Click The Logo To Donate
Posted on 01/18/2003 8:09:40 AM PST by Timesink
http://sg.biz.yahoo.com/030117/72/36kxl.html
Friday January 17, 09:42 AM
By Suzanne Vranica
A JARRING ANTIWAR commercial running in some local markets is causing a stir, with NBC-owned stations in Los Angeles and Washington refusing to air the spot.
The commercial is a remake of the famous 1964 "Daisy" ad that depicted a little girl plucking one daisy petal after another as a voice counts down to a nuclear-bomb blast. That ad was made by Tony Schwartz, a legendary adman.
The new version, created on behalf of MoveOn.org, a grass-roots organization, features a blond girl picking petals off a daisy while a voiceover says, "War with Iraq. Maybe it will end quickly. Maybe not. Maybe it will spread." As war images of burning oil wells and wounded soldiers appear on the screen, the voiceover continues: "Maybe extremists will take over countries with nuclear weapons." The ad ends with a shot of a nuclear explosion and a mushroom cloud rising in the red sky. The final message: "Let the inspections work."
Hilary Smith, a spokeswoman for General Electric's NBC, says "the ad pertained to a controversial issue, which we prefer to handle in news and public-affairs programming -- where we can be fair and balanced."
Zimmerman & Markman, a political consulting firm that specializes in social-issue campaigns, created the commercial for MoveOn.org, an organization that works on issues such as gun safety and campaign finance. The group has an office in Berkeley, Calif., but is largely based on the Web and uses the Internet to raise money and communicate with members.
The original "Daisy" ad, created for Lyndon Johnson's presidential campaign against conservative Barry Goldwater, is one of the most famous and controversial television ads in U.S. politics. Amid a storm of protests, the ad was abruptly pulled off the air after being shown just once.
Comcast's cable systems in the Washington area are running the antiwar ad during news programs. KARE, an NBC affiliate in Minneapolis, was leery of the ad's "disturbing" content but has decided to broadcast the spot this weekend during "Meet the Press," to avoid reaching young children, says John Remes, KARE's president and general manager. "We decided to air it in a time period where the audience can handle the content," he says.
MoveOn.org says its ad is expected to air on local stations in 13 major cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami and Cleveland. The group is spending about $400,000, with money raised from donations, to air the commercial.
"We are trying to expose the potential dangers that we are walking into," says Eli Pariser, international campaigns director for MoveOn.org. "A war in Iraq could open up a Pandora's box in the region."
Other groups using advertising to get their antiwar messages out to the masses seem to be taking less discomfiting approaches. Americans Against War With Iraq says it will run a full-page print ad in Tribune's Los Angeles Times today that list 1,000 names of Americans, including actor Ed Asner and comic Bill Maher, who are against the war. "Who's Against a U.S. War on Iraq?" the ad's headline reads.
Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, an advocacy group founded by Ben & Jerry's co-founder Ben Cohen, says it is also in the process of creating an antiwar TV campaign that will use celebrities. Print ads being crafted feature retired military personnel and religious leaders who are opposed to the war.
"One of the things we can do is show the incredible diversity of the people involved in the peace movement," says Gary Ferdman, executive director for Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. "We are trying to prevent the war from happening."
I continue to be amazed that they think this has ANY relevance to the real world.
"We are trying to prevent the war from happening."
I also continue to be amazed that they think their little puny parades are going to have such a result.
I don't get it. It makes no sense to me....
The only thing that will prevent a war is DISARMING SADDAM. Eventually when Saddam thinks he has enough of the right weapons he will begin using them. Why is it so hard for them to see that?
Their numbers are growing. Just like the so called 'peace' movement of the 60's in it's early days. If we wait long enough to move against Saddam, they will gain enough support to win like they did in Viet Nam. Remember that they're not rally anti-war (or pro-peace), they're anti-American in their core beliefs.
Though Vietnam was before my time (I think the final evacuation of Saigon happened when I was five), I was under the impression that the anti-American types didn't really gain enough to win until two presidents (Johnson and Nixon, though of course Kennedy started it) had already dug us deep into a Vietnam morass that continued quite a number of years. We haven't even started with Iraq yet, and when we do it isn't going to take more than a month or two.
I'm also amused that the three cable news channels seem to be giving the Unwashed-Hair crowd only tertiary coverage. As usual, they're being mostly ignored.
Just this week, I was mulling over the reckless stupidity of adopting MAD as a defense doctrine, limiting ABMs by treaty, and designing "city busting" bombs for actual use in large numbers. Also, how it took the genius of Reagan to push actual defensive measures in order to make mass murder of noncombatants an unfeasible move.
I remembered some of the fear, and had let the kiddoes watch "On the Beach" and "Ladybug, Ladybug".
Now these asses want to restore that fear.
IMO, and only IMO since there are several ways to see it, it was the anti-war types that caused the morass of Viet Nam. We could have easily won early on by the simple expedient of obliterating North Viet Nam. We didn't because the anti-american people convinced us to keep pulling our punches till we were in so deep, and they had gained enough support on campus and in Congress, that they won. Iraq may be different, but we need to keep in mind that the longer we delay the stronger they get (both domestically and in world opinion). We can never underestimate the opposition (both here and there) if we want to be sure of victory.
BTW, though it isn't well known, it was Eisenhower that first got us involved in Viet Nam immediately after the French pulled out. He appointed the first American advisor to the region (William Collins (or Collier? It's been a while) to deal with the "dangerous and threateneing situation in southeast asia".
Huh? So, in order to forestall this, we should allow Saddam to continue to bamboozle the world? What would these jerks advocate if Hans Blix managed to actually find an active nuke weapons lab?
I heard actor Mike Farrel on Hannity's radio show this week and ended up shouting at the radio. He talked about supporting "limited military operations" to help the inspectors. What the f*&# does that mean? "Limited military operation" can be anything from a JDAM in Saddam's favorite outhouse to landing a brigade of paratroops to secure a site so that the U.N. can inspect it.
IDIOTS.
The real message to be taken from the ad is: Why wait until Saddam has nukes and can make such a scare tactic realistic?
Also, may I suggest that the bath-free brainwashed tribes of stooges (the usual gang of suspects) gathered on the Washington Mall today be referenced, as years ago, as the Americong? It seems a good shorthand. Did anyone else enjoy the spectacle of the Palestinian activist, fist raised in the air, leading the chant of "The people, united, will never be defeated!" I was waiting for someone to slip and start: "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh! The NLF is gonna win." I also did not hear anyone say: Simon Sez before any of the chants. Does that mean they have to retreat 3 steps before their next turn?
I want to know how sincere they truly are. Let them hold their next rally at ground zero in Iraq on V-I Day (the day that the bombs arrive). Collateral damage: Too bad, so sad!
Muffy: You mean they would actually bomb us? Mumsy won't like that at all. No, Skipper, I never heard of that! What was a Kent State? I never heard of it. Is it in the Ivy League or is it one of the Seven Sister Schools? Who was Kent? Oh no, how positively awful! Maybe we should play polo instead!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.