Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 From a strict 1st amendment perspective I also am glad they exist. But let's be real here...finding a way for the political process to give off less noise (from both sides) is important. And also I would like to add...it's not like the political process has been unkind to these corporations and big single donors in the past...I would hardly call them a repressed sect... The anonymous nature of it is a huge concern for me btw... Yeah, but at the end of the day, they are all getting exposed for contributing and most seem to be fine with that. The playing field is even, and now we have a fair fight, which is the way it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Or any other year you care to name. It's always been about money. Politics is marketing. I agree. But Super PACs double down on that premise that money talks. We should be trying to fix that problem not encourage it as Magox is proposing. He is butthurt over unions tipping the scales which is not as a big a deal he thinks it is. Let's get rid of that too though. Even the field. Won't happen of course but it would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Depends on the elections, too. He seemed to have focused on federal. I'd bet that union money exerts more influence at state and local levels. I would bet you are right certainly in the North (which is not where I live so it's harder to relate). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Back to the original topic, it is not good for Obama to have Reverend Wright exposed to the masses. The writer of the OP piece is too insulated inside the world of politics to understand that most people knew very little about Wright in 2008. Romney shouldn't dwell on it but PACs could be effective with it. You know it's damaging to Obama b/c his people are so upset about it. The best indicator of effectiveness is to see the other side's reaction. That's how I knew OWS, war on women, & all this gay talk is a massive failure. Because it never gave me gut outrage & the right ridiculed it rather than defend against it. Moderates aren't all that sympathetic to the whole kill whitey thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Yeah, but at the end of the day, they are all getting exposed for contributing and most seem to be fine with that. The playing field is even, and now we have a fair fight, which is the way it should be. If they would expose themselves and not complain about catching flack if people don't like the adds they paid for I would have little argument. But they do complain about being pressured...Rove's superpac itself literally was donating superpac money toward a movement that was designed to keep superpac money secret...secret superpac money is...eh...I'll have to evolve on this but that doesn't taste right...at the same time I'm not ready to say everything has to be documented we would have to find an amount (then people could give right under the amount in shady ways)....and so on...meh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Depends on the elections, too. He seemed to have focused on federal. I'd bet that union money exerts more influence at state and local levels. Damn straight! It's at the state and local level where the most corruption is on full display. If anyone wants to truly have an interest and point a finger at anyone for all the state/local gov. layoffs, you blame the corrupt politicians and public sector unions. Listening to some from the left whine about money and politics now is hilarious. Now all of a sudden they have a problem with it, even though the public sector unions have been bending us over for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Damn straight! It's at the state and local level where the most corruption is on full display. If anyone wants to truly have an interest and point a finger at anyone for all the state/local gov. layoffs, you blame the corrupt politicians and public sector unions. Listening to some from the left whine about money and politics now is hilarious. Now all of a sudden they have a problem with it, even though the public sector unions have been bending us over for years. Yeah, well...they whined about Gitmo until their guy decided to keep it open. And the righties ignored record deficits until the other guy had them. So it goes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I agree. But Super PACs double down on that premise that money talks. We should be trying to fix that problem not encourage it as Magox is proposing. He is butthurt over unions tipping the scales which is not as a big a deal he thinks it is. Let's get rid of that too though. Even the field. Won't happen of course but it would be nice. What's ironic is think about this for a minute. SuperPacs become known. Transparent/not secret shady things. Then...almost replacing political parties (b/c that's where the money has to go)? Then the party system (gradually rising to the top and running when it's your turn and adhering to party politics as a result) and dynamic if shaken up...I don't know where I'm going with this...all I'm saying is I'm not so sure that SuperPacs have to be bad for political speech but IF IT'S TRANSPARENT. Back to the original topic, it is not good for Obama to have Reverend Wright exposed to the masses. The writer of the OP piece is too insulated inside the world of politics to understand that most people knew very little about Wright in 2008. Romney shouldn't dwell on it but PACs could be effective with it. You know it's damaging to Obama b/c his people are so upset about it. The best indicator of effectiveness is to see the other side's reaction. That's how I knew OWS, war on women, & all this gay talk is a massive failure. Because it never gave me gut outrage & the right ridiculed it rather than defend against it. Moderates aren't all that sympathetic to the whole kill whitey thing. Meh...perhaps from the right that may be true but let's be real here...we're talking the Obama campaign. Manufacturing "upset" is usually a win for them. They are good where that is concerned. It's hard to deny that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Back to the original topic, it is not good for Obama to have Reverend Wright exposed to the masses. The writer of the OP piece is too insulated inside the world of politics to understand that most people knew very little about Wright in 2008. Romney shouldn't dwell on it but PACs could be effective with it. You know it's damaging to Obama b/c his people are so upset about it. The best indicator of effectiveness is to see the other side's reaction. That's how I knew OWS, war on women, & all this gay talk is a massive failure. Because it never gave me gut outrage & the right ridiculed it rather than defend against it. Moderates aren't all that sympathetic to the whole kill whitey thing. It has to be done right and targeted in specific areas, preferably white working class socially conservative democratic voting districts. These guys arent enamored with Obama as it is, and they don't like Romney either, but they tend to vote Democrat. If you can influence them enough by reminding them who Obama is at his core, then a good chance that a decent portion of them will not come out to vote. Many districts like this in Ohio, PA come to mind. Again, the other side is gonna go with the character assasination attempts, then it's only fair to return fire. Also, the Obama campaign is very concerned with this, even David Plouffe in 2008 thought this could have been the issue to have cost Obama the election. You can see with their reactions in how desperately they want to get in front of this and intimidate anyone who dares bring this subject up. I agree. But Super PACs double down on that premise that money talks. We should be trying to fix that problem not encourage it as Magox is proposing. Now you want to fix it? you're such a weaselly little hypocrite Edited May 18, 2012 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 It has to be done right and targeted in specific areas, preferably white working class socially conservative democratic voting districts. These guys arent enamored with Obama as it is, and they don't like Romney either, but they tend to vote Democrat. If you can influence them enough by reminding them who Obama is at his core, then a good chance that a decent portion of them will not come out to vote. Many districts like this in Ohio, PA come to mind. Again, the other side is gonna go with the character assasination attempts, then it's only fair to return fire. Also, the Obama campaign is very concerned with this, even David Plouffe in 2008 thought this could have been the issue to have cost Obama the election. You can see with their reactions in how desperately they want to get in front of this and intimidate anyone who dares bring this subject up. Meh...in other words getting people to vote against their best interest by playing racial politics? This really isn't something that works anymore...Lee Atwater is dead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Meh...in other words getting people to vote against their best interest by playing racial politics? This really isn't something that works anymore...Lee Atwater is dead... Racial? What are you talking about? Did you not hear some of his sermons? Its completely legitimate to bring to light that Obama attended his church for over 20 years and all the way up unto 2008. The question is why did he attend his church for over two decades when we know that Jeremiah Wright is a full blown anti-semite and had many other crazy views. Thats a fair question to ask and remind some voters that this is who president Obama decided to attend church with his family for a long period of time. It's fair to further examine Wrights views, specially knowing that they had a pretty close relationship with one another. If I was Romney, I would distance myself from this, but for a superpac to go after it, I think it's logical. Mind you, everything I'm speaking here is from a political POV. I like talking politics, specially the wonky side of it, but I also like talking political strategy. And this is a strategy that can work, it just has to be crafted and targetted correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Racial? What are you talking about? Did you not hear some of his sermons? Its completely legitimate to bring to light that Obama attended his church for over 20 years and all the way up unto 2008. The question is why did he attend his church for over two decades when we know that Jeremiah Wright is a full blown anti-semite and had many other crazy views. Thats a fair question to ask and remind some voters that this is who president Obama decided to attend church with his family for a long period of time. It's fair to further examine Wrights views, specially knowing that they had a pretty close relationship with one another. If I was Romney, I would distance myself from this, but for a superpac to go after it, I think it's logical. Mind you, everything I'm speaking here is from a political POV. I like talking politics, specially the wonky side of it, but I also like talking political strategy. And this is a strategy that can work, it just has to be crafted and targetted correctly. Well thing is...Romney is a Mormon republican.