@@jamellfoster6029 Being tough on crime is BAD. He was not a better person. Also Bush capitalized on the word 'liberal', so he's guilty of using dog whistles.
Even as somebody on the left, I would’ve voted for George Bush as he had a level of honor and decency, not to mention his expertise on foreign policy. Fun fact: Jon Stewart also voted for Bush in 1988
It was incredibly brave of Dukakis to go against Bush Sr. but Reagan’s presidency was far too popular in 88 for anyone to realistically beat even if Bush was less charismatic than his predecessor. The turnout showed people wanted more of the same.
Bush had the better campaign here, and the most levels of experience, even if most of it was related to foreign policy. Still, Michael, a governor, went up against a guy who was VP, CIA Director, unofficial US Ambassador to China, RNC Chair, UN Ambassador and Congressman, and World War 2 veteran. I'd say Bush Senior was one of the most experienced VP's of our time.
Have to say regardless of your view on either man, Atwater's ads for Bush are strikingly more effective, come across making him more appealin and Dukakis wholly unappealing. Dukakis on the other hand comes across as quite smarmy, unlikeable, inhuman and overly intellectual. He doesn't play to his strength by letting others deliver his message and promote effectively a good biography he instead tried simply to make a case on the issues. And most especially by debating the issues on the terms as were so set by Bush. Dukakis should have made it, why doesn't Bush support compassion and rehabilitation of prisoners, why does he support a society that permits gross acts like rape to become norms? Rather than it being a question of, why does Dukakis want to let criminals out? Does he care about America, does he care about me, or does he want me to be a victim of crime?
Dukakis would have had a hard sell on rehabilitation and compassion, as from 1960-early 1990s crime skyrocketed in the US of A. It's an easier sell when crime isn't currently high and getting higher.
You answered your own question. It's not mercy. It's human decency. It's our duty to be above criminals and their twisted morale. To either better them or keep them away from hurting anyone else. The second we give in to their ways (death penalty) We truly embrace the monster we are against. Most people in the justice system are small time offenders. Weed addicts, low level thieves. However prisons facilitate crime, when you put criminals together they are bound to work together to commit more crimes to ease their hard time in a cell. And when you put small time offenders in prison, you in turn make them meaner and you give them subjects to learn off and from. You have to be strong to survive prison. It makes small time criminals into hardened ones. That's the problem with the justice system.
@@dan2178 it is mercy... And if they are violent they are incapable of reform & never deserve another chance... If they get another chance, they will hurt someone else...
@@jamellfoster6029 This is so wrong it's embarrassing. Showing human decency and mercy to criminals is always the right thing to do. Rehabilitation always works better than punitive.
Anyone reckon had they picked someone like Gore or even Gary Hart, let’s say in this universe the scandal never comes out, that the Democrats could’ve won in 1988
Bush.snr was a good president but his ad's were vindictive, negative and manipulative. But that shouldn't be surprising considering Lee Atwater and Dubya were his campaign advisors.
@@CalvinKool-Aid obviously. But it did destroy Dukakis who was also a good man. His wife suffered from alcoholism due to that campaign and the accusations made by the Bush team.
Watching the debates, I think George Herbert Walker Bush edged out, well apart from the obvious, but he was very childish and barely can debate. He did portray a good knowledge of current legislation and foreign policy though. Edit: WoW, that is one heck of an advertisement with his grandchildren. I guess it is true but how many Hispanic votes did he end up getting? Edit2: If you want to hear horror, watch William Jefferson Clinton introduce the Democratic nominee at the Democratic National Convention. It was horrid. Clearly he learned how to speak properly in the four years.
@@elmizzoxTwo party fool. Could’ve voted Ron Paul over Bush Sr and Dukakis in 88, or Perot over Bush Sr, Dole or Clinton in 92-96. Gore was still a better choice than dubya
Dukakis truly had a shot to win this, He had all the right elements: Yet he flopped.
how could Dukakis say he was tough on crime while giving weekend furloughs to convicts to go out to rape and murder again?
Clearly he is more manipulative. That deserved to be attacked as it was a result of his policies.
Yeah, that was the year the Republicans learned the value of misinformation.
Wasn't his plan, and the repeal was under his watch.
Bush ads: epic roasting
Dukakis ads: yapping
Bush definitely had the better ads.
And was the better person... He was tough on crime...
@@jamellfoster6029 "better person", all of Bush's ads are manipulative. Dukakis was a class act and a good Governor.
yeah his law policies were great..
@@jamellfoster6029 Better person? That's questionable...
@@jamellfoster6029 Being tough on crime is BAD. He was not a better person. Also Bush capitalized on the word 'liberal', so he's guilty of using dog whistles.
I love Dukakis. I wrote fan mail to him in October 2021 and he responded and autopraphed my button!
I disagree with his politics but he seems like a nice man
Man, that is cool!
@@jaydysinger9228 Thanks! Also Mondale.
Mondale is one of the greatest Vice Presidents ever!!!
@@jaydysinger9228 Yes he is!
Morning in America, the sequel. It's no wonder he crushed it in November 88.
So True!!!!
And I was a 4th grader in late 1988/early 1989 but I remember that the 1st President Bush helped make our country safer..
