A New Anti-Obama Political Ad… Fun Follows!
[guest post by Dana]
Conservative advocacy group Americans for Prosperity has released a new anti-Obama ad aimed at reaching women. Although it brings up some valid concerns, it’s sappy and has a silly premise with President Obama cast as a bad boyfriend. Unfortunately, for me the messaging is lost in the girly-girl nonsense and diminishes points being made. Personally, I wish both sides of the aisle would just stop making campaign ads as they typically miss the mark, and whether by a mile or a hair they usually end up nearly unbearable to watch.
Anyway, the ad opens with a pretty woman wearing pink and pearls talking straight to the camera:
“In 2008 I fell in love. His online profile made him seem so perfect. Handsome, smart, charming, articulate. All the right values. I trusted him,” a woman in a soft living room setting says to the camera in what looks like a commercial for an online dating site.
“By 2012 our relationship was in trouble, but I stuck with him because he promised he’d be better,” she says, as the pleasant feel of the commercial quickly gets more ominous.
“He told me we’d be safe,” she says. “Have you looked at the news? He’s in my emails and text messages, spying on me but ignoring real threats.
“He said that we’d finally get on our feet financially. I’ll never pay down what he’s spent,” she continues. “He thinks the only thing I care about is free birth control, but he won’t even let me keep my own doctor.”
By this time her computer screen has shown the man she is talking about is Obama.
“I know I’m stuck with Barack for two more years … but I’m not stuck with his friends,” she says, a reference to the November midterm elections in which Republicans hope to retain control of the House of Representatives and take over the Senate.
“I’m looking for someone who gets that this isn’t about him,” the woman says. “It’s about us.”
In reading about the ad, I stumbled across a bit of huff-puffery from a described “active feminist and LGBTQI advocate” who slammed the ad as designed to convince women to abandon the Democrats for Republicans by playing on one of the most loathsome stereotypes about female voters—that we vote for male politicians we want to fuck.”
Which reminded me of something:
The writer continues her assault:
This is what conservatives think of (straight/bi?) women: That we vote based on who we think is the cutest boy; that we view our (male) political representatives as our boyfriends; that we are not offended by categorizing disappointment in a politician as an abusive relationship; that we think it’s totally appropriate to suggest the President is stalking us like an intimate partner; that we don’t hear or care about racist dog whistles like referring to the black President as “articulate”; that we don’t find it wildly disrespectful to refer to the President as “Barack,” especially to maintain the reprehensible illusion that he’s our mean boyfriend; that we think caring about free birth control is frivolous; that we are stupid. Very, very stupid.
It’s funny because throughout Obama’s presidency, female supporters (we certainly can assume they were Democrats) regularly swooned over him, even crushing on him. Further, I believe it was a female Democrat whose disappointment in a politician manifested itself in a violent imagery involving abuse of women. And I don’t know about this chick, but I sure heard and cared about the racist dog whistles from certain Democrats.
As to who is stupid, readers can decide for themselves.
–Dana
Hello.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:14 pmDana, it’s different when the Left does it.
Always.
And yes, we bicker among ourselves while they are in Low Information Lockstep.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:19 pmI agree, the futility of allowing the pervs to dictate the medium and delimit the message is a nadir in futility. IOW, accepting the war on women as valid, the perpetrators as the opposition and the solution the corresponding partisans is banal and ultimately fruitless.
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:26 pmif that’s lil pickle’s idea of “wildly disrespectful” she needs to stay far far away from this internet thingy
happyfeet (a785d5) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:26 pmHe gave lady liberty a blistering case of herpes:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/388704/obama-slumps-35-latest-approval-poll-brendan-bordelon
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:37 pmWho was the leading feminist who wanted to blow Clinton post-Monica because he supported killing babies?
Rodney King's Spirit (8b9b5a) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:38 pmShakeville, that’s a full bucket of crazy,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:39 pmNina Burleigh
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:39 pmHim who has ears..
http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2014/09/willing-demons.html
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:42 pmDana, I don’t think you’re the intended target audience for the bad boyfriend ad (and of course neither am I) but I really do like that ad on several levels. Very much. In a group of friends or colleagues there’s often one brave person who finally says aloud what the others have been sorta thinking but were too intimidated or embarrassed to say. (The old emperor has no clothes story.) Then when one speaks up they all breathe a huge sigh of relief that the subject is no longer taboo and they weigh in. This ad speaks to that, I think. Someone like them– in their age group and social strata and a former Obama supporter has concluded, and is saying aloud, and is validating what they themselves have been rolling over in their minds for a while. He did not meet expectations. We gave him a chance and he let us down, and it’s OK to admit that now and make a course correction.
I’d like to know how and where this ad will be aired because I haven’t seen it yet.
elissa (28be86) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:57 pmI can only think this ad was a direct follow up to the Dunham ad.
It is difficult, somehow trying to fight fire with fire doesn’t work with these folks. they get to act mean-spirited and deceptive all they want, when they get it in return all of a sudden it’s like they are the choir boys and girls and repubs are the bullies.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/24/2014 @ 6:59 pmwell it’s deep in the strigoi den, but in other ridiculous news:
http://weaselzippers.us/200678-michelle-obama-bashes-america-during-u-n-event-women-are-suffering-here-because-of-harmful-cultural-norms/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:02 pmOT legal procedure question for interest.
I know that the prosecution must share evidence with the defense, right?
Must the defense share all of their evidence with the prosecution prior to displaying it in court?
There is a new case in Philly where it is charged that several people beat up a gay couple for being a gay couple, and the people charged were ID’ed via social media pictures, etc.
But there has been some hints about that there that actually the two gay guys started the fight, and lost, and the story they are giving is bogus (haven’t we heard this before, sort of?).
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:07 pmSo, now that charges have been filed, if the defense has a video that shows that the “victims” started it, are they compelled to show it to the DA’s office, or can they surprise the court with it?
Wasn’t that Harry Reid that said that? I believe he also said that he was “clean”.
Either this woman is dishonest or her brain in some cognitive dissonance fashion reassigned Reid’s comment to conservatives.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:09 pm“Who was the leading feminist who wanted to blow Clinton post-Monica because he supported killing babies?”
Burleigh is the right answer but Margaret Carlson was widely reported to have spent private moments with Bill in the Oval Office. She just didn’t talk about it. She doesn’t blow and tell.
Mike K (90dfdc) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:10 pmWe are a sheeple sans shepherd:
http://thefederalist.com/2014/09/24/obama-goes-rogue/
gary gulrud (46ca75) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:13 pmelissa,
I agree that we are not who this ad is aimed at. However, for me the ad, no matter which age bracket/female voter it’s targeted for, loses me in the gimmicky boyfriend premise and in the pink and pearls. It’s distracting from the core message.
I do agree that it’s a relief when someone finally comes out and says what everyone is thinking, but for me, this doesn’t even do that. And perhaps this ad will boost those who feel burned by the president but can’t voice it. I don’t know. It’s hard for me to relate because I wasn’t taken in in the first place.
Nice to see you back.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:22 pmI’m fascinated that many are focusing on the rabid left’s reaction to this anti Obama ad rather than on the ad itself. It seems to me that the screeching and hyperbole from the Lena Dunham/Sandra Fluke types is an indication that they fear the ad may in fact be hitting its mark with some young women who are actually sane, and that is scaring the feminazis.
elissa (28be86) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:22 pmshe has beautiful teefs
happyfeet (a785d5) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:23 pmas one looks across the memeorandum, the journolist crib sheet, there is little reference to the ad, or the reaction therein, there is the obligatory war on Comstock, because she is unperson,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:43 pmThanks, Dana @17. I was away from civilization and found it absolutely glorious and very revitalizing to break the surly bonds of the internet for a few weeks.
I keep coming around to the fact that the pres is polling as low as 39. That’s coming from something, somewhere. We almost have to assume that a lot of that drop in his approval is from previous Obama supporters and voters who have become increasingly disenchanted. For the 2014 election we need to identify, reach, shepherd and hopefully corral some of those folks in any way we possibly can. We’ll never reach the hard cores.
elissa (28be86) — 9/24/2014 @ 7:48 pmDana – Are there binders full of women expressing faux outrage over this ad?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2014 @ 8:05 pmI disagree about the intended audience not being you and I.
This ad is not intended to influence those it’s insulting. It’s intended to make Republicans feel superior to shallow Obama supporters. It’s a polarizer, not a heart changer.
The GOP is confused at the core. They do not win more elections with a central concept of ‘we do not worry about those people.’ Those 47%. Those moochers. Those LIVs. Those who favored Obama because he’s smooth and more attractive. Those who actually feel good about black achievement, as opposed to being color blind (the visceral affirmative action that many normal people practice). The GOP can’t win by saying they are better than those people and then selecting the most elite candidate, because at its heart, that super elite candidate is actually difficult for those people to trust, let alone relate to. If you think the voters don’t see that if a candidate is prime time savvy enough to sell himself, you don’t get it. Elitism is one of those things you cannot hide. It’s what makes George W Bush electable and John Kerry or Wendy Davis a loser.
Yeah, if you already didn’t like Obama and like to make fun of those voters the GOP needed this ad is great. It’s frustrating they voted for more debt and less freedom, so it’s satisfying. I guess maybe you could open your wallet for more of this material to keep you chuckling. But at the end of the day what you need are those votes.
I know I’ve been saying this for years, but here’s how you get them: you reach out to them in deeds. Instead of saying you don’t worry about those people, you explain to them how they pay the price for corporate and social welfare, deficit spending, and a regulated economy that can’t offer their families the jobs they all need. You show them that the immediate benefits of entitlement programs come at a great long term cost, and that’s a scam. Freedom, as a concept, is riskier, yet in the macro, is better at managing the world than any elite manager ever will be.
You don’t show them with an advertisement alone, though. You have to actually govern that way, and then point to reality. The GOP cannot govern this way, because they are very worried about Wall Street (just as the democrats are). The GOP had its chance from 2000-2006 to reduce spending, reduce entitlements, reduce onerous regulations, and eliminate the aspects of our tax code that benefit vulture capitalism and mega corporations versus bread and butter small business. On all counts, they did the exact opposite, with rare exceptions such as Texas. On a national level, no, they did not.
So instead of an argument that would influence a maturing democrat voter, we get this simplistic crap.
Eventually, the democrats will make enough of a mess in that they will be rejected. Happens every time. The GOP will regain enough power to completely turn this around, if they want. If you think they have even the slightest glimmer of an intention to really govern at that point, you will be disappointed.
Dustin (801032) — 9/24/2014 @ 8:13 pmIt’s hard for me to relate because I wasn’t taken in in the first place.
Yea, the ad isn’t directed at people with a bit of sanity and maturity. It’s aimed at all the very, very ideologically squishy (or semi-lukewarm liberal) women throughout America who went ga-ga for Obama in 2008 and were foolish enough to repeat their mistake in 2012. So I think it’s targeted at a crucial demographic.
I keep coming around to the fact that the pres is polling as low as 39.
The fact he still hasn’t plumbed the depths of opinion polls as far down (or 35%) as where George W Bush ended up towards the end, in spite of Obama being far worse, far more extremist, far more irresponsible than his predecessor and, for that matter, any sitting president in US history, indicates the American electorate in the 21st century includes a good chunk of people who will eventually turn this society into a northern branch of a Central or South American dystopia.
Mark (c160ec) — 9/24/2014 @ 8:18 pmWho can forget Obamacare ads like the following:
http://www.doyougotinsurance.com/index.php?id=20
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 9/24/2014 @ 8:24 pm==I know I’ve been saying this for years, but here’s how you get them: you reach out to them in deeds…..You don’t show them with an advertisement alone, though. You have to actually govern that way==
Dustin as I know you are aware, there are only about forty days until the midterm elections. The governing has failed miserably and dangerously on both sides of the aisle. Both sides are desperately relying on ads at this point, don’t you think? Somebody is going to win every election.
elissa (28be86) — 9/24/2014 @ 8:30 pmwell there is the philosophical argument, that can come later, how about the facts,
‘have you seen the price of beef, milk, bread, do you know anyone around you, who has found full time work recently, have you looked at your insurance bill,
this turn toward the esoteric, is very high concept, but it’s also besides the point,
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/24/2014 @ 8:33 pmDamn, nice take down Dana.
DejectedHead (9b0c64) — 9/24/2014 @ 8:46 pmThe commenters at Shakesville are even funnier. They really have their thongs in a twist over this ad.
Skeptical Voter (12e67d) — 9/24/2014 @ 9:00 pmDana,
It’s a great ad that attempts to peel off some of Obama’s core support: young single women. You won’t do that by reciting the Constitution or showing economic charts.
Also, Menken’s Law.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 9/24/2014 @ 9:01 pmA bright professional woman I know said in 2008 that she was voting for Obama because McCain was an old prune that nobody would fcuk. I rest my case.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 9/24/2014 @ 9:04 pmQuestion by MD. So, now that charges have been filed, if the defense has a video that shows that the “victims” started it, are they compelled to show it to the DA’s office, or can they surprise the court with it?
More surprises are allowed in criminal cases than in civil cases. Work product is generally not discoverable. For either side. Brady v. Maryland is an exception for exculpatory evidence in the possession of the prosecution. There are specific rules for tangible evidence and other exhibits which require an opportunity for the opponent to inspect them in advance if you intend to introduce them in court. Here’s the Illinois rule:
Subject to constitutional limitations and within a reasonable time after the filing of a written motion by the State, defense counsel shall inform the State of any defenses which he intends to make at a hearing or trial and shall furnish the State with the following material and information within his possession or control:
(i) the names and last known addresses of persons he intends to call as witnesses, together with their relevant written or recorded statements, including memoranda reporting or summarizing their oral statements, and record of prior criminal convictions known to him; and
(ii) any books, papers, documents, photographs, or tangible objects he intends to use as evidence or for impeachment at a hearing or trial;
(iii) and if the defendant intends to prove an alibi, specific information as to the place where he maintains he was at the time of the alleged offense.
And, of course, any exhibit can be challenged for authenticity, relevancy, and undue prejudice before the jury sees it. It’s the rare instance of this being permitted: Mr. Mason: Lieutenant Tragg, I show you this set of ladies’ undergarments which my investigator, Paul Drake, found neatly folded in lavender in the bottom drawer of your desk …. 😉
nk (dbc370) — 9/24/2014 @ 11:42 pmOn topic. Negative ads work, Dustin. Just ask Michael Dukakis. We don’t need to bring them over to our side. Just throw a little cold reality on them. Make them less likely to send money to the DNC or to volunteer to knock on doors, and more likely to stay home and smoke marijuana, eat Cheetos and masturbate instead of going out to vote on election day.
nk (dbc370) — 9/25/2014 @ 1:38 amWhy would you want those losers in the GOP, anyway? To corrupt it the way they corrupted the Democratic Party?
nk (dbc370) — 9/25/2014 @ 1:40 amYou put that colossally insipid twat Lena Dunham’s annoying mug on your page, then linked to that ridiculously obtuse blog?
Unforgivable.
Eric in Hollywood (e7a744) — 9/25/2014 @ 5:27 amnk (dbc370) — 9/24/2014 @ 11:42 pm
thanks, nk
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/25/2014 @ 5:40 amOn topic. Negative ads work, Dustin. Just ask Michael Dukakis. We don’t need to bring them over to our side. Just throw a little cold reality on them. Make them less likely to send money to the DNC or to volunteer to knock on doors, and more likely to stay home and smoke marijuana, eat Cheetos and masturbate instead of going out to vote on election day.
I think they’re about the only thing that works, especially with the electorate the way it is these days. I believe the Dems will retain the Senate because they are bombarding the Republicans with negative ads that they can’t respond to. Recall that Obama turned things around in 2012 when they hammered Romney relentlessly during the summer. Romney had no money to spend in response. The massive Democrat spending edge appears to be a permanent feature of the political landscape.
Eventually, the democrats will make enough of a mess in that they will be rejected. Happens every time. The GOP will regain enough power to completely turn this around, if they want.
You must be anticipating a total collapse Dustin. Things are remarkably messed up in California. You see the GOP being swept into power there?
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/25/2014 @ 7:05 amI suspect this ad has zero chance of depressing democrat turnout. In fact, I think if the GOP was stupid enough to widely syndicate this it would help the democrats because it comes across like that 47%er comment did. Of course a cold splash of reality is a good thing, but just expressing how dumb the voters were is going to keep those voters where they are respected.
The GOP should be offering democrat voters a clear alternative to the path we’re on, based on a record of balanced budgets and responsible spending. That isn’t really possible because the record is relatively better. The budget is less unbalanced, but not balanced. It’s as though the GOP is not sincere.
The problem is that the GOP doesn’t win elections on election day, or in the run-up to election day. It wins elections over years and decades of being honest and governing wisely. If they complain about entitlement spending, or deficits, but then increase both over the years, the ads are BS. They are talking out of both sides of their mouths.
I like your last sentence as it conveys the thrust of electability arguments. The GOP doesn’t have to live up to any standard… it just has to be less awful than the opponent. While I don’t like this truth, of course you’re probably right. On a blog like this one it is taken for granted that Obama and the democrats are absolute in their badness and any republican is necessarily better. Would most commenters here vote for Snowe or Murkowski against a generic Democrat? I think they would (and I would not).
I think the GOP relies on that sort of thing too much, and in the long term that leads to Obama being elected and reelected and the democrats retaining the senate in spite of a brutal reality of failed policies.
Maybe I’m seeing this wrong. I admit I’m largely tuned out. The GOP is not listening to my request they live up to something. They are still saying they aspire to be the least bad. They care about winning elections, but are not serious about what they would do with the power those elections are actually about. We both get what we want if the GOP wins elections and governs responsibly enough to win more elections, but that is a path that requires being there for more than just personal ambition.
Dustin (801032) — 9/25/2014 @ 7:18 amGee, that guy she is talking about sounds like he doesn’t appreciate her!
You think!
Rich (a5d991) — 9/25/2014 @ 7:36 amDustin,
Republicans have gone on the record time and time again with votes and have paid a heavy price, and they still do it. I know its difficult if not impossible to navigate through the incredibly dense MSM wall of disinformation and Fox news sowing dissent among people who don’t support democrats – its easy to be discouraged, bitter, angry. But Bush had three years with wild vacillating economic swings he had three years where the deficit was almost nothing and 2 more of those years were due to war and were still well within reason for trying times.
People now laugh at his even more conservative brother who literally took a bankrupt florida and made it into a success in a really short time, and people scoff at Perry for doing the same with another great state.
Then we have this guy who hasn’t done a thing yet.
EPWJ (68f58f) — 9/25/2014 @ 7:40 amObama may have gotten elected because of the financial collapse which happened with seemingly perfect timing when Bear Stearns collapsed a few weeks before the election and more broadly the sub-prime mortgage collapse. Now you may say, “Well that wouldn’t have happened if Bush had tried to do the right thing and reign in Fannie Mae etc. so that proves my point”, except that he did try but the Dems blocked it. He tried to do the right thing. He also put forward a Social Security proposal to allow some of their contributions to go into a private account, which would in my view be a big deal for younger people and possibly help the long term solvency of the system, which is also a big deal I would think, but it also went nowhere because the Dems blocked it.
Romney put forward a politically risky Medicare reform proposal to address that problem. A relative of mine who voted for McCain in 2008 voted for Obama in 2012 because she felt threatened by it.
But things like that are regarded as meaningless by many “true conservatives” who see Bush and Romney as RINO’s. Instead they want someone to propose eliminating a half dozen entire federal departments or something.
Gerald A (d65c67) — 9/25/2014 @ 7:59 amDustin, the ad is not patronizing. The lady is portrayed like the star of a woman-targeted TV show, and she’s portrayed as wised up and independent after dumping the loser. All of the scandals mentioned are ones with lots of name recognition. It’s portraying Obama as a selfish loser who just doesn’t care about you, which undermines Obama’s big lead in “cares about people like me”
More like this, please.
OmegaPaladin (a0e77e) — 9/25/2014 @ 8:44 amOmega, one thing that has me a little out of step with others is that I never really understood the idea that Obama comes across as compassionate. That Latte Salute is his attitude in a nutshell, and few politicians come across less heartfelt. He would rather have his waffles than talk to you, sweetie, etc etc.
I get the argument of the ad, of course, but to me it seems like it would just irritate those who vote on those terms of ‘he cares’ or whatever.
LOL. First, that actually does sound kinda good to me.
Second, I am so sick and tired of this ‘true conservative purist’ criticism of people who are actually just asking for moderate stuff like a balanced budget. We have two very, very progressive political parties. We are fiscally in a very bad place, and when the GOP had the power, they kept increasing spending, albeit at a slower pace than the democrats currently are. When the GOP eliminated the debt ceiling, it was probably their most important contribution to American policy in the last six years. I’m not being extreme to call them out on that. They do not have a good record, and so their ads will necessarily be either very vague or attack ads.
you can say those are the best option they have right now. That’s probably true. Long term, the GOP needs to create a better record.
Or not. One way or the other this will be fixed. The math is insurmountable. The entitlements will stop. Those departments you reference will be shuttered. We will run out of other people’s money. The GOP, if lucky enough to win a little power, can reform spending and reach of government before we race over a cliff and face harder times, or they can just be one of the reasons we went over the cliff.
Gerald, your point about losing voters when reforms are proposed is absolutely a valid one. The press will take any specifics offered and spin them into doom and gloom. The GOP, if it did have a better record, could do the same, honestly, about the path we are on already. They just need more credibility for that to work.
Dustin (801032) — 9/25/2014 @ 9:10 amPerry-Royce in 2016!!!
Colonel Haiku (d0a528) — 9/25/2014 @ 9:32 amDustin,
The GOP didn’t “increase” spending – they didn’t have the votes in the senate to get “rid” of government retirement – the GOP budget DECREASED spending – except those initiated by the “Hero” Paul Ryan.
I think the revisiting of what actually happened rather than blather from the T Woods crowd who ignore the fact that the majority HAS to compromise with the minority, that how our system of government works.
Every Budget Bush submitted had drastic cuts in spending and Taxation and the elimination of public social security and the institution of private saving accounts.
Saying or even implying anything else hurts the narrative because my biggest problem with the TEA party is that they are as big a liars as the democrats. IE they spread the same misinformation – Republicans are evil, Republicans are stupid – blah blah blah (I’m talking about mostly TEA leadership)
THey ignore the fact that Bush wanted a 25% top tax rate – he wanted 5% social security of which 3% went directly to your own untouchable savings account, he wanted drastic reductions in state spending as well, which has never been addressed. He wanted end to ALL death taxes including states – he wanted end to all property taxes as well, and a rise in corporate income tax but with greater incentives for them to lower it by moving millions of jobs back here.
Jeb or Perry will get this done.
All the Tea party has done is let the democrats stay in power in the Senate, giving up Delaware, Alaska, Missouri, Colorado and Indiana oh and Nevada.
It would be nice to not only have a 53,54 seat majority in the Senate but also be picking up so for the first time in US history we would have over 60 seats (without a civil war).
Jeez we have 32 33 state legislatures now and Governorships but we don’t have 64 senators do we?
Why because we have people telling lies – just pure lies.
EPWJ (c12453) — 9/25/2014 @ 9:38 amEPWJ, I respectfully disagree. I think federal spending went up from around 1.8 trillion to 2.7 trillion from the time Bush won the presidency to the time Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker.
That’s a good reminder about the reforms Bush conceived that were rejected foolishly, but I do not think it’s fair to give the GOP a pass on the budget itself. The budget was passed by a Republican congress, after all. And you wisely note that the GOP has to compromise. But what are the levers of negotiation? The debt ceiling used to be a big one, and that’s been eliminated. How are we supposed to compromise with long term, ruthless spenders when we eliminate the means to do so?
Truth is, some of the GOP want to lose the argument. They have a vested interest in losing the argument.
I was disappointed we didn’t nominate Gov Perry, albeit he is not my first choice these days. I suspect he would have won because he would have been able to make the argument for limited government. It was historically such a perfect time to make that case. You can’t argue against Obama’s record if your record would make you a flip flopper to do so, and Perry was one of several candidates whose record is well distinguished from Obama’s. But what’s done is done. Obama ran his campaign more skillfully than his opponent could and is our president until January 2017.
That whole mess was very illuminating to conservatives. A lot of politicos in the GOP got rich, yet the cause grew more desperate, with nothing to show for the ugliness. We need to know we do not have a political party, and the big obstacle to reform is the party that is posing as conservative while governing as liberal.
Dustin (801032) — 9/25/2014 @ 10:19 amWait.
Dude, did you really just say Jeb?
No.
Dustin (801032) — 9/25/2014 @ 10:21 amthere’s deluded
and then there’s Jon Kyl
happyfeet (a785d5) — 9/25/2014 @ 10:30 amThose who impugn the motives of my friends are my enemies.
Colonel Haiku (d0a528) — 9/25/2014 @ 10:50 amDustin,
No, when 9/11 cost 200 billion Katrina and the 3 instant Hurricanes in Florida cost another 200 billion = plus the war – those increases were not in food stamps –
You see buried in the morass is the fact that under bush 220,000 combat troops were deployed in heavy combat 6 of those years – only 1 1/2 for Obama – spending didn’t go up – it actually went down so we could afford to fight a war and rebuild parts of two major cities and 1/2 of florida
Under Obama he would have spent 3 times as much and accomplished 1/2
Again Tea Party T Woods etc brainwashing of the facts
EPWJ (68f58f) — 9/25/2014 @ 11:47 amwell at least it’s not core Al Queda
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/09/25/new-iraqi-pm-weve-uncovered-a-live-plot-by-isis-to-attack-the-new-york-and-paris-subway-systems/
narciso (ee1f88) — 9/25/2014 @ 11:48 amJeb Bush is much more conservative than his brother – his brother will also tell you that – also he is vey respected by both Hispanics and blacks –
Again look back at who and who did what – go to the treasurers website of Florida and look at the actuals not the blogger or Fox blond of the day’s comment – look at the facts –
EPWJ (68f58f) — 9/25/2014 @ 11:49 amDustin,
I never got the Obamessiah vibe myself. He’s always seemed fairly disinterested in people and extremely self-focused, if not narcissistic. However, the polls showed a huge likability gap between Obama and his competitors. People were falling for him like tween girls into boy bands – starry-eyed doesn’t even begin to cover it. He really never was good at anything but getting elected, but he was like the hero of his own movie.
I sometimes felt the like the villain from the movie Zoolander, staring around incredulous as people offer their worship to the One, the Lightworker. Serious conservative columnists lost their minds, supporting Obama because of idiotic reasons like his creased pants. Woman swooned over this guy! He’s just another Blagojevich, along with a hefty dose of lefty professor.
Now the mask has dropped, and people can start chipping away at what’s left of the Obama phenomenon. Make the case that Obama is no longer the cool hero, but the bumbling loser we can laugh at.
OmegaPaladin (a0e77e) — 9/25/2014 @ 11:56 amJeb Bush is much more conservative than his brother
What does that mean? He’s more of a fiscal conservative? Or he’s more of a social conservative? It matters.
Kevin M (b357ee) — 9/25/2014 @ 12:07 pmI talk to an Obamite regularly. I was stunned to realize, that after five years, what she “knows” about him is what she read in his books.
nk (dbc370) — 9/25/2014 @ 12:09 pmKevin,
Both,
EPWJ (68f58f) — 9/25/2014 @ 12:17 pmHmmm, I don’t know much about Jeb Bush, but what I had heard was that people thought he was more popular because he was more “moderate” than W, and none of that believing in God stuff.
Of course, what I heard may have been mistaken or disinformation.
As I’ve said before, I’m inclined to think everything is disinformation until cross-examined under oath.
MD in Philly (f9371b) — 9/25/2014 @ 12:43 pmIf I moderated a debate, I think I’d try to get participants to take an oath, I think it should be a crime to lie to the American people during a campaign.
MD, I would love that, but who is going to enforce such a law?
Unfortunately, it’s on the American people to learn and think and vote, and up to the parties to give them a real choice. Not just a ‘well anyone is better than the other party’ choice. If that’s the argument the GOP makes yet again, then they deserve what they will get yet again.
Dustin (801032) — 9/25/2014 @ 1:08 pm==. Not just a ‘well anyone is better than the other party’ choice. If that’s the argument the GOP makes yet again, then they deserve what they will get yet again.==
Dustin, “our guy is better than the other party’s guy” has been the core and essence of policy and election messaging and advertising since the founding of this country. I know you don’t like retail politics much, and that you’d probably prefer it if the political and social milieu in the United States was very different than it currently is. But wishing and hoping for better days and better candidates more to your personal liking will not magically make it so. It takes work. Your comments often confuse me and here is why: On one level you seem to yearn for a coming day when the American people will have an epiphany, see the light, and rise up to demand and create a city on the hill. Often, though, your comments suggest that you’ve already lost all faith in politicians, in the process, in the electorate, and in the integrity and abilities of most of our fellow citizens to get beyond the media and the entitlement mentality and their own selfishness to do what’s right for the country. When reading your comments it’s hard to reconcile these conflicts as it seems they predict very different futures.
elissa (83a16a) — 9/25/2014 @ 2:01 pmMD
Yeah the Tea are calling him a moderate – he was the most hated republican in Florida – they tried everything – Crist said Hey I’m not a crazy right winger like Jeb and it worked to get elected after Jeb as a “moderate” Republican
But don’t listen to me – look at the rating by the CATO institute – look at the actuals on the Florida State Dept website – data is data –
heck anyone can say anything – We had Armstrongs Lawyer arguing that he shouldn’t be criminally charged as he never doped and got him out of trouble and then what 2 3 days later Lance was confessing on live TV….
EPWJ (992ed5) — 9/25/2014 @ 2:59 pmObama’s core and essence was that he was merely better than Mccain? I think Mccain was largely irrelevant to his message. I think indeed this kind of argument has been the core and essence of many losing campaigns, such as the GOP’s in many recent contests, and while that works with the base, the GOP no longer has one. Remember? You voted against the base, and now they consider the GOP a political opponent. Fixing that problem requires something more than ‘Jeb is not as bad as Hillary’.
First of all, I’m flattered you have pondered my views to this extent. Unfortunately I don’t really recognize them.
I’ll try to explain my views.
I think the America people value integrity a great deal, hence rejecting liars when they are able to identify them, which is the entire point behind my argument about the GOP failing to establish a record they could use as evidence of the merit of their supposed views (instead of a record that makes them look like useless liars). Of course I have a cynical view of politicians and the process they control, but so do about 70% of my fellow citizens according to every poll I’ve seen lately.
I also have always thought we have some great leadership in this country. Take Scott Walker standing up to unions and all that flack. Rand Paul and his filibuster. Anthony Weiner and his… just kidding.
It’s just that the system itself makes it very hard for the good ones to ascend. And the bad guys (sorry to be so simplistic, but that’s how I think) have advantages in the media, in ballot access, with the wealthiest donors. All of these entities do not give those advantages for free. Corruption is a very real thing.
Furthermore, the culture itself, and the media, from education on, do not lead to enough well informed voters. There are well informed voters such as yourself out there, but we are geeks (no offense intended).
And yes, there are some bad guys out there in the electorate. Personally, I think they are a minority, but I think they are a part of both parties. By and large, I think most people actually want the same ultimate result: equality and prosperity. The problem is that the world is complicated, and you have to decide between equality of process or equality of results, between prosperity and safety, etc. All along we have these cynical politicians pretending the other side’s attempt to hash that out was pure evil.
And after all that, yes, I hope for people take the power they have and fix things, so that our country leaves behind a better situation for our kids than it had before. I used to think the information age would end the way the MSM can spin reality. It appears that we traded the New York Times for Google.
But inevitably, the financial disaster that is looming will either be corrected, or correct us. People will figure it out one way or another.
I guess I don’t see how problems in the world mean it is unreasonable to hope for the people to learn and take the power they have and vote for reform.
But before we can talk about that, let’s talk about the obstacles. One, the democrats are in favor of bigger government, etc. Two, the republicans are standing in the way of an alternative approach. The GOP is not always the first obstacle to reform, but they very often are. In those cases, it is reasonable for conservatives to treat them as political opponents and be highly critical of them. That doesn’t mean we’ve given up on reform! To suggest that is to fall into the GOP’s classic lie. That the only viable options are some RINO or some socialist, and the core and essence of our world is simply to pick the lesser of two evils. Things have progressed to a point where there is no lesser of two evils at that point. They lead to the same place.
In fact, I think this view is becoming more popular, hence some much more earnest options lining up for the 2016 primary. We’ll have to wait and see!
I don’t really like responding to comments that take on the commenter versus talking about the thread, but I hope you got whatever you were looking for in my response.
Dustin (801032) — 9/25/2014 @ 3:21 pmGood lord that is a stupid long comment. It’s like the good old days.
Dustin (801032) — 9/25/2014 @ 3:22 pmI think the America people value integrity a great deal, hence rejecting liars when they are able to identify them
At one time I would have agreed with this. I believe integrity was a valued and treasured quality to possess, once long ago. However, as society moved away from core values and people could see how a lack of integrity could personally benefit themselves (small scale: welfare fraud) and also on a large scale (politicians), they adjusted and became okay with it. For a huge swath of the population, lying is just a way of life – whether for the voter or the politician.
Further, people had plenty of evidence to see and know that Obama was a liar and yet he got voted into office. Twice. Clearly, to a whole lot of Americans, there are qualities that supersede integrity.
The question becomes whether people even *want* to identify the liars and what will it cost them if they do?
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/25/2014 @ 6:19 pmDana, I’m just amazed you made it through my novella length comment.
I was thinking about your point, but thankfully didn’t elaborate on that. While the American people value integrity (they do) their window into the world is greatly limited by many biased entities. They will know of GOP flip flops or insincerity. They may not learn of a democrats unless it is particularly extreme. When there is something that scandalizes a democrat, the narrative usually is ‘dang, Fox News sure is obsessing over this and making politics out of it’.
I hope that’s what it is, and our society hasn’t degenerated. When it comes to leaving our kids and grandkids with a healthy country I get pretty cynical.
Dana, keep up the great blogging, btw.
Dustin (801032) — 9/25/2014 @ 6:49 pmThank you for taking the time to reply, Dustin. I did not mean my observation/question to be construed as “taking on the commenter” in lieu of the thread topic and I am sorry if you saw it that way. When you said above at 23:
and you were referring to the 2014 midterm bad boyfriend ad which Dana posted–the ad which was narrated by a young woman in pink and pearls seemingly speaking in confidence to her young Obama- worshiping women kin–it piqued my curiosity, and I followed your additional comments to try to understand why you thought that specific ad might conceivably be targeted at you.
Then the posts and conversation quickly shifted back to more traditional territory–bad GOP– and RINOs –and 2016–and the weeds. In short, all the typical back and forth and miscommunication that always transpires here on this subject.
elissa (0e838d) — 9/25/2014 @ 7:00 pmThat the only viable options are some RINO or some socialist, and the core and essence of our world is simply to pick the lesser of two evils. Things have progressed to a point where there is no lesser of two evils at that point. They lead to the same place.
Well, this is what we’ve seen for a while now, which makes me believe that enough people still want this sort of choice. Reform, yes, but the reformers are fewer and farther between. I think it’s moving in that direction, though, and certainly 2016 will bring clarity – one way or the other.
Thanks for the encouragement, Dustin. It’s nice to see you commenting. I have to say the more I watched the ad, the less I think it’s about R’s feeling superior to D’s. I think it’s an oddly patronizing effort to reach women who are less than thrilled with their “boyfriend”. No disrespect intended, elissa, but if it actually reaches these women with a positive option or “permission” if you will, to say I don’t want another guy like Obmama, let me shop around, I’ll be surprised.
Dana (4dbf62) — 9/25/2014 @ 7:58 pmHeh, Dana, you’re going for a do-over? I seem to remember people saying that 2012 would bring “clarity” one way or the other. 🙂
elissa (0e838d) — 9/25/2014 @ 8:04 pmHonestly Elissa, I went through it yet again and the pink and pearls are even grating me and I’m wondering again why the the important points made couldn’t just be straight-up addressed without the trappings. But yes, a do-over because I’ve been thinking about it a lot. Women who are disappointed in the president won’t acknowledge anything – they’ll just hitch their wagon to Hillary.
Dana (0f00c8) — 9/25/2014 @ 8:30 pmDana, seriously I think you may be over-thinking this 2014 ad. I like it and you don’t like it. That’s OK. We’re not young single women and we’re not the target audience, so who really knows. I love that you posted the ad here for us all to talk about and analyze as I had not seen it before.
elissa (0e838d) — 9/25/2014 @ 8:49 pmIf it weren’t for double standards Democrats would have no standards at all.
Joe (33fd9a) — 9/25/2014 @ 9:31 pmAs Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) toured this state earlier this week with Robert J. Dole, the former Republican leader waxed nostalgic about the bipartisanship deal-making that marked his days running the Senate.
Dole specifically criticized Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) for his role in last fall’s government shutdown. An ailing Kansas legend at 91, Dole still has his signature wit. He told one crowd, “Some of those guys are so far on the right they’re gonna fall out of the Capitol.”
happyfeet (a785d5) — 9/25/2014 @ 10:03 pm[Yo, Patterico. Found the following on the surprising net.]
Obama: Funny & Frank
(1) Barack-coli: a vegetable or a national plague!
(2) Obama Coffee: grounds for impeachment!
(3) Obama’s favorite candy: Mecca Wafers!
(4) Proverbs 17:7 (NIV): “Arrogant lips are unsuited to a fool – how much worse lying lips to a ruler!”
(5) When Obama says we’re on the cutting edge of history, he must be thinking about beheadings!
(6) New Nursery Rhyme: Obaba Black Sheep keeps pulling the wool over our eyes!
(7) The southwest is running out of water, but Obama is helping with his surplus of wet*****!
(8) Proverbs 19:10 (NIV): “It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury – how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!”
(9) Obama is an expert on beheading. After lunch he tells his secretary: “I’ll be heading back to the golf course!”
(10) Uncle Sam hasn’t built the border fence high enough to keep out the un-American criminals. I repeat, Uncle Sam hasn’t built the White House fence high enough to keep out the un-American criminals – and they’re now inside the White House!
(11) Proverbs 30:21, 22 (NIV): “the earth…cannot bear up [under] a servant who becomes king.”
(12) We’ve gone from America’s Declaration of “unalienable rights” to Obama’s Proclamation of ALIENable rights!
(13) The nicest words Obama could repeat while golfing: “I’m having a stroke, I’m having a stroke”!
(For more on the Obamas, Google “Michelle Obama’s Allah-day” and “The Background Obama Can’t Cover Up.”)
Kenny (59b01c) — 10/13/2014 @ 11:30 pm