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Well thing is...Romney is a Mormon republican.... Yes and it is a vulnerability. MSNBC Brashir and ODonnel have both had hit piece segments on it. The Obama campaign has said it is off limits, similar to Romneys denouncement today of Jeremiah Wrights. It will be brought up, I suspect once they start panicking, (which they are getting close to that level now) you will see factions of the media do the presidents dirty bidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) Yes and it is a vulnerability. MSNBC Brashir and ODonnel have both had hit piece segments on it. The Obama campaign has said it is off limits, similar to Romneys denouncement today of Jeremiah Wrights. It will be brought up, I suspect once they start panicking, (which they are getting close to that level now) you will see factions of the media do the presidents dirty bidding. I would hold off if I was Romney until that point politically. SuperPac included. Edited May 18, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 Thats a fair question to ask and remind some voters that this is who president Obama decided to attend church with his family for a long period of time. It's fair to further examine Wrights views, specially knowing that they had a pretty close relationship with one another. It was discussed in 2008 that he was only a member of that church for political purposes. He needed to be at a church within his district, and he chose this one. In fact, of all the nonsense said by Wright from this new book "Amateur" (and for which Wright is recorded as backup), what struck me as most realistic were his words that Obama and his wife were not really church people. He knew they were not there because of their Christian faith, but because it was a check mark on his "I'm running for Senate and need to go to a church" resume. It would not surprise me at all to one day learn that the Obamas are no more "Christian" than me; that they didn't go to church to join in fellowship with others who believed that God sent his only son to die on a cross for our sins. I suspect they saw church much like joining Kiwanis or Rotary Clubs. A place to swap cards, meet important people on a level playing field and build the resume. Nothing more simple than that. Well thing is...Romney is a Mormon republican.... Politics aside, is there a difference between a Mormon Democrat and a Mormon Republican, and did you ask Harry Reid -- a man who specifically converted to the Mormon faith -- what he thinks about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 (edited) It was discussed in 2008 that he was only a member of that church for political purposes. He needed to be at a church within his district, and he chose this one. In fact, of all the nonsense said by Wright from this new book "Amateur" (and for which Wright is recorded as backup), what struck me as most realistic were his words that Obama and his wife were not really church people. He knew they were not there because of their Christian faith, but because it was a check mark on his "I'm running for Senate and need to go to a church" resume. It would not surprise me at all to one day learn that the Obamas are no more "Christian" than me; that they didn't go to church to join in fellowship with others who believed that God sent his only son to die on a cross for our sins. I suspect they saw church much like joining Kiwanis or Rotary Clubs. A place to swap cards, meet important people on a level playing field and build the resume. Nothing more simple than that. Politics aside, is there a difference between a Mormon Democrat and a Mormon Republican, and did you ask Harry Reid -- a man who specifically converted to the Mormon faith -- what he thinks about this? LOL it WOULD surprise me to learn anything different. As it would with almost all politicians. And most people period....and yes yes I know there are faithful I'm not trying knock those people. Edited May 18, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 LOL it WOULD surprise me to learn anything different. As it would with almost all politicians. And most people period....and yes yes I know there are faithful I'm not trying knock those people. I remember after one of Barack Obama's first national addresses, I was reading a report on the address at Huffington Post, and the comments section was FILLED with people who were furious that he ended his speech with "And may God bless the United States of America." These people finally had as left a guy as they could want, but there were a ton of them who were not going to be happy until there was a national reference to a flying spaghetti monster. Truly bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I remember after one of Barack Obama's first national addresses, I was reading a report on the address at Huffington Post, and the comments section was FILLED with people who were furious that he ended his speech with "And may God bless the United States of America." These people finally had as left a guy as they could want, but there were a ton of them who were not going to be happy until there was a national reference to a flying spaghetti monster. Truly bizarre. Honestly as a complete and total "when you die it's blackness" guy...I might say "God bless America" from time to time as president...and I certainly would say "so help me God" after swearing in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 I agree. But Super PACs double down on that premise that money talks. We should be trying to fix that problem not encourage it as Magox is proposing. He is butthurt over unions tipping the scales which is not as a big a deal he thinks it is. Let's get rid of that too though. Even the field. Won't happen of course but it would be nice. The lack of knowledge here is amazing. If you want to be outraged, how about actually looking at the connection between the dems and unions and our children's and grandchildren's money. The dems money laundering scheme is pure evil. The feds prop up the unions with regs, laws and money and the unions in turn donate to the dems with government (people's) money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 18, 2012 Share Posted May 18, 2012 These sort of ads will work well in certain parts of SOuther Virginia, NC, Ohio, PA and cental and panhandle Florida. As a resident of Southern Virginia (Hampton Roads) and native Pennsylvanian (non-Philly/non-'Burgh Obama's God 'n Guns Country) I beg to differ Honestly as a complete and total "when you die it's blackness" guy Once you go black you never go back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts