Can we admit that Obama has a really big stick?

Jesus christ you have to be kidding me.

Postby delgriffith » Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:27 pm

I liked this

Image

(Edit: just noticed the "You might also like" section full of Biden gear)
Vic wrote:If you didn't know how to rock climb but wanted to learn would you just go fall off of a rock?
User avatar
delgriffith
 
Posts: 49562
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:26 pm

Postby WAC » Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:58 pm

User avatar
WAC
 
Posts: 21156
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:47 pm

Postby WAC » Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:04 pm

I don't think this Karl Rove op-ed was mentioned:

This month, Barack Obama's re-election campaign released a 17-minute film, "The Road We've Traveled," that previews the Democratic general election narrative. Directed by Academy Award winner Davis Guggenheim and narrated by actor Tom Hanks, the film explores Mr. Obama's most important decisions.

Viewers are told Mr. Obama deserves re-election for restoring America to prosperity after a recession "as deep as anything . . . since the Great Depression." He accomplished this in part, so the film says, by bailing out the auto companies—deciding not to just "give the car companies" or "the UAW the money" but to force them to "work together" and "modernize the automobile industry." The president, we're told, also confronted "one of the most worrisome problems facing America . . . the cost of health care."

Abroad, Mr. Obama ended the Iraq war and, in the "ultimate test of leadership," Osama bin Laden was killed on his watch. The film heralds Mr. Obama as a leader committed to "tough decisions" and as someone who "would not dwell in blame" in the Oval Office.

Where to begin? Perhaps with the last statement: Mr. Obama has spent three years wallowing in blame. His culprits have ranged from his predecessor, to tsunamis and earthquakes, to ATMs, to Fox News, to yours truly. If you Google "Obama, Blame, Bush" and "Obama, Inherited," you'll get tens of millions of hits.

As for inheriting the worst economy since the Great Depression: Perhaps Mr. Obama has forgotten the Carter presidency, which featured double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, and high unemployment.

The film is riddled with other inaccuracies and misleading claims. For example, the United Auto Workers may not have gotten "money" in the bailout, but as an unsecured creditor, the union received a 17.5% ownership interest in General Motors and 55% of Chrysler, while the companies' bondholders got hosed.

The film asserts that the auto companies "repaid their loans." But they still owe taxpayers $26.5 billion, and the Treasury Department's latest report to Congress noted that nearly $24 billion of the bailout money is gone forever.

The film includes Mr. Obama's 2008 claim that the death of his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, from cancer "could have been prevented" if only she "had good, consistent insurance." But earlier this year, a biography of Dunham by Janny Scott, "A Singular Woman," revealed that she had health insurance that covered most all her medical bills, leaving only a few hundred dollars a month in deductibles and uncovered costs. For misleading viewers, the Washington Post fact checker awarded this segment of the film "Three Pinocchios."

The film also offers up numerous straw men. For example, opponents of Mr. Obama's auto industry bailout, we're told, just wanted to "let it go," as if an orderly bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler in the courts rather than by presidential fiat was never an option. It was.

Almost as important as what the film says is what it doesn't. There's not a word about the failure of the president's stimulus to produce the jobs he pledged—according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, fewer Americans are working today (132.7 million) than when Mr. Obama was sworn in (133.6 million).

There's nothing about his promise to cut the deficit in half by the end of his term—according to Treasury's Bureau of Public Debt, the administration has piled up more debt in three years and two months ($4.93 trillion) than his predecessor did in eight years ($4.8 trillion).

Nothing is said about the centerpieces of last year's State of the Union—green energy jobs (Solyndra anyone?) and high-speed rail (fizzled). Nada on the president's promises about how ObamaCare would lower premiums and lower the deficit while allowing people to keep their existing coverage (all untrue).

There's nothing about the crumbling situation in Afghanistan, strained relations with allies like Israel, Mr. Obama's unpopularity in the Islamic World, the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, multiple missteps with Iran (from failing to protest the stolen Iranian elections in 2009 to the mullahs' unchecked pursuit of nuclear weapons), and Mr. Obama's flip flops on closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and providing civilian trials for terrorists.

As for the killing of Osama bin Laden, Mr. Obama did what virtually any commander in chief would have done in the same situation. Even President Bill Clinton says in the film "I hope that's the call I would have made." For this to be portrayed as the epic achievement of the first term tells you how bare the White House cupboards are.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304724404577295601147645884.html

The original article had that Clinton quote as "That's the call I would have made." Presumably they were forced to run a correction, but it negates the entire point of the paragraph.
User avatar
WAC
 
Posts: 21156
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:47 pm

Postby The Dirty Turtle » Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:06 pm

axelrod sent out 6 consecutive tweets in response to that thing
User avatar
The Dirty Turtle
 
Posts: 32914
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:04 am
Location: forums.hipinion.com

Postby The Dirty Turtle » Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:12 pm

to be honest i think the administration totally bungled the recent messaging around the osama raid, because to roves point, probably any president would have gone in after osama given the opportunity and if it didnt work, it didnt work
what they should have done was focus around how obama changed our overall military strategy in dealing with al-qaeda and that the big deal wasnt making the call, it was years of military strategy that put him in a position to be able to make that call
User avatar
The Dirty Turtle
 
Posts: 32914
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:04 am
Location: forums.hipinion.com

Postby The Dirty Turtle » Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:18 pm

that would have even allowed them to address romneys bullshit about our military shrinking because obama could just say were fighting different battles today and being successful there means looking at things differently...if our biggest threat is al qaeda why would we, trying to be responsible with the budget and not do it all, invest in destroyers instead of drones
oh and by the way, weve killed basically everyone in al-qaeda and their reputation in the muslim world is ruined
User avatar
The Dirty Turtle
 
Posts: 32914
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 9:04 am
Location: forums.hipinion.com

Postby WAC » Sat Mar 24, 2012 6:33 pm

There's going to be plenty of time to flesh out the foreign policy messaging once the general election actually gets going, there's no point of directly addressing Romney at this point and making him look stronger.
User avatar
WAC
 
Posts: 21156
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:47 pm

Postby Jeremy » Sat Mar 24, 2012 7:56 pm

Yeah leaving Romney as the guy who after six years of running for president is worse at campaigning than Rick Santorum probably helps Obama more than engaging with him directly would.
User avatar
Jeremy
 
Posts: 33726
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:46 pm

Postby Amblin » Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:38 pm

The Dirty Turtle wrote:that would have even allowed them to address romneys bullshit about our military shrinking because obama could just say were fighting different battles today and being successful there means looking at things differently...if our biggest threat is al qaeda why would we, trying to be responsible with the budget and not do it all, invest in destroyers instead of drones
oh and by the way, weve killed basically everyone in al-qaeda and their reputation in the muslim world is ruined


If things play out with the debates like usual where we get an economic/domestic policy debate, a "town hall" or probably social media integrated event, and a "foreign policy" debate in which Obama is just going to kill him for 90 minutes with facts and rebuttals built around this point. Romney's only strategy in this type of debate is going to really be avoiding much of the military or war related issues and focus his stronger arguments on the "threat" of Iran, North Korea and probably China.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 20790
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: CA

Postby Amblin » Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:43 pm

Further, I think the only way we lose any points on foreign policy is if Biden fucks up a response in the VP debate. I think Obama exudes confidence on these issues and can articulate his policies and outlook with a lot of authority based on his success. Biden does have that confidence to an extent, I just think speaking on behalf of the President always creates some opportunity to screw up the message, particular when this Vice President is the one delivering that message.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 20790
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: CA

Postby mites » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:00 pm

yea but biden is more personable and charming and no one fucking knows anything about the world anyway and like no one really votes on the basis of foreign policy
User avatar
mites
 
Posts: 23500
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:41 am
Location: Bmore

Postby Amblin » Sat Mar 24, 2012 9:08 pm

mites wrote:yea but biden is more personable and charming and no one fucking knows anything about the world anyway and like no one really votes on the basis of foreign policy

First off, President Bush beat John Kerry in 2004 based on foreign policy.

