४ ऑक्टोबर, २०१६
"Now, it seems to me we're up against a very different kind of a man. This man scares me."
IN THE COMMENTS: Clark points to the Hillary Clinton ad from July that is adapted from the LBJ ad:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४९ टिप्पण्या:
No, the Democratic playbook really hasn't changed since the 60's at least: Republicans are ogres --- one way or another, now & forever.
Two things stand out to me about this ad: 1) That guy is the 1964 stereotype of a Republican. He'd be a Democrat now. 2) no modern audience would sit still for an ad of that length & complexity. A longer attention span could be assumed of the average viewer.
Where's the little girl picking flowers on the way to Armageddon?
I, for one, look forward to the anti-Trump daisy & nuclear explosion ad. Or aren't we serious about our agitprop this election season?
Democrats, 1992-2012: "OMG the GOP has literally nominated the next Hitler!"
Democrats, 2016: "WE MEAN IT THIS TIME."
Hey, a gay Republican!
Here's the 2016 version with (what looks to me like) the same actor.
Hey that guy lit up a cigarette! Police!
I don't know if the older man in the pro-Hillary commercial is the same man as in the pro-LBJ commercial, although he may certainly be. That the second commercial is a direct sequel to the first suggests it is the same person. What strikes me is how scripted the first commercial seems, and how practiced the man's mannerisms--his hesitations, his stuttering, etc. I don't know if he's a professional actor, but he was certainly rehearsed.
Goldwater did have some paranoid friends. But even paranoid people have real enemies. And we now know that Mr Stable LBJ's men were the ones who assassinated JFK and took us into the Viet Nam War for profits.
Actor William Bogert.
He's got a very long list of tv and film credits. And an even longer list of radio credits.
In the 2008 election, several B-list politicians were stating that "my significant other is voting for Obama, and he/she always votes Republican". I heard the phrase so many times from multiple sources that I concluded it must be false.
Why does the 2016 "Confessions" still use the whir-n-pop of a phonograph record?
The current Republican nominee is always Hitler. The Repbulican nominee from 40 years ago is always moderate, reasonable, Lincolnesque.
I was just reading a book of essays by a couple of historians, and one of the chapters was about Huey Long. He battled the establishment pols, Standard Oil, positioned himself as a man of the people ... and got assassinated in the end.
He was also unscrupulous and probably crooked, too, but he at least pretended to care for "crackers like me."
(I also found a couple of Trump-like pols back in the days of the Roman republic. They ended up getting killed too.)
Elites have no patience for challengers.
Jim said...
The current Republican nominee is always Hitler. The Repbulican nominee from 40 years ago is always moderate, reasonable, Lincolnesque.
Amen!
Even when it is the same person. Barry Goldwater, dangerous wacko in 1964 was the great statesman convincing Nixon to resign in 1974. John McCain, the eminently reasonable moderate pushing bipartisan campaign finance (ha!) and "comprehensive" immigration reform, suddenly became another dangerous wacko for the narrow window of 2008 when he ran for President. Reagan. Et cetera.
Goldwater did have some paranoid friends. But even paranoid people have real enemies. And we now know that Mr Stable LBJ's men were the ones who assassinated JFK and took us into the Viet Nam War for profits.
Can't say LBJ killed JFK. The number of people who'd have to stay silent forever is too large to even fathom. But he was a corrupt shit.
The current Republican nominee is always Hitler. The Repbulican nominee from 40 years ago is always moderate, reasonable, Lincolnesque.
40? Hell, 4 years is usually enough for them to be nearly sanctified.
damikesc said... Hell, 4 years is usually enough for them to be nearly sanctified.
You know what's funny, though? They do that shit--the say "why even Mitt Romney thinks x" or "Ronald Reagan wouldn't be welcome in the Repub. party" or whatever--but they never apologize. They smeared Romney, lied about his taxes, falsely accused him of killing a woman (by denying her medical care for her cancer), and all sorts of other dirty shit, and they've never apologized. Has Obama? I haven't heard it. Has Harry Reid? Hell no, he's PROUD of his lies and he's happy to say so on record.
Fuck the Media and fuck the Left.
"Elites have no patience for challengers."
I am quite concerned about this.
Especially after the attempted assassination in Dayton. and the fact that the attempted assassin was later interviewed on CNN.
