Hotair - as well as the Boston Globe - compares it to Daisy.
Daisy, for those of you who either weren't around 42 years ago or who haven't studied political campaigns, was a 60 second ad for Lyndon B. Johnson that ran once in September 1964. The ad shows a little girl pulling petals off of a daisy... and as she "counts down"... the screen morphs into the image of a nuclear explosion.
I think a comparison with Daisy is only superficially correct. First, this isn't a presidential election. Second, the 2006 GOP ad will run more than one time. (Daisy ran only once, kinda like Apple's 1984 ad.) Furthermore, it's on the GOP website, which means continuous runs. Third, in 1964, the President "owned" the ad — it's LBJ's voice you hear. This new ad closes with a disclaimer that no elected person endorsed it.
Sadly, the stakes Johnson outlines 42 years ago are real ones still facing us:
These are the stakes:
to make a world in which all of God's children can live
or to go into the dark.
We must either love each other,
or we must die.
Focus On Fear
Where the ad is comparable to Daisy - and all too many political ads - is its attempt to generate bone-numbing fear. Of course, concurrently, the purpose of the fear is to "fire up" the base or move undecideds off the fence, to your side.
To that end, Daisy worked for Johnson. Just like Willy Horton did for Bush's dad.
Will this ad work for a more heterogenous group of Congressmen? I don't know. Many Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the President this season, given lagging polls; this ad suggests the election is a referendum on the President.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - gonzo marx
an interesting Article, thanks for sharing it with us...
/golfclap
bit of an update..
since this ad is SO popular to the red meat base of the GOP, they have announced that it will be run on cable TV starting on sunday
"some animals are more equal than others"
Excelsior?
2 - Mark Saleski
i amazed (though shouldn't be) at the state of compaigns and the associated ads.
for the past couple of days, i've been hanging out in western vermont. this has given me access to a tv channel out of albany.
there's a man (incumbent)and woman (challenger) running for some seat or another (sorry, the ads made me lose interest). both of them are running attack ads...and both of them are seen in news interviews complaining that the other side has resorted to smear tactics.
bizarre, if ya ask me.
3 - Peter J
Good article Kathy,
There are only two reasons for war, money and power. I don't think anyone needs to look too far to see where the money goes, in case some can't see that far it goes to those in power. What is the function of those in power? To retain that power, at any cost, absolutely, any cost. That cost goes way beyond money. It will use its' power to spread dis-information, to make you afraid, to go as far as making you dis-trust your neighbor, it will go as far as to take the life of an opposing political figure, and it will go as far as causing war and taking thousands of lives.
What I'm afraid of? That people who read this won't even consider it.
Why won't they? Fear.
4 - Bill B
If this weren't so serious it'd be hysterical. Exactly what of what has transpired over the last 6+ years would give any thinking (for that matter observent) person the idea that the GOP is in any way better suited than the dems to protect this country from the diabolical consequences the ad implies?
One could make a much stronger case that they've done more to further the likelihood of the alluded to catastrophe.
Oh yea, we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9/11. While I'm glad this is so it is the most deceptive measure as, among other things it will be rendered meaningless if there is another catastrophic attack.
The true measures are what have we done to secure our country and what have we done to ameliorate/convert the sensibility that despises all things American?
Bush and crew have fared somewhat better on the former though still woefully inadequate, and the latter is sadly laughable.
People seem to slowly be catching on as recent polls have finally begun to dent this fallacy that GOP = tough on terrorism.
Now if they could just get a grip on the no Iraq/9-11 link and no wmd things we may be making some headway.
--------------------------------------
btw - nice piece.
5 - RedTard
"What I'm afraid of? That people who read this won't even consider it.
Why won't they? Fear."
They won't consider it because it sounds as if it were written by a nutjob.
BTW, no one group has a monopoly on using fear. The GOP does goes way overboard with this whole security/terrorism thing. I worry about a terrorist killing me about as much as I worry about getting struck by lightning. I don't think Al Quaeda will conquer america any more than I believe that a 2 degree temperature change from global warming will destroy the planet or that the country is sliding into fascism or communism.
6 - kathy
*gang response*
**** #5 ****
They won't consider it because it sounds as if it were written by a nutjob.
****
Why thank you, RedTard ... coming from you, I'll take this as a compliment
****
BTW, no one group has a monopoly on using fear.
