White House complex. Several close associates follow. Bush and Cheney appear to be trapped in this small space by their own decisions and manipulations. Captions in chartreuse green and turquoise pop up to cover the moving men, as if their own words and actions further ensnare them. Data sources appear in white letters at the bottom of the frame to prove the ad does not lie. These shots undermine Republican images of Bush and Cheney operating in the open space of the Oval Office and place the real workings of the administration in enclosed, secret corridors of power.

Another shot emphasizes the shadowy workings of Presidential power. We see George Bush seated in a tour bus in Lima , Ohio , where NBC's Matt Lauer interviews him ( Bush: 'You cannot show weakness in this world,' 2004, August 30). The original video image of the interview has been darkened; the interviewer is barely recognizable at the edge of the screen. Beyond the window of the bus, we see a large metal armature that resembles an oil or gas rig. "I don't think you can win it," Bush says with the emphasis on IT. This is the context for the ad's title: Bush reveals himself in darkness where he can forget the message that advisors have crafted for him.

Alarms 

The female voice-over links the message to the "security moms' who are a main target audience. The female voice speaks calmly to lend authority to her message, but the soundtrack uses electronically generated music and sound effects to create a sense of threat. Most notably, a warning sound punctuates statements about President Bush that should alarm us. A chime or bell rings after the accusations about Halliburton and the Can't win" statement in the recording studio. We hear, of course, the generic base notes that imply threat in horror movies, but the music sound track uses a fairly sophisticated three-part structure that (1) gives an up-beat support to the factual statements delivered in the beginning by the female voice; (2) stresses ominous sounds during shots of Bush, his supporters, and the Arab men; and (3) returns to the upbeat sounds when John Kerry appears on the stump in the closing shots. The musical structure indicates whom we should trust in this election: the "security mom" and the Democratic candidates. The upbeat sound underscores the final image of John Kerry and John Edwards raising their arms in victory.

Campaign Lore 

Curiously, one shot in "Can't Win" refers to Internet buzz that President Bush wore a transmitting device to receive answers from advisors during the first Presidential debate (Allen, 2004, October 9). This ad uses a grey photograph of George Bush shot from behind as he leans on the lectern during the debate in Miami. Conspiracy theorists may see an object under the folds in President Bush's jacket, but a White House spokesperson has said, "It was most likely a rumpling of that portion of his suit jacket, or a wrinkle in the fabric" (Allen, 2004, October 9). However, to the Democratic faithful the ad image communicates that their opponent will engage in any low trick to win the election.

V. CITATIONS

(October 20, 2004)

© Copyright 2004, The Center for Political Communication and Civic Leadership.

Back to Ad Analysis Index