Anyone remember the 'Daisy' political ad with the little girl and the nuke explosion? I think it was used by LBJ against Barry Goldwater....was it the first real negative political ad on television?


And in your opinion, what's the worst, most negative political ad you have ever seen or heard? I say one is the ad Bush the First used against Dukakis(the infamous 'Willie Horton' ad)...

Anyone remember the 'Daisy' political ad with the little girl and the nuke explosion? I think it was used by LBJ against Barry Goldwater....was it the first real negative political ad on television?


It was probably the most blatant one.  It's only goal was to instill fear in people.  It was in such bad taste, I think it was only shown 2 or 3 times.  It was immediately pulled.

Here is a link, if somebody has never seen the spot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28television_commercial%29


And in your opinion, what's the worst, most negative political ad you have ever seen or heard? I say one is the ad Bush the First used against Dukakis(the infamous 'Willie Horton' ad)...


Dukakis was his own worst enemy.  The "Revolving Door" ad simply showed that he was soft on crime.  The "Tank Ride" commercial was equally effective, showing him in riding a tank, at the same time he was talking about cutting defense.  People normally do not like it when a politician seems to be trying to go both ways (like Kerry).

This is simply a trend over the last few decades, to concentrate more on bashing the opposition then highlighting your own strengths.

Seen the daisy clip......

It looks super creeeeeeeepy.........  :o

It was probably the most blatant one.  It's only goal was to instill fear in people.  It was in such bad taste, I think it was only shown 2 or 3 times.  It was immediately pulled.

Here is a link, if somebody has never seen the spot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28television_commercial%29

Dukakis was his own worst enemy.  The "Revolving Door" ad simply showed that he was soft on crime.  The "Tank Ride" commercial was equally effective, showing him in riding a tank, at the same time he was talking about cutting defense.  People normally do not like it when a politician seems to be trying to go both ways (like Kerry).

This is simply a trend over the last few decades, to concentrate more on bashing the opposition then highlighting your own strengths.

The 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns demonstrated the Democrats were not willing to be as filty and rotten as the Republicans.  You get a gullible public and get people like Dick Morris and Karl Rove to work their magic, and real issues go out the window!
Dukakis looked goofy in the tank.  So what?  That says nothing about what policies he would support or what cabinet members he would appoint.  George Bush also rode in that tank, and looked goofy, too.  However, you didn't see that in the media.
The Repugs always make like the media is their enemy when in fact the media kowtows to them, and was doing so long before FOX News and Rush Limbaugh.  The more the media became consolidated under the ownership of corporations such as General Electric, the more they were pressured to support the political party that supported more the military-industrial complex.  Both parties support big business above labor and human rights.  Both parties support the military-industrial complex.  However, only the Repugs are universally committed whole hog.
The negative ad campaign has spread to a full time job for FOX News, The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard, talk radio, and the WSJ editorialists.  With the exception of a few minor players (such as "Air America" and "Democracy Now") broadcast media is a full-time ad campaign for the Republican party.
The media sometimes appears liberal, but their liberalism is restricted to a few social issues.  On economic and foreign policy issues, they're corporate, corporate, corporate, all the way.

With the exception of a few minor players (such as "Air America" and "Democracy Now") broadcast media is a full-time ad campaign for the Republican party.
The media sometimes appears liberal, but their liberalism is restricted to a few social issues.  On economic and foreign policy issues, they're corporate, corporate, corporate, all the way.


Ah yes, so true.  That is why on the show "West Wing", the President is a Democrat.

And as far as commercials, the price for them is set by law.  And if a network or station was giving unfair "publicity" to one candidate, the other simply has to declair "equal time", and he/she can then give their own spin in defense.

Of course, you have to realize that the "Willie Horton" ad was not put out by Bush.  It was actually made by a Political Action Committee.  They made it and paid for it to air, without any input from President Bush.

And last but not least, The first Willie Horton ads were not run in support of George Bush Sr.  They were actually run by the Al Gore For President Campaign.  The PAC simply mad a similar commercial to the one that Gore used during the primaries.

"Al Gore

It seems to me like the GOP as well as some democrats just love to pile on the negative stuff, they really get on a roll sometimes like the negative crap Doug Forrester tried to use against Jon Corzine in the New Jersey gubernatorial race...Forrester lost, Corzine won...

How much brains does it take to create a negative ad anyways, seemingly not much!

It seems to me like the GOP as well as some democrats just love to pile on the negative stuff, they really get on a roll sometimes like the negative crap Doug Forrester tried to use against Jon Corzine in the New Jersey gubernatorial race...Forrester lost, Corzine won...

How much brains does it take to create a negative ad anyways, seemingly not much!


Actually, neither political party is responsible for the worst of the ads.  Those now come from Political Action Committees.

And were the ads by Swift Boat Veterans any worse then those by MoveOn.Org?  For the most part, both parties just stand back, and let the PACs do their dirty work for them.

Well, negative ads do go way before television.  Thomas Jefferson paid James Callender to smear John Adams.  Then Callendar got pissed off at Jefferson and smeared him. 

The 1984 and 1988 presidential campaigns demonstrated the Democrats were not willing to be as filty and rotten as the Republicans.


What about 1964, you know, the election this thread was started about?

Goldwater campaign: In your hearts, you know he's right
Johnson campaign: In your guts, you know he's nuts

Johnson was all around negative.  It didn't start there, but it was really one of the first time television was popular in the elections, probably the most at the time aside from the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon televised debate.

Forrester lost, Corzine won...

And what a real shocker that was!

What about 1964, you know, the election this thread was started about?

Goldwater campaign: In your hearts, you know he's right
Johnson campaign: In your guts, you know he's nuts


In your brain, you know he's insane!
Goldwater wanted to NUKE Indochina for chrissakes!  Of course, Johnson turned out to be profoundly humanitarian over there...
::)

In your brain, you know he's insane!
Goldwater wanted to NUKE Indochina for chrissakes!  Of course, Johnson turned out to be profoundly humanitarian over there...
::)
yeah, I've learned that Senator Goldwater had an itchy trigger finger...but LBJ sending our boys and men to Vietnam to fight an unwinnable war was not really an answer either...

What about 1964, you know, the election this thread was started about?

Goldwater campaign: In your hearts, you know he's right
Johnson campaign: In your guts, you know he's nuts

Johnson was all around negative.  It didn't start there, but it was really one of the first time television was popular in the elections, probably the most at the time aside from the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon televised debate.

And what a real shocker that was!
Forrester and his cronies waged a dirtier campaign than Corzine did.

yeah, I've learned that Senator Goldwater had an itchy trigger finger...but LBJ sending our boys and men to Vietnam to fight an unwinnable war was not really an answer either...

It's hard to second-guess history.  Who knows?  Maybe Goldwater would have bailed us out of 'Nam sooner than LBJ.  If the Joint-Chiefs-of-Staff would have talked him down from the nuclear option, then Goldwater might have declared, "Then let's just take our toys and go home!" 
If we were going to nuke indochina, we would want to bring our troops home anyway.  No point in nuking our boys too!  It's hard to figure how severe the fall-out (radioactive and geo-political) from "tactical" nuclear strikes against Indochina would be, but you can bet we'd be sorry!
:o

Forrester and his cronies waged a dirtier campaign than Corzine did.


Yes I know, but it was still no surprise Corzine won.

I remember when Walter Mondale named Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate..the GOP boy's club dug up the usual dirt on Ferraro, but they seemed more determined than ever to discredit her..what's wrong, they fear a woman becoming President if Mondale died? What's wrong with woman leading a country...If Britain could have Margaret Thatcher and Israel had Golda Meir, why can't male Americans accept a woman in the Oval Office?

I remember when Walter Mondale named Geraldine Ferraro as his running mate..the GOP boy's club dug up the usual dirt on Ferraro, but they seemed more determined than ever to discredit her..what's wrong, they fear a woman becoming President if Mondale died? What's wrong with woman leading a country...If Britain could have Margaret Thatcher and Israel had Golda Meir, why can't male Americans accept a woman in the Oval Office?


How about the fact that Ferraro was simp;y a "token female"?

When Mondale picked Ferraro, nothing else really needed to be done.  The Democrats knew they did not have a prayer of winning, so they threw in Ferraro, so they could claim that they were the first major party to have a female on the ticket.

Ms. Ferraro came under fire from a lot of groups though.  A Roman-Catholic, she came under fire from her own church because of her outspoken views on Abortion.

She came under fire also because she promised to release her and her husband's tax records, then backtracked stating he would release a "financial statement" instead.  A lot of people looked at this and wondered what they were hiding.

Overall, it made no difference.  Mondale-Ferraro was simply a ticket thrown together, consisting of 2 people the Democratic Party considered "disposable".  Neither of them had a chance, because Reagan was so popular across the board.  The party did not want to risk having a ticket with major names on it, so they threw in a few second stringers.  The landslide shows how smart this was.

And both sides do this very same tactic.  Why else would Bob Dole be the Repiblican's choice in 1996?  Bill Clinton was to strong to hope to remove, so they put in somebody who would not be running again, saving the "up and commers" for the 2000 race.

It's not personal, it's business.

How about the fact that Ferraro was simp;y a "token female"?


The first female VP candidate can hardly be called "token."  However, I agree, Mondale/Ferraro was a totally lame ticket.

The first female VP candidate can hardly be called "token."  However, I agree, Mondale/Ferraro was a totally lame ticket.


What I mean by that, is that it was a meaningless ticket.  No matter who was nominated, they had no chance to win.  It is also similar to most of the Republicans nominated during the Roosevelt Administration.  They did not have a prayer of unseating Franklin, so they were largely "throwaway" nominations.

Ferraro is largely just a footnote in history.  Other then as a question in "Trivial Persuit, 80's Edition", it is meaningless.  Now if they had nominated a woman in 1988 or 1992, it might have meant something.  In those years, the Democrats had a fair chance of winning.  And notice, there has not been a woman nominated since then.