What the ad does is say:
It’s OK to like the guy personally but not vote for him again. This is not a popularity contest. It’s OK to vote against the black guy. You gave him a shot. He gave it his best shot. He failed. And the most effective message is: “It’s OK to make a change” — and not be thought of as a racist.That's Capehart's between-the-lines reading. (Capehart is black.)
Throughout Obama’s presidency, I’ve received more than a few e-mails and tweets from folks complaining that they are branded racist if they disagree with anything the president says or does. And it doesn’t help matters that I have seen more than a few e-mails and tweets from ardent Obama supporters doing exactly that. I have also seen instances of this on television and in print.
[T]he “It’s OK to make a change” ad... give[s] those few, yet crucial, undecided voters the pass they might be looking for to vote against Obama....
पोस्ट्स
१०५ टिप्पण्या:
No, racism is never okay.
"It’s the “It’s OK to make a change” message that the campaign needs to counter as aggressively as the RNC is pushing it."
Translated: "but it is racist to voter against Obama, because shut up."
Is there any thing worse a person can be branded today in America than "racist"?
I have one answer to the name callers: Prove it.
Seriously. Prove it. This white boy grew up in South Carolina, the son of civil rights marchers - I have a picture of my mother with Ralph Abernathy from the early 60's - but when I began supporting conservatives at 18 I was called a racist not by any of my black friends, but by 2 "white friends" who had never been in a segregated restaurant in their lives. I called them what they were to their faces: Assholes. Assholes willing to use call someone something not true, without proof.
And that is still how it is today.
Everyone who plays the race card without proof is an asshole, pure and simple.
And today's Gallup poll notes that Obama's approval rating among business owners is 35%.
Again, this idea that this you didn't build that clown is personally popular is obscene.
The entirety of the dialogue that he is "nice" is really dancing around the "don't call me a racist."
Why Romney or anyone else for that matter, is worried that the crowd who beleives unemployment benefits create jobs should care that one of them calls you a "racist" is beyond me.
Its just baffling to me, that we are still talking about race in the year 2012.
Good ad.
Don't be a racist. Vote for the candidate that is best qualified, regardless of skin color.
Me? I'm voting for the American.
When people pull the bullshit racist card (or sexist card) I ask "what is your definition of racist and how does that apply here? WHen the inevitable non-answer occurs, I say "it seems that you are the bigot."
It's fun.
"Fen said...
Me? I'm voting for the American."
Heh.
I will be voting against Obama's white half if that makes a difference.
And the obvious corollary: It's okay to vote for Romney even if you don't personally like him. Because, really, who does?
Also, the wording of the poll question may be artificially inflating Obama's likability numbers. From CNN/PPP/Politico/NYT: "which of these statements more closely describes you? 1. I find President Obama likable. 2. I'm a dirty racist."
Bwahaha! He doesn't want to disconnect race from voting. He threatens people that, if you ignore race, you're a racist!
La Pasionaria, your screen name and picture seem to shout "I am way past my expiration date". When you comment that a topic (race) seems out-dated, you just look stupid. I'd suggest getting a new screen name and picture.
But Obama loves you. See that smile that gets to you deep down.
Now, surrender your property and your Constitutional rights or he wont love you anymore!
it is actually the Tony Robbins method. Con men never need anymore than that to loot folks who imagine promises of love from good personalities will come true...yeah, like winning the lottery. Trust him. See that smile.
"Throughout Obama’s presidency, I’ve received more than a few e-mails and tweets from folks complaining that they are branded racist if they disagree with anything the president says or does. And it doesn’t help matters that I have seen more than a few e-mails and tweets from ardent Obama supporters doing exactly that. I have also seen instances of this on television and in print."
I have to wonder whether this group might just contribute to a "silent majority" landslide. What could make someone more legitimately, quietly, genuinely angry, than being treated this way? And what works against an incumbent, more than that sort of anger?
Is there any thing worse a person can be branded today in America than "racist"?