****
Please show me where I said that the GOP has a monopoly here.
**** #4 ****
Thanks, Bill. As much as I'd like to, I have trouble faulting mainstream Americans for getting the impression that Iraq was linked to 9-11. The administration did a great job of framing and the media bit, hook-line-and-sinker. Most folks don't have the luxury of time -- nor the education -- to dissect news messages. Most people aren't political junkies ... they just try to get through their lives, get to work on time, wash the clothes, put dinner on the table, make sure the kids do their homework.
**** #3 ****
There are only two reasons for war, money and power. I don't think anyone needs to look too far to see where the money goes, in case some can't see that far it goes to those in power. What is the function of those in power? To retain that power, at any cost, absolutely, any cost.
****
Thanks, Peter.
I agree with you. I also don't see a lot of difference between Rs and Ds on this equation. Professional politicians have to curry favor with business/organizational interests in order to raise enough money to retain their seat.
Maybe we'd be just as well served to hold a lottery ... kinda like jury duty ... but you could only have one term.
**** #2 ****
i amazed (though shouldn't be) at the state of compaigns and the associated ads.
****
Hi, Mark. Every year it seems to get worse. :-/
**** #1 ****
Gonzo, thanks for the tip. I've updated the original article with that bit about Sunday's run on "cable network news". Fox News, anyone?
Kathy
7 - Bliffle
Paradoxical that the GOP headman, GWB, is responsible for letting OBL run free when he had a chance to capture or kill him a few years ago.
8 - Dave Nalle
The left has been erroneously accusing the GOP of resorting to fearmongering for at least 3 years, but for the most part they've just been blowing smoke. Putting out an ad like this and legitimizing those accusations seems like a terrible mistake.
Fearmongering has always been the territory of the left, from the Daisy ad to the constant doom and glooming about the economy, all aimed at the sheeplike element of the population.
The problem with this sort of ad is that the Republican base are not sheep and they don't respond well to fear tactics. I need to go check out the ad, but if it's really comparable to the Daisy ad then it's the wrong message for that audience. They respond much better to calls to arms than being told they're victims.
What the GOP ought to be campaigning on is the fact that there hasn't been a meaningful terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. They ought to campaign on strength rather than weakness.
If they are resorting to fearmongering I lay the blame on PNAC and the other leftist infiltrators. It's right up their alley.
Dave
9 - Dave Nalle
Ok, I've watched the ad now. It's not really comparable to the Daisy ad. The Daisy ad portrays Americans as helpless children to be wiped out by forces beyond their control. This GOP ad is much more of a call to arms. It shows the enemy and says basically that you can strike back at them by voting. It's not exactly fearmongering, it's more ragemongering.
Dave
10 - gonzo marx
oh puh-leeEEEEeeEEeezzzeee...
"not fear mongering"
bullshit
also note, in a speech last week the Shrub mentions bin Laden what...17 times (MSNBC's wordcount), just a month or so after stating that bin Laden was not that important in the overall "war on terror", since you know, they haven't caught him or anything
why give up your best boogeyman by the mundane action of actually catching him "dead or alive"
and now...this ad?
don't the GOP types ever get tired of being played like chumps by the so-called *leaders* who have fucked them , just like they have fucked everybody else?
here's to hoping that good people from all sides stand up in November...
and throw the motherfuckers out
then maybe thereal business of the american people can be done by those we elect, rather than the bullshit pork/earmarks
argh....
Excelsior?
11 - Dave Nalle
Gonzo, your desire to replace Sen. Ted Stevens with Sen. Robert Byrd as King of Pork is duly noted. Long live the once and future King of Pork!
Dave
12 - Bill B
RE #7
My first thoughts exactly. They've got stones alluding to anything OBL, let alone using his picture and quotes.
Also on thr fear front here's Tom Ridge from 5/10/05.
I believe he was speaking about all of those nasty little terror alerts leading to the '04 elections.
For those so inclined, check this out.
I apologize to the 'Olbermann is a commie' crowd in advance.