Great video Jay! I recall that election and these ads very well ! Hope there is a better America to come
Even as somebody on the left, I would’ve voted for George Bush as he had a level of honor and decency, not to mention his expertise on foreign policy. Fun fact: Jon Stewart also voted for Bush in 1988
Dukakis on crime ruined his campaign
It was incredibly brave of Dukakis to go against Bush Sr. but Reagan’s presidency was far too popular in 88 for anyone to realistically beat even if Bush was less charismatic than his predecessor. The turnout showed people wanted more of the same.
Bush was behind by 17 points over the summer, he was consistently behind, until late August. Then the debates finished off ol' Mikeyboo.
They wanted more of the same and then Bush failed them.
The people at the time didn't understand they were making a terrible mistake.
@@vincentsmit1935 He was just a very uncharismatic person tbh. Though to be fair so was George Bush.
@@samsca8529 Reagan was charismatic and so was Micheal
3:10 Today it's hard to imagine a Republican candidate being this concerned about the environment.
Bush had the better campaign here, and the most levels of experience, even if most of it was related to foreign policy. Still, Michael, a governor, went up against a guy who was VP, CIA Director, unofficial US Ambassador to China, RNC Chair, UN Ambassador and Congressman, and World War 2 veteran. I'd say Bush Senior was one of the most experienced VP's of our time.
I like how they attack the others advertisement
Unfortunately, the beginning of modern day politics started right here you can argue
@@TimmyTheTinmanNot unfortunate. Just tasteless.
It started even before, with the presidency of Reagan @@TimmyTheTinman
Keep up the good work Jay.
Have to say regardless of your view on either man, Atwater's ads for Bush are strikingly more effective, come across making him more appealin and Dukakis wholly unappealing.
Dukakis on the other hand comes across as quite smarmy, unlikeable, inhuman and overly intellectual. He doesn't play to his strength by letting others deliver his message and promote effectively a good biography he instead tried simply to make a case on the issues. And most especially by debating the issues on the terms as were so set by Bush. Dukakis should have made it, why doesn't Bush support compassion and rehabilitation of prisoners, why does he support a society that permits gross acts like rape to become norms? Rather than it being a question of, why does Dukakis want to let criminals out? Does he care about America, does he care about me, or does he want me to be a victim of crime?
Dukakis would have had a hard sell on rehabilitation and compassion, as from 1960-early 1990s crime skyrocketed in the US of A. It's an easier sell when crime isn't currently high and getting higher.
@@svenm7264 Yeah, in the tough on crime late 80s-early 90s? That never would've sold to people.
@@AndreNDPAmerica is seeing the result of policies like that today and uhh...not looking good.
Your channel is great. Keep up the good work!
Thank you very much!
But why did Dukakis show mercy to criminals then??
becuase he was modeling his programs after some gov named Reagan
You answered your own question.
It's not mercy.
It's human decency.
It's our duty to be above criminals and their twisted morale.
To either better them or keep them away from hurting anyone else.
The second we give in to their ways (death penalty)
We truly embrace the monster we are against.
Most people in the justice system are small time offenders.
Weed addicts, low level thieves.
However prisons facilitate crime, when you put criminals together they are bound to work together to commit more crimes to ease their hard time in a cell.
And when you put small time offenders in prison, you in turn make them meaner and you give them subjects to learn off and from.
You have to be strong to survive prison.
It makes small time criminals into hardened ones.
That's the problem with the justice system.
@@dan2178 it is mercy... And if they are violent they are incapable of reform & never deserve another chance... If they get another chance, they will hurt someone else...
@@dan2178 there was no decency in letting Horton out.
@@jamellfoster6029 This is so wrong it's embarrassing. Showing human decency and mercy to criminals is always the right thing to do. Rehabilitation always works better than punitive.
Mike had some eyebrows
I think there was a commercial that ruined Dukakis of being president.
Anyone reckon had they picked someone like Gore or even Gary Hart, let’s say in this universe the scandal never comes out, that the Democrats could’ve won in 1988
i know who im votin for
Bush.snr was a good president but his ad's were vindictive, negative and manipulative. But that shouldn't be surprising considering Lee Atwater and Dubya were his campaign advisors.
They worked though, didn’t they
@@CalvinKool-Aid obviously. But it did destroy Dukakis who was also a good man. His wife suffered from alcoholism due to that campaign and the accusations made by the Bush team.
I'm glad that Atwater died young a few years later. Poetic justice.
Watching the debates, I think George Herbert Walker Bush edged out, well apart from the obvious, but he was very childish and barely can debate. He did portray a good knowledge of current legislation and foreign policy though. Edit: WoW, that is one heck of an advertisement with his grandchildren. I guess it is true but how many Hispanic votes did he end up getting? Edit2: If you want to hear horror, watch William Jefferson Clinton introduce the Democratic nominee at the Democratic National Convention. It was horrid. Clearly he learned how to speak properly in the four years.
I definitely would've voted for Dukakis.
Weak on crime
I would’ve voted Ron Paul in 88 than Perot in 92 and 96. Y’all are suckers
A real flop liberal from Massachusetts.
I would vote for bush
It's ridiculous both bushes were leaders of America. I wish they never ran for presidents.
Mucho Englisho bendeho
Ah yes because Dukaka, Al Sore, and Kerrzy
Bush SR was a good President, Bush jr wasn’t
@@elmizzoxTwo party fool. Could’ve voted Ron Paul over Bush Sr and Dukakis in 88, or Perot over Bush Sr, Dole or Clinton in 92-96. Gore was still a better choice than dubya
@@Wadiyatalkinabeet_ Gore is a climate nutjob and would've let the terrorists walk all over us