Bully.
Sex offender.
"Racist" will get you the tsk-tsking and raised eyebrows.
"Bully" will bring down the public shrieking and hate.
"Sex offender" will do all of that plus put your life in danger.
I see him more as a wrecking ball.
Whatever. I didn't vote for Barack Obama in 2008. I've already gone through all of that, ***all*** of it, IRL, too. I went through it. And since then, I've gone through all sorts of shit, despite having not voted Barack Obama, dished out from folks that, at one time, I thought might, perhaps, maybe keep that in mind. (Interestingly enough, I've gotten WAAAAY more shit from folks who also didn't vote for President Obama AND who also know I didn't vote for him than I ever have from people who DID vote for him AND also know that I did not. Hmmmmm.) All of it is just the name of the game, it seems.
To hell with it, I say.
As for the ad? It's not the ad, nor is about the ad. Or any ad, or even collection of ads. It's about how folks are ready to react to whatever ad, or whatever people. Facts have not a damn thing to do with it, not it in terms of ads and even far, far less with people.
Bob Ellison said...
La Pasionaria, your screen name and picture seem to shout "I am way past my expiration date".
You sound like my doctor...
traditionalguy, you're right about the smile, the look. But how come it seems to work for men and not for women (Sarah Palin, for example)?
We tend to like and uphold good-looking male politicians. We tend to cut down the pretty women. I've been getting the impression lately that Michelle Malkin is really brilliant, but she'll never live down how pretty she is.
It's just baffling to me that we are still talking about race in the year 2012.
Yes. Of all his elisions, tergivesations and betrayals, Obama's broadly hinted (if not explicity stated) assertion that electing him would finally close the books on a shameful racist past will stand as the worst.
The 'civil rights' lefties seized on words like racist and sexist as the new expressions of 'blasphemy', against which there's no defense. They're wearing thin, but one should not stop for a second to try to counter them - you're guilty, with no chance to prove innocence. Ride right through them, they're demoralized, and the ritual chant no longer carries its mojo. Just make your point and let the truth carry through.
So basically Capeheart is saying Democrats need to double down on race-shaming or they're going to lose. Inspiring.
Bob Elison: I believe that the left has co-opted the "I am smart" meme with women. If you are a conservative you are a dumb housewife. If you are a liberal you are an intellectual, a deep pool of values and instincts and knowledge that doesn't have to be displayed to exist. Thus it was that Palin was the dumbest person on earth behind GWB. Thus it was that women tore her to bits and their satisfaction rested on the certainty that they were smarter and more accomplished even if they themselves had never been the governor of a state, started a business or raised a family. Like the audience in Roanoke, they knew they worked hard and were smart and would, but for luck, be rich themselves.
I'll vote how I think it is best to vote, and that is that, full stop. (I won't be voting for President Obama, BTW, TBC.)
But it won't have a damn thing to do with a startling number of conservatives I know, on and off line. If it were to do with that, just based on the sheer nastiness and lack of respect and if I were a weaker person, I'd go to the other side. But it doesn't have to do with that, and I am not that weak. Thus, to repeat:
I'll vote how I think it is best to vote, and that is that, full stop.
And to hell with the rest of it.
I think Jay is right. I think there are a large number of people who will go out of their way to say Obama is likable because the "racist!" charge has been very effective. I don't think it's how they really feel, and I think November is going to prove that. He won't be judged by the color of his skin. He will be judged by his record. As it should be.
Its just baffling to me, that we are still talking about race in the year 2012.
Why? Racism is just a form of discrimination. Discrimination has been constant throughout the tens of thousands of years of human history. To think discrimination will ever be expunged from humanity is to have blithely bought into the po-mo wishful thinking of social utopians.
That's why freedom is a better natural check on discrimination rather than exercising control over people. If you don't like how you're being treated in a free society, go somewhere else. In a free society, your own actions are less likely to be interpreted as discriminatory.
