B-Man Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) From Commentary yes.....Commentary.. Fake Outrage About “Ugly” Obama SmearsJonathan S. Tobin The Obama campaign went into overdrive to condemn a conservative super PAC for considering running an ad campaign that would concentrate on linking President Obama to his controversial former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Liberal pundits are also doing their best to muster up outrage about the mere possibility that Wright’s name should be uttered in connection with the president. At TIME Magazine, Joe Klein refers to the planned ads as “really, really ugly.” At the New York Times, Andrew Rosenthal, calls it “race baiting.” Both are right to call it bad politics. It is a foolish waste of resources that could be better used to remind voters of what a lousy president they’ve had for the last four years. Republicans need to cast the election as a referendum on Obama’s job performance. Personal attacks against Romney are going to be part of the president’s re-election effort. Copying that sort of thing is an unforced error on the part of conservatives. But pardon me if I find the faux outrage these writers are trying to gin up about the mention of Wright is utterly unconvincing. {snip} Anyone who voluntarily affiliates with an institution for 20 years that was primarily a vehicle for a person like Wright is making a statement about his view of the world. It’s the sort of association that would and should embarrass any politician, and the effort made by Obama’s defenders to treat the mention of Wright as out of bounds or untouchable because of race is utterly disingenuous. Were any conservative politician to be a longtime member of a church that employed a leader who said as many ugly things as Wright did, they would be crucified for it. The fact is, Americans knew about this and the majority voted for Obama anyway for a variety of reasons. Bringing it up again is dumb, but the effort to brand it as a form of hate speech is risible. Also there is this. GOP struggles to banish ghost of Jeremiah Wright (Actual Title....lol)By Greg Sargent Washington Post "So the same leftist newspaper which dredged up a 50 year old story of one of Romney's escapades in high school which fell apart the following day and ran it on page one now wants to be the arbitrator on whether it is fair to bring up the very recent history of Obama's ties to Rev. Wright?" . Edited May 17, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigfatbillsfan Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 So Tobin is displaying fake outrage at the fake outrage being displayed by the Obama re-election campaign? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 So Tobin is displaying fake outrage at the fake outrage being displayed by the Obama re-election campaign? you are incorrect. Unless of course, you are claiming that Mr. Tobin doesn't believe what he is saying, because that's what "fake outrage" means. But you knew that. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Romney campaign would be retarded to bring up Rev. Wright. If I was Obama and Co. I would welcome them pouring 10M into something as retarded as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Romney campaign would be retarded to bring up Rev. Wright. If I was Obama and Co. I would welcome them pouring 10M into something as retarded as that. I agree. Waste of time and money. I believe the SuperPac either realized this and pulled back, or (some are suggesting) faked like they were running an ad to watch the Obama campaign cry like little babies. This is actually an Obama maneuver that constantly traps conservatives into acting irrationallyi, so it would be funny if that was really what happened. Regardless, the time for Wright has passed. With the economy in the toilet, you don't need Wright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 17, 2012 Author Share Posted May 17, 2012 The Hammer Nails Obama, Wright, and Media On Special Report, Dr. Charles Krauthammer conceded that it was tactically smart for Romney to disassociate himself from the Jeremiah Wright attacks, but still eviscerated President Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and the media. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 (edited) From Commentary yes.....Commentary.. Also there is this. Washington Post "So the same leftist newspaper which dredged up a 50 year old story of one of Romney's escapades in high school which fell apart the following day and ran it on page one now wants to be the arbitrator on whether it is fair to bring up the very recent history of Obama's ties to Rev. Wright?" . To be honest with you, I hope that the one of the super pacs do explore this a bit further. If Obama is going to recieve help from media outlets such as WAPO, with character assasination hit pieces, that have inconsistencies in the story, then it is fair game to explore Obamas past a bit further . Unlike the McCain campaign, who was too soft and tepid in responding to Obamas attack machine from California, The Romney campaign ever since they have entered into general election phase has been impressive. They have hit back hard on Obamas record, they've been instituting a bracketing strategy, where they follow Obama around on the campaign trail with their surrogates to immediately respond to their claims on the campaign trail. How do you think those photos of all the empty seats in Obamas first campaign speech in Ohio emerged? It was Romneys guys who took those photos and then sent them out. Look how fast they responded to the Hillary ROsen deal, you can see that the fever pitched Faux war on women campaign has tamped down ever since that occured. Don't get me wrong, Obama has basically become a woman over the past couple weeks, with his blatant pandering of that constituency, but hey, that's how they wanna roll. But back to the Jeremiah Wright deal. Obama attended his sermons for over 20 years, all the way up to 2008. I think it's fair to take another look into his past, it's not as if they are digging up his high school record, we are talking about looking into his past all the way up to his presidency. You have to believe that their is influence of some sort there right? I think is fair game, and the Obama machine and media desperately doesn't want anyone exposing more than what has already been released. It's fair game, and in the age of the SuperPacs, they shouldn't be intimidated of being placed on the Presidents enemy list. Axlerod admitted months ago that their strategy was to "kill" Romney's character. You fight Fire with fire, and if they don't like it, well thats too bad. They cast the first stone, and I would fully support seeing the SuperPacs take it to them. The Hammer Nails Obama, Wright, and Media On Special Report, Dr. Charles Krauthammer conceded that it was tactically smart for Romney to disassociate himself from the Jeremiah Wright attacks, but still eviscerated President Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and the media. . I saw that, and as god as my witness, I made the same connection before I heard Krauthammer or anyone else make this point. Hell I even commented on Politico about it this morning making this exact same case. Edited May 17, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I agree. Waste of time and money. I believe the SuperPac either realized this and pulled back, or (some are suggesting) faked like they were running an ad to watch the Obama campaign cry like little babies. This is actually an Obama maneuver that constantly traps conservatives into acting irrationallyi, so it would be funny if that was really what happened. Regardless, the time for Wright has passed. With the economy in the toilet, you don't need Wright. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Romney campaign would be retarded to bring up Rev. Wright. If I was Obama and Co. I would welcome them pouring 10M into something as retarded as that. Romney is playing this beautifully, he is distancing himself from this. However, just like the WAPO assisting Obama with character assasination hit pieces or MSNBC doing bigoted anti mormon segments, I'm sure Romney has no qualms with the SuperPacs shedding more light on this. These sort of ads will work well in certain parts of SOuther Virginia, NC, Ohio, PA and cental and panhandle Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Super PACs are so stupid. I really do hate the idea. Wright being brought up is a win for Obama in the end. Romney can try and distance himself but it'll still look like its coming from him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 Super PACs are so stupid. I really do hate the idea. Wright being brought up is a win for Obama in the end. Romney can try and distance himself but it'll still look like its coming from him. It evens out the playing field from the corrupt public sector unions. ANd no, it would't be a winner for Obama, if done right and targeted in the right geographical areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 ANd no, it would't be a winner for Obama, if done right and targeted in the right geographical areas. No, it would. Such is the nature of PACs, particularly the Republican ones that everyone is convinced are run by Karl Rove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 It evens out the playing field from the corrupt public sector unions. ANd no, it would't be a winner for Obama, if done right and targeted in the right geographical areas. You really think it EVENS the playing field?? LOL. Unions are dying more and more every year. The union boogeyman is over the top sometimes. I rather both Super PACs and Union funding would be disallowed. Only direct contributions by individuals to campaign. With a max dollar amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 No, it would. Such is the nature of PACs, particularly the Republican ones that everyone is convinced are run by Karl Rove. I disagree 100%. You think those rural folks who have names on their shirts and when they go to work and cling to their guns and are use to voting for D's in the general election, who are on the verge of not supporting Obama couldn't be swayed with this line of attack? And say what you will about Karl Rove, he wins elections. Having said that, this isn't coming from Rove, Rove is going after Obama's record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 17, 2012 Share Posted May 17, 2012 I disagree 100%. You think those rural folks who have names on their shirts and when they go to work and cling to their guns and are use to voting for D's in the general election, who are on the verge of not supporting Obama couldn't be swayed with this line of attack? And say what you will about Karl Rove, he wins elections. Having said that, this isn't coming from Rove, Rove is going after Obama's record. Meh I don't see many of those people anyway and I doubt this will sway him. Obama has been President for 4 years already...to me that makes the Rev. issue sort of moot. Just a waste of money to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 You really think it EVENS the playing field?? LOL. Unions are dying more and more every year. The union boogeyman is over the top sometimes. I rather both Super PACs and Union funding would be disallowed. Only direct contributions by individuals to campaign. With a max dollar amount. Before you embarrass yourself any further, make sure you at least know what you are talking about. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) spent the most in independent expenditures and communications costs in the last election cycle, at nearly $42.4 million (a spokesperson at SEIU declined to discuss the union's strategy with Capital Eye). These independent expenditures were in addition to the more than $73 million that the labor sector contributed directly to candidates' campaigns (not including contributions to their leadership PACs) and to party committees--a 20 percent increase over contributions in 2004. http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527contribs.php?cycle=2008 http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php The Unions were by far the largest political contributors in the 2008 election cycle, I support the Super Pacs. I think it was a good decision to have come out of the Supreme Court. Obama spent 740 Million dollars in 2008 and McCain spent 330 Million. Of course they weren't complaining then, now that they see that may lose the money edge, they cry like little bitches. Good, let them cry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 The Unions were by far the largest political contributors in the 2008 election cycle, I support the Super Pacs. I think it was a good decision to have come out of the Supreme Court. Obama spent 740 Million dollars in 2008 and McCain spent 330 Million. Of course they weren't complaining then, now that they see that may lose the money edge, they cry like little bitches. Good, let them cry! I could be wrong here...but who is saying Obama will lose the money edge? I know Romney pulled in a nice first month but I was under the impression Obama will out raise him by a good margin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I could be wrong here...but who is saying Obama will lose the money edge? I know Romney pulled in a nice first month but I was under the impression Obama will out raise him by a good margin. With the SuperPacs, the total amount of money to be spent on behalf of the campaigns, its quite possible that there will be more money spent for Romney than Obama. It will be close, unlike 2008. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 With the SuperPacs, the total amount of money to be spent on behalf of the campaigns, its quite possible that there will be more money spent for Romney than Obama. It will be close, unlike 2008. You'll have to stay with me here for a minute I know nothing about political finance. Why is it that the SuperPacs are what changes that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 And say what you will about Karl Rove, he wins elections. Having said that, this isn't coming from Rove, Rove is going after Obama's record. Exactly right. Rove is not hiding his SuperPAC efforts and I suspect in the world of SuperPACS right now, his is the one that the Axelrods of the world fear most. Not to mention, he has all the fun of crushing Obama on record with none of the risk of having to publicly be next to Romney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts