home

1964's "Daisy Ad": Déjà Vu All Over Again

by Last Night in Little Rock

Many of you by now have seen the GOP's "bin Laden" ad with the sound of a ticking clock as the only sound until a voice appears at the end.

CNN.com ran this story about it: GOP terrorism ad sparks Democratic furor. The ad equates the GOP with being able to protect us from terrorism, even though President Bush ignored the direct bin Laden threat before 9/11 and he has not been concerned with finding bin Laden since 2002 by his own admission. Also, when Clinton had a hit put on bin Laden in the midst of the Lewisky scandal, the Republicans claimed a "wag the dog" scenario, and Clinton backed off when the GOP yelled "politics."  So who is responsible for bin Laden not being killed in 1998?  The GOP, not Clinton.  How stupid do they think we are?

Anyway, I watched the current ad before I went back and saw the CNN story, and I made the same observation that the CNN writers made:

Republicans took a page from President Johnson's Cold War-era presidential campaign with an advertisement set to air this weekend called "The Stakes," which prominently features al Qaeda leaders threatening to kill Americans.

"Just like in the Cold War, the reality is that our nation is at war with an ideology and not a country," said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt.

Democrats, however, have called the commercial, which is reminiscent of Johnson's 1964 "Daisy" ad, a "desperate ploy to once again try to scare voters."

I remember seeing the "Daisy ad" when it first ran. It ran one time: September 7, 1964, but it was repeated as a part of news stories. It was intended by President Johnson, quite frankly, to scare the hell out of the voters, and it did. It ended with a mushroom cloud, as does the current ad.

The question today is: Will this ad scare the hell out of the voters like it did 42 years ago?  

I don't think so. We've been lied to so much and for so long that this ad reeks of rank desperation.  I was insulted, not scared by it, but the GOP has to rely on the stupidity or complacency of the average voter; the very things that got Bush "elected" twice.

If George Bush is so stupid he admits to not even thinking about bin Laden since 2002 and catching or killing him for the atrocities committed on the U.S., how dare the GOP invoke the "boogie man" now?  Just how stupid do they think are?  

Apparently pretty damn stupid.  I feel like I'm trapped in George Orwell's 1984: "War is Peace."

And so it goes.

< An Inadvertent Truth | Armstrong Williams Was Overpaid For Propoganda >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: "Daisy" ad (2.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:19:21 AM EST
    How stupid do they think we are?

    actually, really stupid, and with good reason. it worked in 2000, 2002 & 2004; why not 2006? the american public is notorious for having a very short attention span, and not being very bright, on average. were that not true, kerry would be in the white house, and we'd have a democratic party majority congress. clearly, that's not the case.

    i believe it was p.t. barnum who supposedly said "never underestimate the stupidity of the american public." if he didn't say it, he should have! i am convinced, were i to run for office in my small, southern city, if i claimed that my opponent was a "known, flagrant heterosexual!", i would win in a landslide.

    i too saw the "daisy" ad the one and only time it ran as a paid, political ad. i was almost 9 years old, the country was still in shock from president kennedy's assassination, and my dad's colleagues were being sent to this place called vietnam. some had already returned, in coffins and hospital wards. that's when quantico still had a real hospital.

    it was also not too long after the "cuban missile crisis" had scared the crap out of all of us, especially those, like me, who were sitting on ground zero. suffice it to say, between the original airing, and the subsequent re-airing, as part of the evening news, it was a wildly successful ad.

    two main differences, between now and then:

    1. johnson was dealing with an inherited conflict, as was kennedy. not so bush and the repubs, iraq is pretty much their baby.

    2. johnson actively sought out advice on the strategy to pursue. unfortunately, he got poor advice, from both his civilian and military advisors. macnamara may have known how to run a car company, but he very clearly didn't know di*ck about running a guerilla war. again, bush and company seem to be actively engaged in avoiding any advice that might conflict with their preconceived notions of how iraq is going to play out.

    johnson may have played his hand poorly, but to his credit, he accepted his limitations. perhaps, had he gotten better advice, the repercussions of vietnam wouldn't still be haunting us. unfortunately, the same can't be said of bush, who fails to see that he has any limitations.

    Re: 1964's "Daisy Ad": (1.00 / 0) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 08:31:02 AM EST
    LNIR - You write:

    even though President Bush ignored the direct bin Laden threat before 9/11

    Could you provide a link that shows this?

    You write:

    Clinton backed off when the GOP yelled "politics."  So who is responsible for bin Laden not being killed in 1998?  The GOP, not Clinton.  How stupid do they think we are?

    I have always thougth the Repubs were wrong in their attacks on this, but this proves that Clinton, unlike Bush, was incapable of leading or knowingly doing anything unpopular. He never led, he just polled. In this case his lack of action let OBL live. Remember. Clinton, not the GOP, was President.

    So the ad is spot on. No Demo known to present day man can be trusted with the National Defense.

    Re: 1964's "Daisy Ad": (1.00 / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 11:04:50 AM EST
    cpinva - I have shown you time and again, according to Clinton's very own NSA that Bush was following the same strategy as Clinton while his staff, Clarke included, was working on a strategy change to elimination. Link

    Now you can keep yelling about 9/11 and being on Bush's watch, etc.... But it proves nothing. Shall I yell about WTC1 in 1993???? I seem to remember that Clinton was Pres, and never even went to the site. Guess it was big on his radar, right??

    As for the issues you raise, I would agree that they all need changing. Of course the port defense flap was about ownership, not being in charge of security. The US was, is and would have been. Guess the Left doesn't trust Arabs to manage companies. In the meantime we have po'd another country... I thought the Left was against that.

    And what difference does "inherited" make? Conflict is conflict. The ad was an attempt to show that Goldwater would start a nuclear war. Scared Johnson into office and gave Johnson the chance to screw up Vietnam.

    In the meantime the Left continues to try and scare us over loss of rights while continuing to praise those who leak national defense secrets..

    Of course sometimes one of them sees his error. And in admitting it, proves that he is too biased to have the job he has!

    As for advice, would you like a re-run of all the statements by the Demos in 2002?? Here's a sample.

    "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

    If the Demos would quit trying to use the war as a political issue, and demonstrate that want to work as a team on foreign policy, perhaps they could be taken seriously.

    But they can't, because they fear they will loose their base of Far Left members who are anti-war and pathologically anti bush. So what they have done is hurt the war effort, hurt the country and demonstrate clearly who they are. Their current strategy may win the House and Senate. But it will not win the national elections in '08, just as their actions in 64-68 couldn't win, and produced only one Demo president in the next 24 years.

    Re: 1964's "Daisy Ad": (none / 0) (#5)
    by aw on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    You poor man, I'm almost starting to feel sorry for you.

    Parent
    "Daisy" ad (none / 0) (#3)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 23, 2006 at 10:25:28 AM EST
    yes, and the repubs have done such a wonderful job jim. let's see now: 9/11 on their watch; the botched jobs in afghanistan and iraq; no port security; inept airport security. and the list goes on.

    i'm not sure the country can take much more of this "National Defense".