Actually, I do not think Obama came to the White House with "big plans."
I think his attitude is that his just being there, presiding, would be enough, and there just naturally would follow a groundswell movement that would somehow accomplish the big changes without anyone actually planning or "governing" anything.
Romney can't seem to find a company that wasn't helped by the government in some way in his "Build That" events. Hypocrisy NOT a problem for righties. Of course.
The Capeheart column, somewhat to my surprise, does not beat the drum that one is racist not to support Obama. Capeheart acknowledges that the drum exists and that some of those who are pro-Obama beat the drum, while some of those who are anti-Obama resent it.
Though Capeheart does not say so directly, he is concerned that a significant number of Obama voters are held in place only by their fear of the racism charge and that if they are relieved of that fear, they will easily peel away from Obama and vote for Romney.
Capeheart considers this a much more serious threat than the "You didn't build that" attack. Thus he recommends that the Obama campaign counter aggressively.
However, Capeheart does not supply any counter-measures and that's a big problem. If Obama can't run on his record, what can he do? Go back to "Hope and Change"? Or try to convince Americans they really are racist if they don't vote for him...
Bob Ellison. Good question.
Remember yesterday's post about both men and women seeing men as whole persons , but seeing a woman as her body parts.
Maybe it is part of our make up. A person I respect observes that a church group lead by men will attract both men and women, but a church group lead by a woman will only attract women.
In any event, Obama has ysed his outgoing personality and winning smile to win over people he needs for his entire life. Then he uses them and sends them under the bus and goes after another set of chumps.
The interesting 2012 contrast is between Obama's winning outgoing charm and Romney's reputation for competance behind a poker face hidding his cards.
My theory is that Romney will need to thaw out and express his emotons before people will feel good about him. Heck, anger is emotion #1 in men. At least express that, Mitt. Your not on a Mormon Missionary trip now.
And if you have to be told it's okay to make a change at this point, good grief, I wish you wouldn't vote at all.
The stupid vote.
What could make someone more legitimately, quietly, genuinely angry, than being treated this way?
I have a cousin who has been proudly declaring that she is now 'racist' because she doesn't like Obama's crappy policies. She voted for him before, I think she's always voted democrat. She's not voting for him this year.
I think you are right and that guy at WashPo is right (except about how effective the Bain stuff is). Calling people racist for disagreeing is just going to make them pissed off. It's certainly not winning any converts except amongst those who care way too much what others think. But the voting booth is secret, unlike a poll.
I didn't know I needed a "pass" to vote against Obama. My bad.
La Pasionaria said...
Its just baffling to me, that we are still talking about race in the year 2012.
I used to think so, too. Being a student in the 50's and 60's I thought we made the moral and ethical progress necessary.
I was wrong ... "race" is a "political business" ...and homosexuality is now one too, never mind the actual civil and legal changes over time.
Instead of an actual moral awakening, we merely have proof of an adage: Give an inch to something, that something will take a mile." See, if it worked when it really was important, it will work when it isn't....
Now we have "dog whistles" which is any word a listener decides, unilaterally, is "racist" or "evil." I tried to explain this dog whistle thing to my better half last night, and her first comment was: "Have you been drinking too much again?"
When I tell friends and acquaintances younger than me that in Detroit of the 60's, at a University here, we could sit down together and actually rationally discuss differences, black/white, communist/socialist/capitalist, capitalist republic/communist soviets, etc etc. ..and do so peacefully and with little rancor.
Pssst: [Don't bother citing the Detroit riot of 1967...I was in it, and it had little to do with race per se. The city was still well mixed back then, unlike today. Note that when the rest of the country erupted in rioting upon MLK's death, Detroit did NOT.]
No one wants to believe it though, truth sometimes just doesn't swallow well. No matter, the intelligent ability to resolve problems was disappearing by 1970 as the radicals developed personal agendas of hate to "sell."
I do see glimmers of hope here and there around Detroit, such as my daughter and several of her professional friends (who are all 30 to 40 yoa) moving to the downtown district ... the diversity among them is substantial and unconscious, along the lines of what MLK spoke of vis a vis character.
Michael, I agree, but there's something more going on.
Women tend to hate other women whom they perceive as more attractive then they.
It's instinctive. And women make up >50% of the electorate.
Men tend not to have a problem with good-looking guys. They look up to them. They elect them to various high offices.
So I predict that the first American female POTUS had better look like Margaret Thatcher. Sarah Palin will never make it.
Obama is already a lame duck president, I don't understand why he is even running again when he will not gain any seats in Congress and therefore will be even more powerless than he is now.
Those darn Republicans are too much for Obama to work with; they have bested him. It will only be worse on November 7th, 2012 for Obama if he wins, in terms of actually doing anything.
Republicans even oppose legitimate debate in front of the American people.
Democrats ought to withhold money and support for a POTUS until they find one that can work with Republicans or fight them and succeed.
FTA: '[T]he “It’s OK to make a change” ad... give[s] those few, yet crucial, undecided voters the pass they might be looking for to vote against Obama....'
So this guy thinks that some people need a 'pass' to not vote for Obama?
Seriously?
As I read between the lines he is saying that these people are secretly racist and need a reason to make a racist decision to act in a racist way: to vote against Obama.
The racist here is the writer not the voter.
I also agree that women make up a large portion of the stupid vote. I hate saying that, but I do believe it's true.
How dast those nasty old Republicans intimate "sort of God" isn't doing a good job and should be thrown out.
Ann Althouse said...
The GOP's "most dangerous" ad: "He tried. You tried. It’s OK to make a change".
And the Demos' most dangerous...
at least for them. Anna Wintour rides again.
La Pasionaria said...
Its just baffling to me, that we are still talking about race in the year 2012.
We'll be talking about it as long as the Lefties think they can wring a couple more votes out of it.
garage mahal said...
Romney can't seem to find a company that wasn't helped by the government in some way in his "Build That" events. Hypocrisy NOT a problem for righties. Of course.
Link, por favor?
I can think of companies helped by Bain, of course, but I think we need to define "help".
Like, "We're from the government and we're here to help".
Y'know, like what the meaning of "is" is.
I like this ad. It's kind of sly.
If Romney were southern he would have said 'bless his heart'.
Hypocrisy NOT a problem for righties, of course.
I see garbage has arrived to smear feces over the thread. Hey, Tom Swift, did you catch neo-neocon's blog post yesterday titled "Obama's looking more and more like a deer in the headlights?" I doubt it. Key graph:
Note also that in this ad, Obama claims that in his original speech on small business, "What I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has." Note also that he doesn't show a clip of himself saying that, and that's because there isn't one; he never said those words.
Now, what's that about hypocrisy again? Garage? Garage?
Bueller?
Good thing he can always count on the mentally deficient like you to vote for him no matter what.
"ad... give[s] those few, yet crucial, undecided voters the pass..."
Good grief, in a self proclaimed democracy, in the privacy of a voting booth, voters need permissions to vote the way they want, like school kids needing a pass to go to the restroom.
We'll be talking about it as long as the Lefties think they can wring a couple more votes out of it.
Yes, thats indeed a problem. To a great extent the New Left replaced the difficult issues of class-interest and class-conflict with the easier, reactionary and nationalistic tainted question of race.
Christopher, it's worse than that.
When he starts throwing lines like, "And if you don’t like folks talking about you, you probably shouldn’t run for president. The one thing I do have no patience for is this argument that somehow what I’m criticizing is success… I want to promote success.", even he knows the act is bombing.
I also agree that women make up a large portion of the stupid vote. I hate saying that, but I do believe it's true.
Darcy, that may be true, but I’d say it’s more of the ‘emotional’ vote maybe? I think some are more easily swayed to do things that sound good on paper, but in actuality don’t work very well.
