Sept 7, 1964: Gallup polls reveal that democrat Lyndon Johnson, and Republican challenger Barry Goldwater, are in a virtual deadlock in the race for the Presidency.

October 7, 1964: the "Daisy" commercial-- the original negative TV ad -- airs on NBC for the first time.

Nov. 7, 1964 -- Lyndon Johnson wins "going away" in a landslide.

The Daisy commercial remains the most famous political ad of all time- it surpassed far beyond the democrats' wildest expectations:

It featured an innocent-looking, wide-eyed little girl in a field, counting every petal that she flicked off from a big daisy. Suddenly, a harsh voice-over interjects a reverse "military" countdown- which is followed by stark footage of a mushroom cloud rising ominously from a nuclear explosion.

The commercial was designed to impugn Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater as a dangerous, unstable warmonger. Americans became terrified over the possibility of Goldwater's proclivity to employ nuclear weapons in Vietnam, and voted to elect Johnson in droves. 

Ironically, after winning the election, it was only 8 months later that Johnson became the ONE who escalated the Vietnam conflict into a full-blown war, for reasons that-- to this day-- are known only to him.

Think of it: the false innuendo of one negative campaign ad had changed the course of American history-- and decidedly for the worse.

And today-- judging by the precedent of the daisy ad -- negative campaigning has become de rigeuer whenever the polls are close, or one candidate has fallen behind; campaign managers of both parties have  perfected negative ads to near art form:

In 1988, George Bush's "Willie Horton” ad blew the presidential race wide open against Michael Dukakis.

In 2004, it was the famous Republican "527" ads that "swift-boated" a hapless John Kerry to a narrow defeat.

In 2008. Barack Obama ran a blistering series of ads lampooning John McCain for his plan to tax employee health care benefits. But now, Mr. Obama’s government health reforms are back-tracking on his campaign pledge NOT to tax those very same benefits. 

Negative campaigns have become an easy, convenient way to basically lie your way into office. The average voter could view  99 truthful ads, but the one that would stand out in their mind (just before they checked their ballot) would be that ONE negative ad that they clearly recall.

Which bring us to the November 2008 "dead heat" Minnesota race-- the odious Al Franken vs. incumbent Norman Coleman- an election where 3 million votes were cast, yet the final margin was LESS than 500 votes -- the closest senatorial race in history. 

Sure, it was the evil antics of ACORN that had swung the highly-questionable recount to Franken; but that aside-- be it not forgotten-- it was Franken's incredibly harsh, last-minute series of blatantly false ads that caused the race to be so close in the first place. Otherwise, Coleman (the republican) would've triumphed.  

On October 31, 2008, a Minnesota Quinnipiac poll had found a worsening situation for Mr. Franken; he was far behind Coleman- 51 to 41. 

The most damaging of the Franken ads claimed..."Norm Coleman has been ranked the 4th MOST CORRUPT Senator by and independent watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW): the ad continued..."Coleman has been listed near the top as one of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress."

But as it turned out, Coleman was not on CREW's "corrupt" list, which contained only three Senators. Coleman was only listed on the group's "four to watch list" in their autumn report.

Another misleading Franken ad offered..."He (Coleman) voted to give billions of tax breaks to oil companies"..."Now they're raking in record profits, and we're paying four bucks a gallon for gas!"

Franken's obvious intent was to visually reinforce Coleman as a Bush "yes" man.

Yet another Franken ad implied Coleman's 'guilt by association': (quote) "Over 10,000 lakes in Minnesota, but where does Norm Coleman go fishing? Indicted Senator Ted Stevens flew him up to Alaska, and got big oil honchos to give thousands- just to fish with Norm”...”Now, one of the oil guys Norm went fishing with has been convicted of bribery!"

Next, the Franken campaign released an ad that hit an all time low-- even for a weasel like Al Franken:

Franken’s reprehensible portrayal all but accused Coleman of personally killing Army National Guard pilot Stuart Anderson: The ad centers on Nancy and Claremont Anderson, whose son died in January 2006, when his helicopter was shot down over Iraq.

(voice-over) "If Norm Coleman would have stood up to the President and said, 'This war's not a good idea,' maybe Bush would have listened." Mr. & Mrs. Anderson then appear in the ad, and remorse..."We're proud of our son--but he's still gone."

Of course, once the election was over -- despite Coleman's bitter protests-- the Senate Ethics Committee( headed by Democrats) did NOT to even bother to investigate the travesty.

But negative campaigning has now largely resulted in "giving us the government we deserve."

Confused voters go to the polls, well-apprised of what someone's opponent may have done, rather than what the negative campaigner intends to do. Hence our misguided, uncertain electorate knows only whom they're AGAINST, vs. whom they should be supporting.

So is it any wonder there's a 90% probability that the incumbents always return? And the result?  The present morass in Washington: our anti-government, consisting of an anti-President, with an anti-Congress, all united together marching America into socialist oblivion; and all enabled and abetted by negative cam-PAIN-ing.

The democrats have a surefire winning formula similar to a doctor's prescription: Spend your entire term amassing a huge "war-chest," then 30 days before the election, just run enough negative campaign ads "as needed." 

Of course, nothing can be done about those never-ending flowery "blue sky" campaign promises; all politicians make them, and their constituents love it.

But what about making them accountable for what they say on televison & radio? Why not consider a “mud-slinging” law based on the Miranda rights doctrine: anything said over the air waves “can be used against you!"

EXAMPLE: if a "Miranda" truth-in-political ad law had been in effect, the "aggrieved party" (Norm Coleman) would have a thirty day "window" to run public anouncements, and gather evidence. Then, if it were proved that Franken's false accusations were to blame, the penalty could be meted out in one of two forms:

1) automatic term limits - Franken would still be sworn in, but he'd be subject to one term

2) if Coleman could absolutely PROVE malfeasance, he be granted rights to challenge Franken in a run-off (a tax-payer fund would be created to re-do these elections)

The way to prevent excessive runoffs would be to put the "bar" very high; one must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that false (or misleading) ads were the indisputable reason why the candidate lost- just like the traditional court system we have now.

If a Miranda-style “truth in ad law” was proposed, it would box the democrats into a tight, politically uncomfortable corner:

If they tried to oppose such a law, it would be a tacit admission that indeed, the Democrats ARE the party of lairs!

Imagine the look on Barney Fwank's face - or Chuck (the scum) Schumer, or fancy-Nancy Pelosi. How could they avoid NOT being in support of it?

No, it's not a perfect cure, but it's a beginning -- there must be some starting place to remedy this blatant mockery of our democracy-- where liars always triumph over integrity. Where is the justice in that?