Second, Obama is running for re-election, which means that making the case to keep him in office has to be based primarily on his accomplishments. Clearly the economy is still likely to be the main deciding factor for many voters and he has a whole list of things he can say he did that put us back on a path of growth. But he can really seal the deal by reminding voters of the successes he had with ending the War, wiping out al-Qaeda, getting bin Laden etc. He has a pretty good approval rating when it comes to issues already, so he should probably take advantage of it. It is going to be a big part of this campaign.

People don't have to pay much attention to agree with the War being over in Iraq, Afghanistan drawing down, dead terrorists and whatever sort of progress with Iran the administration can sell to the public by October. Most ignore the details, but all of these issues are pretty familiar to many voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Iowa.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 20790
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: CA

Postby Durham » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:11 am

Image
something something, dares you to blink
User avatar
Durham
 
Posts: 28813
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:34 pm
Location: 火車

Postby macseries » Sun Mar 25, 2012 6:52 am

Amblin wrote:
mites wrote:yea but biden is more personable and charming and no one fucking knows anything about the world anyway and like no one really votes on the basis of foreign policy

First off, President Bush beat John Kerry in 2004 based on foreign policy.

Second, Obama is running for re-election, which means that making the case to keep him in office has to be based primarily on his accomplishments. Clearly the economy is still likely to be the main deciding factor for many voters and he has a whole list of things he can say he did that put us back on a path of growth. But he can really seal the deal by reminding voters of the successes he had with ending the War, wiping out al-Qaeda, getting bin Laden etc. He has a pretty good approval rating when it comes to issues already, so he should probably take advantage of it. It is going to be a big part of this campaign.

People don't have to pay much attention to agree with the War being over in Iraq, Afghanistan drawing down, dead terrorists and whatever sort of progress with Iran the administration can sell to the public by October. Most ignore the details, but all of these issues are pretty familiar to many voters in Ohio, Florida, Virginia and Iowa.


SECRET MUSLIM SOCIALIST SUPPORT OUR TROOPS
genghis sean wrote:only liberals and maybe a few anarchists have anything of value to contribute to discussions on sex workers rights.
User avatar
macseries
 
Posts: 10760
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: close. very, very close.

Postby mites » Sun Mar 25, 2012 9:11 am

Amblin wrote:
mites wrote:yea but biden is more personable and charming and no one fucking knows anything about the world anyway and like no one really votes on the basis of foreign policy

First off, President Bush beat John Kerry in 2004 based on foreign policy.

naw

also incumbents have pretty big advantages unless the economy sucks but thankfully all of the republicans are insane so it would probably really have to suck
User avatar
mites
 
Posts: 23500
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:41 am
Location: Bmore

Postby Thrills » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:03 pm

David Plouffe wrote:"I'm convinced at the end of this decade, the Republicans are going to regret terming this Obamacare," Plouffe said on Fox News Sunday.


This is what I've been thinking. Once this thing is widely popular (which most entitlement programs usually become once they're fully implemented), american society will constantly be reminded of Obama's signature achievement. Future generations will look back upon the health care debate with dismay: "They called Obamacare socialism, daddy?" This will end up being so much more of a plus for liberalism than if it was forever known as the "Affordable Care Act."
User avatar
Thrills
 
Posts: 194
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:35 pm

Postby jarsilver » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:28 pm

the one thing that really irks me about that rove op-ed was his claim that stagflation was worse than the 08 recession. there was no recession during the carter administration.
User avatar
jarsilver
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 10:58 pm

Postby arushofwings » Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:33 pm

he knows what he's doing
on my bean bag like nyah.
User avatar
arushofwings
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 6:34 am
Location: LA

Postby Ted Pikul » Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:19 pm

roy wrote:i lived in texas for three years. i know what hook 'em horns is. i also know that it's been over six months since the longhorns played a football game. seriously, you think it's appropriate for a kid to throw up the horns three days have the murder of her parents? what kind of monster are YOU?
User avatar
Ted Pikul
 
Posts: 19985
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:01 pm
Location: Salvador Dali's garden party

Postby Amblin » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:04 pm

mites, go here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html scroll down to MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE

Combine the percentages of "Iraq" and "Terrorism."

Foreign policy was the biggest issue on voters' minds in 2004.

I do agree about incumbent advantage.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 20790
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: CA

Postby husbands » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:10 pm

I do some work on theories of public opinion, and I really am skeptical that you can say any one issue was the 'biggest' in voters' minds. but foreign policy is definitely an important consideration at times.
ROLL COAL
User avatar
husbands
 
Posts: 8571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:07 pm

Postby Amblin » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:12 pm

Well lets just agree that voters don't completely ignore it like what was originally claimed.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 20790
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: CA

Postby Zwischenzug » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:28 pm

Yeah the 04 and 06 (and to some extent 08) campaigns were entirely about foreign policy. But, I think it may be better to use the term "national security" when talking about the Bush II reelection.
User avatar
Zwischenzug
 
Posts: 1576
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:21 pm

Postby Amblin » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:34 pm



User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 20790
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: CA

Postby Zwischenzug » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:41 pm

"Safer, Stronger" and "Whatever It Takes" are probably the best Bush ads. It is also fitting how much the Bush ads copied a lot of the ethos of the Reagan campaign. "Safer, Stronger" seems like it is cut right from "Prouder, Stronger, Better (Morning In America)" and "Wolves" is exactly the same as "Bear."
User avatar
Zwischenzug
 
Posts: 1576
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:21 pm

Postby delgriffith » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:43 pm

Zwischenzug wrote:"Wolves" is exactly the same as "Bear."


Yeah although way more on the nose. It's like they watched "Bear" and thought "let's do that... but really make sure they get it"
Vic wrote:If you didn't know how to rock climb but wanted to learn would you just go fall off of a rock?
User avatar
delgriffith
 
Posts: 49562
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:26 pm

Postby Amblin » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:49 pm

Safer, Stronger is really good



I picked the two above because they were attack ads.
User avatar
Amblin
 
Posts: 20790
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:08 am
Location: CA

Postby husbands » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:53 pm

last semester I was TAing media politics, and teaching kids born in 1992 about all these ads was so fun. people should check out the living room candidate MoMI site: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/

also I really think wolves makes a clearer point than bear
ROLL COAL
User avatar
husbands
 
Posts: 8571
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:07 pm

Postby lynn minmei » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:55 pm

wow, thanks for that MoMI link
User avatar
lynn minmei
 
Posts: 746
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:30 pm

Postby Zwischenzug » Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:58 pm

When it comes to presidential politics I sometimes just subscribe to the bugs bunny/daffy duck theory:
(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2008/03/bugs_bunny_vs_daffy_duck.html)

If only because it is so convenient. Just watching the Bush ads you realize that Kerry (and really the party between Clinton and Obama) had no chance with middle america.
Last edited by Zwischenzug on Sun Mar 25, 2012 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Zwischenzug
 
Posts: 1576
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Free-for-all

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahungbunny, Amblin, arushofwings, Baby Museum, Bartatua, bengood, blendercore, cake, can, cooly, dan, DestructoBot, ecto, fakename, Feech La Manna, fraew, Frank, fuckyoudad, Ghost of Spartacus, goldmatt, Google [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Grand Epic, hired goon, iacus, manvstrees, Mesh, mouthful of sores, Neevin, Nice Pete, palmer eldritch, pillars, Quixotic, Ram Abbalah, resum, shank, shirts optional, spix et chicho, stakeout, subtracticus, SvenMaeglasson, The Dirty Turtle, ueckerist, Uppercrust, VHGisdead, virile, whiskbroom, Yahoo [Bot]