At least it's not 90/10. The gap between women and men is much smaller than many other groups.
It’s the “It’s OK to make a change” message that the campaign needs to counter...
What is this?.. the election for the next mafia boss or an election for the presidency of the United States?
If we go (vote) outside the family we are branded traitors (racist)?
I know elections are not how mafia bosses are said to be chosen... but the writer uses the word "dangerous" and I'm just going off on it.. dangerously.
The writer of this column betrays the elephant (or the donkey) in the room by assuming that a lot of people voted for Obama because of the collor of his skin alone.
Hi Shanna. I agree that a lot of women vote based on emotions. Irrationally. Which is probably kinder than calling them stupid. :)
What if a person voted for Obama because they thought he was the better candidate overall, and not because of some kind of Boyfriendish cult-like thing?
It's like people completely forget the choice was between Obama and McCain. I mean, it's not down to the horrid sh*t sandwich choice I'll get in November between Tammy and Tommy, but really!
Maybe ads just don't work on me.
Note that when the rest of the country erupted in rioting upon MLK's death, Detroit did NOT.
I believe the 82nd Airborne showed up to try to keep rioters from shooting out firemen trying to rescue people from burning buildings. Romney would remember; his dad and LBJ I'm sure had discussion leading to it.
So, what is the difference between "stupid" and "emotional" with respect to govenment of the tribe?
Thank you, Hostess for not including the ad.
It was running on the tv the moment before this post opened on my little screen. Oddly, somebody neglected mute. It's a sweet sounding ad.
I went, awww bless.
Incidental to that, when typing the word 'screen' it's good to know it has only two E's and their exact placement. Turns out, a three E screen is unattractive.
Irrationally. Which is probably kinder than calling them stupid. :)
Heh. I'm not saying it isn't stupid :) Just trying to get at the reason for it!
Ha. I think this is funny. When this laptop is discharging it resists completing one of these comments. I hit publish, it waits then I reach for he power cord and let the magnets touch and doink it sends the comment and I pull the plug again and it continues to discharge. It needs the plug to make the comment. If you saw this, you'd go, "well, that's very odd."
Look, I'm doing it again for this comment: publish, nothing, touch, doink hahaha
What if a person voted for Obama because they thought he was the better candidate overall?
MadMan, in general, I'd call that a reasonable objection. But even the most casual vetting of Obama would have shown a potential voter that he was abysmally unqualified, lacking any sort of legislative achievement, utterly without a paper trail and surrounded by any number of unsavory - and in some cases, outright anti-American - companions.
In short, I do not believe you could, in good faith, make that argument if you were aware of Obama's background.
And if you weren't aware of it, then you failed to exercise due diligence in the use of your franchise. And if you were aware of it and still believed Obama to be better than McCain "overall," all I can do is shake my head in disbelief.
I have a cousin who has been proudly declaring that she is now 'racist' because she doesn't like Obama's crappy policies. She voted for him before, I think she's always voted democrat. She's not voting for him this year.
During the Clinton years when “political correctness” was all in vogue, I remember College Republicans wearing buttons that read “Bigot (def): a Conservative who is winning an argument with a Liberal.”
What we’re seeing with your cousin may just be another manifestation of the backlash against PC.
I also agree that women make up a large portion of the stupid vote. I hate saying that, but I do believe it's true.
I'm with Shanna.
It probably is the "emotional" vote, or the "non-logic" vote.
Which, when someone looks at the results with logic, reason, and intellect instead of emotion, or when then emotion changes, seems pretty stupid after all.
But it wasn't actually stupidity that caused it.
What was that book? "When smart women do stupid things"?
A very wise distinction, Nathan (and Shanna). They vote stupidly. They aren't necessarily stupid.
I've cast a stupid vote or two.
I put the "Obama is a nice guy" comment on the same level as this saying about the ugly fat chick that you are trying to hook someone up with on a blind date "She has a great personality".
Both statements are a weasel way to try to say something nice, when the truth is ugly and hidden in the statements. They both have a big unspoken...but... after the statement.
Obama is a nice guy....but...a horrible President
She has a great personality.....but her face could stop a clock. (We have a buddy who says "she has a butter face")
So don't read too much into the polls that say Obama is liked.
I meant color with one l... not collor.. maybe it should be collor.. a five letter word since its so important politically.. collor would become a five letter word instead of a four letter word.. thereby gaining respectability in the word community... see why community is so admired in many circles.. it has two m's.
Sorry.
The ad gently reminds the viewer not to stay stuck on stupid.
I'm sure Obama personally is a very nice guy and would make a fine neighbor but I would rather have Romney manage my money. That in a nutshell is what the election is about. After three and a half years of a clueless tyro managing our nation's finances its painfully obvious we need a professional to take over the national account management.
Thanks Chip.
Romney's foray into a foreign county off to a smashing start! One country, one diplomatic incident.
He's such an awesome candidate.
I have a cousin who has been proudly declaring that she is now 'racist' because she doesn't like Obama's crappy policies
I had a person, at a bbq at my own home, tell me I was racist because I was describing ObamaCare and explaining how his economic policies are killing the country.
She: That is so racist!
ME: ?!?! Racist!?!? Ok then, if you say so.. Obama is still an asshole and I don't think we have anything to say to each other...ever again. You can leave my house now. No. I mean RIGHT now. (announcing to the other guests) Does anyone need to move their car so (she) can leave?
"And if you have to be told it's okay to make a change at this point, good grief, I wish you wouldn't vote at all.
The stupid vote."
We need all the stupid people we can get, Darcy.
Romney's foray into a foriegn country off to a smashing start! One country, one diplomatic incident.
What happened? He give Queen Elizabeth an ipod loaded with his own speeches? Or maybe a "reset" button that actually says "overcharge?"
He's such an awesome candidate.
And you're such a fucking tool.
DBQ, stop-clocking faces are in high demand. In London, whenever they need to repair Big Ben, they deploy a clock-stopper. Big bucks there. And it's a growth market: teen boys' camps worldwide could use them to get the campers to sleep on-time.
Are we finally able to say that a significant part of the support for Obama in 2008 was because he was black? Can we not say now that we passed that racism test, or do we have to elect only black people from here on out?
This is a great ad, but it has to be subtle because this post-racial president is anything but post racial. In fact, he’s a nasty little man.
Mark O, be quiet.
a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...
Citing: "Note that when the rest of the country erupted in rioting upon MLK's death, Detroit did NOT."
I believe the 82nd Airborne showed up to try to keep rioters from shooting out firemen trying to rescue people from burning buildings. Romney would remember; his dad and LBJ I'm sure had discussion leading to it.
Believe what you wish, but you'd be wrong on this one. The 82nd Airborne arrived (rather late in fact, thanks to a dithering Cyrus Vance) for the 1967 riot, and deployed to the east side of town. The earliest military intervention was by the Michigan National Guard (armor and infantry) on the west side of town where the rioting began.
MLK was assassinated in 1968 and there was NO riot here. No 82nd Airborne here either.
WV: "dimpod" ... whachu tryin' to tel me, eh?
LOL, Mike. Well, if they're going to continue to vote, we sure do. But I do regret that they vote at all. And especially in the last presidential election.
garage,
one diplomatic incident.
You mean the one where Romney accurately quoted Bob Carr on the very real American decline brought about by Obama? Very clever of you to hint at something insidious about Romney by causing a diplomatic incident. But, as the left always forgets, you can get your ass fact checked into oblivion. Keep making the attacks on the left easy and, as always, stay classy.
What happened?
What hasn't happened is a better question
Worse than Bush?
That's OK, Garage. He can just give them a set of DVD's and everything will be fine.
Ta-Nehishi Coates in the Atlantic blog says:
"Any racism is unacceptable. It is wrong to believe Barack Obama shouldn't be president because he's black. That you have other reasons along with those--even ones that rank higher--doesn't make it excusable. Likely those other reasons are themselves tied to Obama being black."
So (if I'm understanding this correctly) you cannot have any reason to vote against Obama that is not a racist reason.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/white-resentment-obama-and-appalachia/257574/
The ad here is directly contradicting this point of view, which is why Capeheart and others fear it.
garage mahal said...
Romney's foray into a foreign county off to a smashing start! One country, one diplomatic incident.
He's such an awesome candidate.
From such an objective reporter. After all, the Guardian is as Lefty as they come.
Sorry, Fox has nothing on the subject, so I have a feeling this is the Left trying to manufacture something to drown out, "You didn't build that".
Considering how loused up the London Games are, they might welcome some feedback from somebody who actually got it right.
The ad uses a visual image to make the same point Romney has made time and again: O is a nice guy but he's in over his head.
A few days ago, Ann blogged about Romney's decision to omit the "nice guy" half of that proposition, as he reacted to Cutter's charge that he was a "felon". Time will tell whether Romney ramps up the charge that O is really a nasty Chicago pol, or sticks with his original approach of soft-pedalling the personal attack.
garage mahal said...
What hasn't happened is a better question
Wait, wait, wait.
A supporter of President here is a stack of DVDs for you is talking about Romney "gaffes"
You can't make this level of Internet idiocy up, folks.
Bu but but what about _________!!??
Garage, maybe they can send a "reset" button. I bet even Hilary won't screw up the translation on this one! Competence!!
Or, The President could bow to the Queen.
Note also that in this ad, Obama claims that in his original speech on small business, "What I said was that we need to stand behind them, as America always has."
Wow. Just, wow.
What you said, Mr. President, what you have been saying for months, is that you greedy business owners are getting rich on the backs of the taxpayers and I'm going to put a stop to it.
garage mahal said...
Bu but but what about _________!!??
Maybe he can bow to the king of Saudi Arabia as he's shaking hands with him.
So much more elegant.
And then say, "Hi", in Austrian.
And tell him how Grandad liberated Auschwitz.
Right after he tells them how much "more flexibility" he'll have after the election.
garage mahal said...
Bu but but what about _________!!??
From the author who when the topic of Obama's lack of job creation is being discussed rails against Scott Walker.
Again, You can't make this level of Internet idiocy up, folks.
garage mahal said...
Bu but but what about _________!!??
Why isn't that an appropiate response?
You allege that Romney - who has clearly displayed competence in other arenas - has a weakness in his communication. The fact that Obama - who has never accomplished anything of substance - is an even worse communicator is surely relevant, if you truly believe that communication ability is an issue.
Hahahaha. You couldn't be stuck with a worse candidate, and you know it. But you'll pretend otherwise of course. Great stuff.
You keep telling yourself that, garage.
You're right, Garage, like the private sector, the President is "doing just fine."
That's your intyernational incident, GM? The MI6 mention?
Here's a hint: It's not an international incident if you explain to me why it's an international incident, and I still just shrug.
Seems to me like the Brits are signalling they think this guy is for real...not even president (yet! - but soon) and already meeting with MI6!
You keep grabbing these straws, but it's not slowing the fall down any.
garage mahal said...
Hahahaha. You couldn't be stuck with a worse candidate, and you know it. But you'll pretend otherwise of course. Great stuff.
Hmmm, Choom is being spotted between 5 and 9 points in most of the polls and the Romster's still killing him.
Especially on the economy.
Bell&Howell is still in business.
And then there's the head of SOCOM telling people the leaks out of the OBAMA Administration are going to get people killed.
That's garage's wonderful candidate.
Which looks better to you?
The fact that Obama - who has never accomplished anything of substance
Being elected President, and being President for almost 4 years is nothing of substance.
Ho-kay.
Being elected President, and being President for almost 4 years is nothing of substance.
You're going to have to convince me why it necessarily is.
My impression, all along, is that Obama has been more interested in the trappings of campaigning and being president than actually doing the job - which is pretty much the definition of "nothing of substance."
garage mahal said...
Hahahaha. You couldn't be stuck with a worse candidate,
Really?
I thought Santorum was the most awful one?
Or was it Newt?
Capehart, the respectable race-baiter...
One more note for garage on being stuck with the worst candidate.
Straight off Drudge -
ROMNEY MOVES INTO LEAD AT GALLUP, RASMUSSEN...
No, we could have a worse candidate.
MadisonMan said...
The fact that Obama - who has never accomplished anything of substance
Being elected President, and being President for almost 4 years is nothing of substance.
Ho-kay.
No-kay.
He was elected by subterfuge and everything he's done in office has not only failed, it's made things worse.
Being elected President, and being President for almost 4 years is nothing of substance.
Ho-kay.
Maybe being elected counts (it reflects persuading people of one's ability, not actually demonstrating that ability), but "being" president, especially one so unsuccessful, doesn't strike me as an accomplishment.
Of course, deciding to vote for someone because they can be elected president is a little circular.
garage mahal: Hahahaha. You couldn't be stuck with a worse candidate
After all the trash-talking garage did prior to the Wisconsin beat down, and the way he hid out afterwards... its hard to feel anything but pity for how pathetic he's become.
Madison man confuses titles and being elected as "showing substance".
Perhaps he is trapped in the notion of titles conferring substance coming from a university town.
People tend to think that how good a person is in a job, their record of accomplishments matter more than a title.
A terrible teacher with a Masters in Education who couldn't get a dog to sit - is not a person of substance.
Elections are more difficult, because since WE..under a democracy...elect ...we are sort of co-bag holders. We are reluctant to say those we pick for Homecoming Queen, mayor are not without stellar substance.
Or that popularity-based posts in college or at the local Womans League, NAACP, local KKK Chapter, or Sports Council ---are not people of substance.
But you can try to get past voters reluctance to admit they didn't get it right - the mayor proves to be a disaster, a Blanco had no business being a Governor on her "caring teacher" titles..or you fools should have selected Hillary and Romney instead of Obozo and Neocon War Puppet McCain.
In hindsight, is the fact that Rod Blagojevic was elected governor PROOF he was a man of substance???
Jimmy Carter??
I stopped liking him in the 2008 campaign when he permitted the willful disabling of anti-fraud safeguards that would have prevented illegal campaign contributions by foreigners using pre-paid credit cards.
He's a crooked Democratic politician from Chicago, and that explains everything about him.
I've seen this ad several times so far, and it works on a non-racial level just fine: You voted for the guy. It's OK. You did the best you could with the information you had. It's not your fault.
Barack Obama is the least accomplished person to be elected president in our history.
Obama has no business, military, executive, or even legal experience. He was a US senator for a year before he began running full-time for president. His credentials are limited to community organizing, writing two books about himself, teaching constitutional law part-time, and six years in the Illinois State Senate.
Of course as leader of the Choom Gang, Obama did invent the "roof hit" whereby a group of marijuana smokers partake in a car with the windows rolled up so that they may reinhale the remaining marijuana fumes that have risen towards the roof of the car.
Attention must be paid!
If you want to talk racism, now we may know why Jon Corzine hasn't been indicted for the billion plus that MF Global stole from its customers. Turns out that Eric Holder's law firm (Covington & Burling) represented MF Global. And, it is also the law firm that Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer for the Criminal Division worked for. Yes, both the AG and the AAG in charge of the Criminal Division worked for MF Global's law firm. To make matters even worse, former FBI director Louis Freeh of Morrison & Foerester is the trustee for company's bankruptcy, and he testified on behalf of Holder during his AG confirmation hearings.
Of course, given Holder's race, it would be racist to point out these blatant conflicts of interest.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा