Obama v. The Gipper
Bill McGurn ·
Sep 22, 2010 at 7:32am
Today Citizens for the Republic have unveiled a new ad called "Mourning in America," a play on Reagan's famous "Morning in America" ads of 1984.
I wonder if the more apt comparison is to the ads Reagan used in the 1980 campaign. Some can be found here. Though Reagan is called an optimist -- and he was -- he was no Panglossian. More accurate to say he was confident there was no challenge the American people could not handle. And though he had a gentle manner, he did hammer away with things like the misery index, the famous bear in the woods ad (bear representing the Soviet Union), the "Can you afford 4 more years," another talking about how Carter had "slammed the door" on the dream of owning a home.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Re: Obama v. The Gipper
Bill, Kathleen Parker writes about the Mourning in America ad today in her Washington Post column. I think she makes some good points. I liked this one, especially,
Aug '10
Re: Obama v. The Gipper
Masterful. Truthful. Devastating.
Beautifully said, Emily: "...America seems on the edge of famine, spiritual if not literal..."
Re: Obama v. The Gipper
Yes, it's very sad. It's the obverse of the 1984 ad. The question is, will it have an effect like those ads from 1980. One thing I'd like to see more of: not only an identification of the problems, but the confidence that we can lick them, the faith in the ability of the American people to defy the odds, and the trust in the common sense and wisdom of ordinary men and women to make decisions.
May '10
Re: Obama v. The Gipper
Why did they have to wreck it with that "more caring government" line at the end? Who wants a more caring government?!
I'm looking for a much smaller, more responsible, sharply limited government.
When I want "more caring," l look to churches, charities, families and neighbors.
Jul '10
Re: Obama v. The Gipper
If Ariana Huffington though the Mama Grizzlies ad was tapping into inexpressible currents in the popular consciousness...wait till she sees this. Wow. Stunning.
Jul '10
Re: Obama v. The Gipper
I agree with katievs.
A "caring" government is what gets Us in trouble.
They should edit that line.
May '10
Re: Obama v. The Gipper
As I watched, I was waiting for a spark of hope at the end. Without that hope, it encourages apathy (as if we've lost). The young boy waving the flag with the words, "This November, let's choose..." does offer some hope, but they could have done better. The emotion needed to change. It should have ended with a smile.
As for "caring goverment", they did preface that with "smaller" government. The "caring" could be interpreted to mean representatives who actually care what their constituents want. But I agree that we don't need a nanny state with Republicans playing the nanny.
Aug '10
Re: Obama v. The Gipper
Yes, katievs, Jimmy and Aaron, I agree. I despise the joint invocation of the maternal with the governmental. I am (on present assignment) an official responsible for enforcement of--I believe--a very legitimate aspect of state government's role in protecting life, liberty and property. I try to pour my whole effort into this job and--if possible--would do more. My first and most acute charge is helping to safeguard public health. That secured—but still a serious duty--I also protect business from liability. I think the better expression would be: diligent government.
Edited on Sep 26, 2010 at 8:21am