His mother is a big politician (D) in Atlanta and that attempt was being celebrated by the left.
I look forward to 2020 when people say: "X is pretty bad! Remember when Trump was running? That was a guy who knew business!"
The updated HRC ad is poorly edited. It starts with the same title card and audio, but the cut to the modern guy happens a split second after you glimpse the star of the previous version (yes, that might be the same guy). That might be intentional for subliminal purposes, but I can't imagine THAT many people remember the old ad to get the flashing image.
Oh sure, we can all laugh about Goldwater now. But I remember those dark days of '64: Hitler returns, as a Jew! Well Espiscopalian Jew, but still...
Who could say what double doses of evil lurked in the soul of such a man. A new Holocaust, no doubt, yeah, a "Nuclear Holocaust" targeting blonde blue-eyed daisy picking little American girls. Thank goodness, we still had that good ole honest Texan LBJ to preserve the peace.
Just another bit of evidence on the matter of its not the message, its the megaphone.
The substance, what is said, doesn't matter. It requires no logic, no facts and certainly no consistency. Its all about yelling "he's poopy!" the most, and the loudest.
Instapundit has long recommended the best and most cost effective thing any conservative billionaire could do is pick up a couple of ladies magazines. Or possibly the LA Times.
Its the medium, the message is whatever works.
I don't value the opinions of old men with irrational fears.
Guy said he voted for Eisenhower. Maybe, but he shoulda stated that he started his life's list with Lincoln.
As a trial lawyer, I tend to put a lot of trust in Barr MCClellan's books on LBJ's dealings. His last book, called Blood Money and Power, pretty well ties down the lose ends a trial lawyer's evidence should. Barr reads it himself on the Audible version.
LBJ's men, using help from CIA operatives and Texas Oil Tycoons, did beat "those g-damn Irish Catholic Kennedy boys." And that was a hell of a cover up run by who else, The FBI.
Remember when LBJ scared us all that Goldwater would nuke the world, then LBJ dragged us deep into Viet Nam? Hillary would never do a thing like that given her sterling record as a seeker of peace!
I don't think it's the same actor -- ears are different.
This demonstrates the Left's "cry wolf" problem. You tell us for years how immoral, unfeeling, fascistic and stupid the GOP nominees are, then you get a guy who pretty closely fits those descriptions it rings a bit hollow when you say "we're serious this time! Even Romney, who we just finished painting as a corrupt, unfeeling extremist businessman agrees with us! You should listen to Romney now, because we decided we were wrong about him four years ago!"
The Left has plenty of responsibility for the rise of Trump.
"MadisonMan said...
I don't think it's the same actor -- ears are different."
Ears keep getting larger with age, because of cartilage growth, and effect of gravity.
"MadisonMan said...
I don't think it's the same actor -- ears are different."
Same dude according to this:
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-18/hillary-clinton-campaign-remakes-1964-confessions-of-a-republican-ad-with-same-actor
Who are they trying to reach with this commercial? Republican's? Old republicans that remember how democrats slimed Goldwater? Old democrats? What demographic is Hillary grasping for with this approach? It was a scurrilous attack then and its a scurrilous attack now.
The difference between Goldwater and Trump is as different as the politics of the times from 1964 (following JFK's assassination, the Civil Rights Act, and the heating up of the Vietnamese conflict) and what is transpiring today with world economic instability and the real possibilty of a wartime alignment of nations along religious lines.
Most importantly, however, is the reality that Barry Goldwater was a intelligent man who understood what lay ahead while Donald Trump only reacts to current events because he has no vision about the future. Goldwater knew that war was upon us in 1964 and Trump hasn't got a clue about anything that did not show up in the latest video highlights.
Goldwater wouldn't have pushed the button irresponsibly but who knows about the firebrand Trump?
I just don't understand why everyone is against nuclear war.
If we would have used nuclear weapons in Korea, or even Syria, it would have saved 100's of thousands of lives, and prevented an exodus.
Nuclear war has it's positive points, else no country would spend trillions maintaining them.
I'm voting for the person who see's nuclear weapons as an economical way to conduct war, and winning.
@gadfly, coupe:Goldwater wouldn't have pushed the button irresponsibly but who knows about the firebrand Trump? I'm voting for the person who see's nuclear weapons as an economical way to conduct war, and winning.
I am very disturbed by the number of people who think that there is a "button", that a President can start a war with a word from his royal mouth. Must be the "low-information voters" I'm always hearing about. Shows a near-total ignorance of reality.
If there were a "button", Hillary would have it installed in her home bathroom, next to the toilet paper, for convenience. Then she'd show all those icky men what's what.
Life-long Republican still shilling for Democrats after all these years.
There has been a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change where anything less than scientific mysticism, progressive wars, redistributive populations, trickle-up poverty, and abortion rites is deplorable.
Well, if you won't listen to the reincarnation of a 1964 'lifelong Republican,' how about fifty -- fifty! -- 'Star Trek' actors, directors and sci-fi writers who have issued a letter urging good Trekkies to vote against Donald Trump?
Including George Takei!
irectors and sci-fi writers who have issued a letter urging good Trekkies to vote against Donald Trump?
"Ya can nae break a stick when it's in a bundle." - Fascist Scotty
Yes, they turned The Federation Fascist in the latest movie, and made the plot about "Stronger Together." They did. But don't worry, the FEC is right on top of it, look at Citizens United. Just like they are all over HBO for running anti Trump, pro Hillary half hour infomercials like Last Week Tonight.
So is the idea of the ad to remind people of how happy they are that Johnson was elected instead of Goldwater? I thought Hillary's generation hated LBJ for getting us into Vietnam (it surely wouldn't have happened if Saint Jack hadn't been killed)and lying about it.
Or is it that the HRC campaign is too lazy to come up with its own ideas. Maybe they can do something with Wilson's slogan from 1916 "He kept us out of war!"
"I just don't understand why everyone is against nuclear war.
"If we would have used nuclear weapons in Korea, or even Syria, it would have saved 100's of thousands of lives, and prevented an exodus.
"Nuclear war has it's positive points, else no country would spend trillions maintaining them.
"I'm voting for the person who see's nuclear weapons as an economical way to conduct war, and winning."
Spoken like a true psychopath. Seriously.
Robert Cook said...Spoken like a true psychopath. Seriously.
No more-so than the Generals who practiced nuclear warfare with our own troops in Nevada.
Why this is the most interesting advertisement However I did notice some annoying flashes or blips in the video And I investigated and found out that they did a subliminal insertion of the original actor from the original video between three and four seconds in between 39 and 40 seconds So between the old titles and the new actor is a flash of the old actor. And right after he says threat to humanity at 39 seconds is a flash of the old actor. I was able to see this on an iPhone by double tapping the play and pause button at the suspected areas
I guess one could excuse having the old actor appear right after the old titles but certainly not between 39 and 40 seconds
This was done purposely the question is why
"Especially after the attempted assassination in Dayton. and the fact that the attempted assassin was later interviewed on CNN."
Seriously, that was an assassination attempt? The guy didn't even have a weapon. Exaggerate much?
Well, this is rich, coming from someone who says "I was very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
https://youtu.be/Qb2tqNZ9dGk
"No more-so than the Generals who practiced nuclear warfare with our own troops in Nevada."
I won't argue that point. Of course our military thinking and policies are psychopathic.
It was interesting how, just by being a WASP, people in '64 just knew he was Republican. Then, the Democrats were southerners and ethnics (Catholics and, in the vernacular of the time, coloreds) who couldn't get into a bank, much less run one. Because of Nixon's and Atwater's southern strategy, WASPs are now the base of the Democratic party. The Republicans continue to be the party of fear, however.
Unpredictability wrt the use of nukes is a basic principle of game theory. A President should never define when cis/pan-she will use nukes. This assures that the opponent will not see a window of positive probability in cis/pan-her favor. This commercial is stupid.
The Johnson Ad in 1964 that struck the mortal blow to Goldwater, as others have previously noted, was the "Daisy Ad." It was the ad that changed political ads on television. I didn't think the "I'm a lifelong Republican" ad made any difference back then. The Rockefeller Republicans left that convention plenty angry already as I recall. Nixon in later interviews said he didn't run that year because he knew that no Republican was going to win an election one year after the Kennedy assassination. Even if you assume the ad had any effect, it merely reinforced the desire to keep the establishment in power and to return to a sense of stability. I don't think the electorate this year has that motivation.
Ironically, the Johnson Administration began to unravel in August, 1965 with the Watts Riots. I don't think television ads have as much impact nowadays as the "Daisy Ad."
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा