I don’t remember much about the negative campaigning in that one. What I remember most is that Dan Quayle was “Dubya” before “Dubya” was “Dubya” AND that it was an extremely weak race. An “Old Guard” Republican who was serving as the V.P. at the time vs. Michael Dukakis, a Democrat who simply wasn’t up to the task. Matter of fact it’s a little hard to imagine right now but as I recall the Democratic field that election cycle was about as “impressive” as the G.o.P. field (a.k.a. the “Clown Car Clusterphuch”) is these days. I’ve mentioned it before (and I probably will again before this election is all over): the 2016 U.S. presidential election is shaping up to be as bad as, if not worse than, the 1988 one was. And that’s saying something.
The issue of crime in presidential elections is just a mask for racial hatred.
With you, certainly.
1988 was a good presidential field. Democrats had Biden, Dick Gephardt, Dukakis , and Gore (who was probably running for VP) Republicans had Bush, Dole, and Jack Kemp. All of whom were serious candidates with years of experience.
Agreed – isn’t crime supposed to be a state-level issue anyway? At least I should think conservatives would think so.
The Swift Boat campaign may have been worse, but it wasn’t nearly as effective. The Atwater campaign took Dukakis from a 20 point lead to a crushing defeat, and it addressed issues of what he did as governor and what he believed, right now. The Swift Boat campaign was focused on Kerry’s past, some of which he regretted anyway, and probably didn’t affect the trajectory of the campaign at all. Plus the media was having none of the Swifties, going out of their way to debunk their claims. The media reported the attacks on Dukakis dispassionately and really didn’t do much to rise to his defense.
This is the Dukakis ad, btw:
Maybe part of the thing is that I was only 13 when the election happened, so I don’t really remember it all that well, but I don’t fully get the outrage over the Willie Horton ad. It seems like an effective ad to me.
I agree. Even if furloughs did improve recidivism rates, the issue of recidivism doesn’t even matter when it comes to murderers. The original law didn’t let murderers participate, wisely so, but a court overruled that prohibition on technical grounds similar to how SCOTUS might overrule Obamacare’s subsidies. So the legislature tried to fix it, and Dukakis vetoed it. And someone died.
I believe in rehabilitating criminals. Not murderers. You commit murder, your own life should be forfeit. Whether that means the death penalty, life in prison, or not getting out until you’re too old to be a threat to anyone and you live the rest of your years in poverty makes little difference to me.
Secondly, Horton was already sentenced to life without parole! What rehabilitation was Dukakis trying to achieve here? It was an immensely stupid policy, and one in which the government failed at its first and foremost job: protecting the citizenry from those who would prey on them. This is an especially egregrious breach of trust when you live in a state that puts major limits on your right to protect yourself from society’s predators.
“As we sat in front of our TV set, we realized something had changed. No longer did the programming include, at regular intervals, footage of violent criminals going through revolving doors, recitations of the horrors that might be inflicted on peace-loving Americans if a ‘card-carrying member of the ACLU’ became President, or bursts of talk about Boston Harbor and Taxachusetts. George Bush was not even President yet, and the United States was already a kinder and gentler place because the Bush campaign was over.” New Yorker’s Talk of the Town, 11/14/88
Another lesson to be drawn from 1988 is that campaigns have little relation to governing. Bush was a pretty mild guy and not all that partisan but ran an incredibly dirty campaign. That’s because a basic truth of campaigns that a lot of people don’t get is that the candidates aren’t in charge. The campaign manager is. The candidate allows himself to be a product to be sold to the public. Running your own campaign is a lot like handling your own defense in court. It’s a very specialized skill and if you don’t hire the best professionals then you won’t win. But once you hire them, as with a lawyer, your fate is more in his hands than your own.
Once you win an election though, you are in charge. You make the decisions. So not surprisingly, it’s a totally different person than who people thought they were voting for(or against).
Does 1988 qualify as recent? It’s almost 30 years ago! I don’t consider anything before 2000 “recent” when it comes to politics.
PLENTY of ads - liberal or conservative - try to appeal viscerally.
So, what about that 1998 Oklahoma City bombing.
If the issue of crime was just about race hatred than the reduction in crime wouldn’t have reduced its salience as a political issue. This is just more sore loser talk by Democrats. When Democrats win, it’s because the people are enlightened. When they lose, it’s because they gave into unjustified fears.
Democrats might have a better leg to stand on if they hadn’t completely surrendered on law and order issues in the 90s. If reducing crime was about racism, then Democrats were the lead racists.
What on earth are you talking about? The Democrats passed a sweeping crime bill in the 1990s and crime rate rates dropped throughout the 90’s. Whether that was because of the crime bill or the booming economy is a matter of debate, but the Democrats certainly didn’t surrender on crime issues .
No, Democrats, which is why they tried to use it as a counter and we get things like this -
[QUOTE=Acsenray]
The issue of crime in presidential elections is just a mask for racial hatred.
[/QUOTE]
With Obama, every issue is just a mask for racial hatred (for liberals). So we have not moved forward very much.
The Democrats recognized it was an effective ad, and tried the only thing they could think of, which was to play the race card. Part of their motivation is/was projection - liberals stop thinking once the accusation of racism is made (against a Republican) and just repeat themselves. Part of the motivation is cynical - blacks vote 90+% Democratic, and playing the race card stirs up the base.
As noted, it didn’t work, because the Dems were fool enough to try to present Dukakis as not soft on crime, with the heroin addict ad, and not soft on the military, with the tank ad. And got spanked in the election.
After the election, the Dems wised up. They concentrated on getting Bush to break his promise of no new taxes by lying about cutting spending if Bush would agree to a tax increase. Then they broke their promise, and Clinton was able to be elected by focussing on the economy, although the notion of Clinton accusing someone else of lies was slightly less grotesque than it later became. And the GOP found they could be effective even in the minority, so they managed to stop Clinton from increasing the deficit, forced him to withdraw a couple of his more egregious nominees to the Supreme Court, and the Gingrich came up with the Contract with America and welfare reform, the GOP regained Congress, and Clinton was reduced to claiming credit for things he opposed, bombing Iraq to try to avoid impeachmnent, and saying “ah did not have sex with that woman”.
Regards,
Shodan
I know. If only the Republicans could have focused on an issue other than race, oh, I don’t know, murder perhaps…?
Shorter version: “No, you *Democrats *are the real racists! Regards, Shodan”
No, it wasn’t. It had nothing to do with his *actual *past, only about a set of lies intended to blunt the problem of Kerry being a war hero and Bush being a deserter. It was less effective than Poppy’s race-baiting because it depended on asserting an alleged set of facts which could be easily checked, and when the lies were exposed, backfired on Bush. You can’t refute a visceral ad easily.
It was both effective and outrageous. Elections do have some element of principle involved, they aren’t solely about winning. Winning you can easily do by pandering to fears. Any tinhorn pol knows how to do that.
Nobody said it was just about race hatred, did they?
Sore loser talk, or guilty-feeling winner talk?
Gonna have to explain that one, Hoss.
What about it?
You could probably get a majority of Republican primary voters today to agree a Muslim terrorist organization did it on Obama’s watch. Maybe that’s it.