13 - gonzo marx
which part of "throw the mutherfuckers out" doesn't sink into your skull in that Texas sunlight, Dave?
any and ALL, from either side, for fuckign up
unlike you, i have no partisan dog i want to see win this "hunt"
admittedly, i DO want to see either House or Senate go to the Dems, but that's for the checks and balances reasons i've stated many times before, if the situation was reversed, bet your house i woudl be sayign the exact same fucking thing about whoever was doing the porking and violating Ethics...
unlike you, with the one note, partisan siding...right or wrong doesn't matter, as long as your "side" wins...
fuck that, and fuck you for even trying to imply that i coudl give a rats ass about a knucklehead like Byrd...
the difference is, i coudl care less about Byrd..but i DO give a shit about seeing folks like DeLay, and Ney, and Safavian and the K street project get what they fucking deserve under the Law
you don't appear to give a shit about any of it, as long as you get more tax cuts and your Haliburton stock continues to go up
fuck that
Excelsior?
14 - Arch Conservative
Ok so if Bush or the GOP even mentions 911 or terrorism they are engaging in fearmongering.
However Bush has not made us safer.
Either there is a threat from terrorists or there isn't.
I know the rabid foaming at the mouth Bush haters want to have it both ways but the rest of us can see that there really is a threat and that the GOP is better suited to handle it.
Do I think Bush is to blame for 911? Of course... he was president for almost a year prior to it. This is not to say all the blame is his though. Why did I vote for him then? Ummm cause he was running against the second biggest piece of shit in the northeast.
Gonzo says:
"but i DO give a shit about seeing folks like DeLay, and Ney, and Safavian and the K street project get what they fucking deserve under the Law"
Gonzo....do you also care about seeing Cynthia Mckinney, William Jefferson, Harry Reid and all the dems who took abramoff money get what they deserve under the law?
Also Gonzo did you know that Halliburton got it's first no bid contract under slick willie not W? do you think any dems own stock in haliburton?
15 - gonzo marx
Arch..i am well Aware of each example you have mentioned..and state, again, that ANY of these bastards who have violated the Law and/or their Ethical responsibilities counts as a "motherfucker" that shoudl be tossed the fuck out of office
and prosecuted as required
ANY and ALL
now, it is intellectually dishonest to state...
*Ok so if Bush or the GOP even mentions 911 or terrorism they are engaging in fearmongering.*
especially in light of the VERY specific example that is being shown here...
or do you have another explanation for the bit of Bush mentioning bin Laden 17 times in a speech this close to election when just a few months ago Bush and the entire Administration were saying that bin Laden "didn't matter" and "was no longer relevant"?
that's the Point, Arch
and you gotta give up the notion that i am/was any kind of Clinton fan..i considered him about on par with Reagan...some decent stuff, some really bad shit
but yes...ANY of our elected officials who are found guilty shoudl be punished
can you say you think the same?
Excelsior?
16 - Arch Conservative
can you say you think the same?
Of course I can Gonzo. Didn't I say that Bush is partially to blame for 911? I may have voted for him but I find it ridiculous to say that he's not responsible for 911.
You however claimed to be non-partisan and then went on to list scandals pertaining to the gop and not mention any of the dem ones.
Any truly objective person knows that there are corrupt and immoral people on both sides of the aisle. However as these are the only two viable options available to us at the moment we must take each party as a whole and decide whose general social/fiscal/political philosphy we more agree with and then more often than not vote for that party's candidates.
17 - gonzo marx
fair enough, Arch
my reasoning for mentioning what i did was as examples of problems involving the Party who has controlling power in the federal government
as i have stated many times, with WH, Senate and Copngress all in the control of one Party, there are no proper checks and balances which are required feedback loops for the proper operation fo our government
examples like those i cited , which are problems that only happen to a majority Party (since they have control, they are the only ones worth bribing)..and the entire K street project is an example of prior planning for future corruption...
a literal blueprint on how to institutionalize bribery in order to maintain a "permanent majority"..not by political means, but by unethical behavior...not of all, but by those i mentioned...and others
many examples of the same (but not on the same scale or scope) corruption in the Dem controlled House of 40 years...and great reasons for the '94 ouster of the Dems from control of the House... too many corrupt Dems in office then...time for a clean sweep.. and i had no problem with it then
what i'm saying is that 12 years after taking control, it's time to sweep the House clean again
and note..never in this thread did i mention 9/11, so it's relevance,(except to reference your own mentioning of it as compared to the Issue of corruption i was talkign about), is questionable
Excelsior?
18 - Zedd
Kathy: Most people aren't political junkies ... they just try to get through their lives, get to work on time, wash the clothes, put dinner on the table, make sure the kids do their homework.
Not good enough. 30 min of NPR on your way to work and 30 more on your way home should do it. You don't have to be a JUNKY to have a sense of your world. There aren't that many clothes to wash. If there are, stop buying so many! But I understand the homework thing. geeeez!
The truth is we have time for Sex in The City, Desperate Housewives, Grays Anatomy, Lost (my fave) and the rest. WE HAVE TIME. We are just dumb by choice. Sorry but....
19 - Dave Nalle
I imagine watching the littany of vapid TV you just mentioned would lower the IQ by at least 10 points. Why not just watch soap operas and get it over with?
Dave
20 - Bill B
I'm with you there Zedd. Whether conservative, liberal or somewhere in between we owe it to ourselves and the rest of the world (especially the parts where we stick our nose) to be informed. To hold our government, that is acting in our name, accountable.
The hard part is wading through all the bs. Seems everybody's got an agenda.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
When he uttered this sentiment I doubt he realized how out of touch with the needs and opinions of the people and beholden to other interests the media would become.
21 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I look at the "war on terror" and more and more become convinced that it was crafted by someone in power determined to use the novel "1984" as a political guide. The perenniel enemy remains the same, and the remains uncaught as well. Were the enemy squelched, the war machine would have to disband.
I live in the real world. Here in Israel I see how your media manipulate you into thinking there is actually a "war on terror" when in reality, there is a gathering of the armies for a much more devastating war. It will appear that this war will be over resources and the right to wield certain weapons, and to a degree appearances will be right.
But reality on the ground, at least in this tiny country, is that terrorists are aided by the UN and by NATO, and any real attempt to squelch a terror war waged upon us is itself being squelched by the US and EU.
The leaders of the US, of course, are in the GOP.
22 - Nancy
Arch, I'm as interested in seeing Reid get some jail time for lying about his finances, & Jefferson for his blatant influence-peddling, as I am in seeing DeLay, Ney, and the other GOP/Abramoff guys march off to the federal pokey. They ALL should be mercilessly exposed, prosecuted, and punished, a la Cunningham. As for McKinney, she seems to be just rude, & she got her comeuppance from her electorate, didn't she.
Like Gonzo, I want to see the elections go to the Dems more because there desperately needs to be some kind of checks & balances in the US government; 6 years of one-sided rule by one party has proven that to be a gross mistake & a tragedy for the people. All that happens is that the administration becomes even more menacing & arrogant & that party in power, whether D or R, becomes drunk with absolute power. For this reason, & no other, I hope the elections go overwhelmingly to the Dems this time around. One-sided government by one party has GOT to be stopped. It benefits no one, not even the party nominally in power.
We have got to get away from a 2-party system, which only offers the voters an either/or choice. Most of the non-voting halfwits out there don't vote because they don't like either choice - and I can't blame them, but the way it's set up now, unless votes are cast overwhelmingly for a 3rd maverick party (unlikely, even if the D & R parties would allow it) all it will do is weaken one of the 2 main parties.
As for this putative War On Terror, it should be obvious to all - even most conservatives - by now that this was a situation allowed by if not created by the current administration, with malice aforethought, as they say, in order to further their own private agenda for taking permanent control of the US government. Karl Rove accidently let this cat out of the bag a few years ago when he admitted his goal was to steal the election & create a permanent neocon government. Junior - who can never keep HIS mouth shut - further confirmed this with several comments about how it would be SO much easier to 'rule' (his word, not mine) if he were dictator instead of president. That tells me everything I needed to know about the motives & plans of the current administration. "Wag The Dog" was no mere movie plot; it's very real - and what the neocon (NOT GOP!) perpetrators were banking on was that it would be so outrageous & pervasive that no one would give it any credence ... until it's too late.
The problem is, the ambitions of BushCo have been furthered not only by a 'rubberstamp', power-mad majority party in congress, but by the spinelessness of that same congress by members on BOTH sides of the aisle, who right from the start abrogated their own responsibilities by handing over to BushCo permission to do whatever BushCo desired insofar as 9/11 was concerned, and who have continued to do the same with just about everything else since then. Those few members of either party who have had the guts to protest against BushCo's policies & practices have been the targets of unrelenting smears & attacks by BushCo & its congressional & MSM flunkies, orchestrated behind the scenes by Rove & Cheney.
The thing to remember about BushCo is that it does NOT represent the majority of Republicans and never did, altho they were very careful to mask this, and still try to do so thru the manipulation of fear policies: that the US will be run by Hilary or Pelosi (they seem to have a fear & loathing of women in power), that marriage as we know it will be passe when the gays & lesbians start marrying each other, that our children will end up learning the Koran in madrissahs, or having to learn the evil theories of evolution, etc. etc. Any stupid thing they can think of to appeal to the smallest, most vocal, most easily manipulated minds. BushCo only represents itself: a coalition of neocons. It doesn't even represent the extreme religious right anymore, it seems, and never did, except to give lip service to get their votes in elections, while mocking them behind their backs. If the religious right aren't outraged & feeling cheated & betrayed by this, they certainly should be, & I wonder at the mentality of those who would tolerate being used like this.
We need to start by throwing out ALL those who have gotten used to the comfort & hyper-privilege of political life, & by establishing iron-clad term limits. A lifetime incumbency a la Byrd or Thurmond is unacceptable. Any congressman who can't accomplish something in 12 years isn't going to manage to do it in a longer period, & shouldn't be in there as a lifetime vocation.
We need to remove the authority of self-oversight from congress; obviously they have proven time & again they can't & won't handle it. Ethics & Oversight should be the provence of an independent, politically neutral committee with the authority to take whatever action is necessary to keep members of congress both honest & answerable to the public. Perhaps we should even consider having it comprised of foreigners, if no Americans can be trusted to be neutral, if necessary.
Lobbying needs to be severely restricted, no exceptions. The ability of congressmen, their families, & staff to join lobbying firms should be severely restricted after their terms end, and absolutely forbidden under any circumstances while they're actively serving. Members of congress should be forbidden to associate in any capacity with any former staffer or even family member who is currently working in any capacity for a lobbying firm. Harsh? Maybe. Necessary? Absolutely.
Perhaps we ought to thank the GOP & BushCo for (hopefully) waking a larger number of voters to the dangers & corruption inherent in the current US system of government & party politics; otherwise we would be letting it slide for a much longer time, thereby doing more damage. Now if only the voters will get out & DO something about it.
23 - Nancy
While I'm at it, I should say we also need desperately to institute mandatory voting after the Aussie model: if you don't vote, you pay a whopping fine. Hitting em in the wallet is the only way to motivate most Amerians to do anything. Compulsory voting registration at age 18, followed by compulsory voting. Otherwise the only ones who vote are the zealots of either party. No wonder partisan politics have gotten so extreme.
24 - Bill B
re #22
I'm with most of this but notably I've never been a fan of term limits. I'm against it for two main reasons. You may lose someone good when their term is up, and they sure seem few and far between, and I'm against doing anything that by default does what the voters should do; if he's/she's a bum, vote them out.
The fact that term limits seems so appealing to some is more a condemnation of an apathetic voting public and elections slanted toward the incumbant than anything else. Sad commentary.
As for mandatory voting, I'd need to know more about it although on it's face it makes me uneasy. While thoroughly distasteful, I think I also believe in the right not to vote. Gotta ponder that some more.
At the very least candidacy would have to be opened up (see dismantling of 2 party system) and possibly a *none of the above* option.
--------------------------------------------
This is the crux of the problem for the last six years and I'm sure many other adms. going back where legislative and executive were run by one side (not to mention judicial).
What's particularly galling is the sense that party comes before country. You must worship at the alter of the power structure of your party or no goodies for you.
The mindset that drives this mechanism strikes at the heart of what it is to be an ethical human being; the ability to act on your conscience without fear of retribution. This is probably one of the most damaging roadblocks to the progress of a free republic.
The mentality behind it is based on weakness that infers that a policy idea is not strong enough in and of itself to rest upon its own worthiness.
When it's as dificult as it seems to be an ethical politician, (seems wierd putting those 2 words together) it may be time for an absolute overhaul of the system.
Tall order indeed.
Let's start with an attempt at an independent ethics committee. That sounds good as a first step, although the independent thing would be tricky.
25 - Bliffle
Ho hum. Everybody's suffering terror-fatigue. The GOP is wasting their money.