This ad harks back to the powerful anti-Goldwater ad of the 1964 presidential campaign: the message was that if you vote Republican, you will get blown up by an atom bomb. Republlican Barry Goldwater was successfully portrayed as a war monger and Lyndon B. Johnson won an overwhelming majority. The original Daisy ad received massive news coverage and has become an icon of negative political advertising. The transcript:
SMALL CHILD [with flower]: One, two, three, four, five, seven, six, six, eight, nine, nine ….
JOHNSON: These are the stakes: To make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the darkness. We must either love each other, or we must die.
ANNOUNCER: Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.
==========================================
Same crap, different day. Oh, and… different party.
In 1984, Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign (against Ronald Reagan) used ads with a similar theme to the Daisy ad. Mondale’s advertisements cut between footage of children and footage of ballistic missiles and nuclear explosions, over a soundtrack of the song “Teach Your Children” by Crosby Stills Nash and Young.
======================================
Freddy Gray said, “The RNC reaches a new low…”
I gotta go with WRW on this one. Why use this “piece of trash advertisement” against the very people who invented it, and have been using it against the GOP for 45 years? It was morally and intellectually bankrupt everytime time Dems used it, and unless the Repubs are capable of being “snarky”, then what was the point?
In the aftermath of the original ‘Daisy’ ad, it could be said that the Dems were the more manipulative of the two when it came to fearmongering. Sometime between Willie Horton and now, that has ceased to be the case.
There are only three fears that genuine conservatives are allowed: the fear of God, the fear of the ledger-books, and the fear of the mob’s whims.
By advocating torture, which is a direct affront to the image of God as reflected in the personages of the accused captives, they have shown that they’ve lost the first. The vast sums spent on the whole enterprise prove that they’ve lost the second, especially in a time of debt. And who can assert that they’ve done anything other than becoming the very embodiment of the third thing they should have feared?
One can either tolerate torture, or one can be fit to rule. There is no intermediate category. I feel that the same applies to abortion, but that’s another story. In any case, we have inherited a government of, for, and by the people, and it has indeed mirrored back to us our own national bestiality. Our task as individuals is to strive to be human, rather than animal. That comes before politics.
Well, except maybe to keep the public in a perpetual state of fear.
And it’s depressing too for anyone thinking that eventually the Republicans will come to their senses at least about this foreign adventuring. The last one who seemed to have any genuine conservative understanding of such things was Eisenhower who not only did get an end to the Korean War but simply and flatly said no to taking the U.S. into Vietnam when Dien Bien Phu fell.
So what happened after Kennedy and Johnson did so? Essentially, even though from the start he knew it was unwinnable and indeed never tried doing so (starting to drawdown troops from Day One), Nixon made it the *conservatives* war. And for the next decades conservatives suffered under the general sense that they were war lovers.
And what do we see now? It’s almost as if the Republicans are hopping mad that Obama is doing what he is in staying in Iraq and surging in Afghanistan and etc.
“No, damnit,” they seem to be worrying, “WE are the party of hopeless, senseless, interminable, unwinnable and divisive wars! You’re stealing our brand!”
So for anyone waiting on the Grand Old Party, remember Nixon. Because the GOP sure doesn’t and seems to have some deep and driving impulse to commit his same mistake over and over again.
The RNC has no ideas, none, not one. Bankrupt Completely bankrupt. Stunning, really. Like the hollowed out Army of the 70’s.
A new low is right. Both parties using the same smear ad shows just how little the parties differ from one another.
yes, closing gitmo is such as easy task for a man that can spread the waters. wonder why it hasnt happend yet if it is so easy?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blake-fleetwood/osama-with-a-bomb-repu_b_32176.html
This ad harks back to the powerful anti-Goldwater ad of the 1964 presidential campaign: the message was that if you vote Republican, you will get blown up by an atom bomb. Republlican Barry Goldwater was successfully portrayed as a war monger and Lyndon B. Johnson won an overwhelming majority. The original Daisy ad received massive news coverage and has become an icon of negative political advertising. The transcript:
SMALL CHILD [with flower]: One, two, three, four, five, seven, six, six, eight, nine, nine ….
MAN: Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five, four, three, two, one, zero.
[Sounds of exploding bomb.]
JOHNSON: These are the stakes: To make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the darkness. We must either love each other, or we must die.
ANNOUNCER: Vote for President Johnson on November 3rd. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.
==========================================
Same crap, different day. Oh, and… different party.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_(television_advertisement)
In 1984, Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign (against Ronald Reagan) used ads with a similar theme to the Daisy ad. Mondale’s advertisements cut between footage of children and footage of ballistic missiles and nuclear explosions, over a soundtrack of the song “Teach Your Children” by Crosby Stills Nash and Young.
======================================
Freddy Gray said, “The RNC reaches a new low…”
I gotta go with WRW on this one. Why use this “piece of trash advertisement” against the very people who invented it, and have been using it against the GOP for 45 years? It was morally and intellectually bankrupt everytime time Dems used it, and unless the Repubs are capable of being “snarky”, then what was the point?
The GOP long ago lost it’s moral high ground.
In the aftermath of the original ‘Daisy’ ad, it could be said that the Dems were the more manipulative of the two when it came to fearmongering. Sometime between Willie Horton and now, that has ceased to be the case.
There are only three fears that genuine conservatives are allowed: the fear of God, the fear of the ledger-books, and the fear of the mob’s whims.
By advocating torture, which is a direct affront to the image of God as reflected in the personages of the accused captives, they have shown that they’ve lost the first. The vast sums spent on the whole enterprise prove that they’ve lost the second, especially in a time of debt. And who can assert that they’ve done anything other than becoming the very embodiment of the third thing they should have feared?
One can either tolerate torture, or one can be fit to rule. There is no intermediate category. I feel that the same applies to abortion, but that’s another story. In any case, we have inherited a government of, for, and by the people, and it has indeed mirrored back to us our own national bestiality. Our task as individuals is to strive to be human, rather than animal. That comes before politics.
WRW wrote:
“The RNC has no ideas, none….”
Well, except maybe to keep the public in a perpetual state of fear.
And it’s depressing too for anyone thinking that eventually the Republicans will come to their senses at least about this foreign adventuring. The last one who seemed to have any genuine conservative understanding of such things was Eisenhower who not only did get an end to the Korean War but simply and flatly said no to taking the U.S. into Vietnam when Dien Bien Phu fell.
So what happened after Kennedy and Johnson did so? Essentially, even though from the start he knew it was unwinnable and indeed never tried doing so (starting to drawdown troops from Day One), Nixon made it the *conservatives* war. And for the next decades conservatives suffered under the general sense that they were war lovers.
And what do we see now? It’s almost as if the Republicans are hopping mad that Obama is doing what he is in staying in Iraq and surging in Afghanistan and etc.
“No, damnit,” they seem to be worrying, “WE are the party of hopeless, senseless, interminable, unwinnable and divisive wars! You’re stealing our brand!”
So for anyone waiting on the Grand Old Party, remember Nixon. Because the GOP sure doesn’t and seems to have some deep and driving impulse to commit his same mistake over and over again.
Cheers,