Obamanation Re-election MegaThread

[Jake]

Every other candidate was insane, mentally disabled, or extremely hate-able. Romney was the best case scenario for Republicans.

 

this

 

You haven't answered my question. Which of the candidates opposing Romney in the primaries was even close to a reasonable contender?

 

Romney was the weakest candidate...except for all the other pathetic candidates.

 

this.

 

I would have liked to see a good candidate come from the Republican Party, but I'm starting to think one doesn't exist. In a party where the primary campaigns bash "moderation" and "cooperation" I am skeptical of whether that voting base could choose anyone but a moron. Mitt is at least vanilla enough not to turn everybody off.

 

As for Rick Perry, it felt like he was a dumb version of George W. Bush. That's not good. You need more than a "have a beer with him" appeal.

 

LOL Obama has no hope in hell of just about any Southern state and certainly not Utah. This will not be a Reagan-Mondale repeat. I'd be surprised if Obama's Electoral College margin is wider than 2008.

 

I agree with that.

[lostfan]

Rick Perry may have worked if he didn't completely self-destruct.

Except for the fact that Rick Perry's self-destruction was inevitable because he was Rick Perry, yeah.

[greg775]

I saw Sarah Palin on a commercial tonight backing some Missouri Senate candidate and I about puked. She said "maverick" and some of her other catch phrases. She is repulsive. And I am a Republican.

[StrangeSox]

This Annie Hall clip is getting a lot of play this last week:

 

 

this is because the people Mitt Romney (and his campaign) have been citing to make their arguments keep coming out and saying that they've read their work completely backwards, if they've bothered to read it at all.

[greg775]

This Annie Hall clip is getting a lot of play this last week:

 

 

this is because the people Mitt Romney (and his campaign) have been citing to make their arguments keep coming out and saying that they've read their work completely backwards, if they've bothered to read it at all.

 

That clip made me laugh; thanks for posting.

[Soxbadger]

Woody Allen and Larry David remind me of my dad.

[StrangeSox]

We are in the post-truth campaign era:

 

Yesterday, Newt went on Anderson Cooper 360 to talk about Mitt Romney's new welfare attack ad, which falsely accuses Obama of ending work requirements in welfare, and what he said was truly remarkable, even for him. Now, let me be absolutely clear about something. I've been paying very, very close attention to political ads for a long time. In my former career as an academic I did a lot of research on political ads. I've watched literally every single presidential general election campaign ad ever aired since the first ones in 1952. I've seen ads that were more inflammatory than this one, and ads that were in various ways more reprehensible than this one (not many, but some). But I cannot recall a single presidential campaign ad in the history of American politics that lied more blatantly than this one.

 

You can get the details on those lies here or here, but it's something quite rare in politics. Usually candidates deceive voters by taking something their opponent says out of context, or giving a tendentious reading to facts, or distorting the effects of policies. But in this case, Romney and his people looked at a policy of the Obama administration to allow states to pursue alternative means of placing welfare recipients in jobs, and said, "Well, how about if we just say that they're eliminating all work requirements and just sending people checks?" I have no idea if someone in the room said, "We could say that, but it's not even remotely true," and then someone else said, "Who gives a crap?", or if nobody ever suggested in the first place that this might be problematic. But either way, they decided that they don't even have to pretend to be telling the truth anymore.

[Jenksismyhero]

Kinda like when Obama's campaign knew one of his Super Pac ads blatantly lied when they LITERALLY claimed that Mitt Romney gave someone cancer and killed them.

 

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08...ory-131577.html

 

[StrangeSox]

No, not like that, because they did not LITERALLY claim that Romney gave someone cancer. I don't know why you said that. They may have exaggerated or distorted (don't know), but that's typical for campaign commercials. The man says that he lost his insurance thanks to Romney, and shortly after that his wife contracted cancer and then eventually died without adequate care.

 

That's different from just completely making something up like with this welfare rule thing. Romney's campaign is flat-out lying over and over again. Not exaggerations, not s***ty reasoning, not misrepresentations, but things that they've completely made up.

Edited August 9, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

No, not like that, because they did not LITERALLY claim that Romney gave someone cancer. I don't know why you said that. They may have exaggerated or distorted (don't know), but that's typical for campaign commercials.

 

That's different from just completely making something up like with this welfare rule thing. Romney's campaign is flat-out lying over and over again. Not exaggerations, not s***ty reasoning, not misrepresentations, but things that they've completely made up.

 

They said Mitt Romney got a guy fired which caused him to lose health insurance which resulted in the death of his cancer-stricken wife because she couldnt' get medical treatment.

 

The reality was that she didn't know she had cancer until two days before she died, FIVE YEARS after he was fired. One LITERALLY had nothing to do with the other. Yet that was the accusation.

 

That's the exact same thing. ZERO truth to it. Completely fabricated. And the only reason Obama's campaign is now saying they're sorry is that someone called them on their bulls***, otherwise they would have accepted the benefits of the negative ad.

 

 

(Not at all backing Romney or Newt. Just saying it's f'n politics man, at this point people should know that everything a politician says is complete and utter bulls***, ESPECIALLY during a campaign.)

 

Edit: Sorry, my original post was wrong. I meant to say the accusation was that Romney killed her, not gave her cancer. It's almost 5!

Edited August 9, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[SOXOBAMA]

CNN Poll

 

Obama 52% Romney 45%

 

I hope this happens.

[StrangeSox]

They said Mitt Romney got a guy fired which caused him to lose health insurance which resulted in the death of his cancer-stricken wife because she couldnt' get medical treatment.

 

So they didn't LITERALLY claim that Romney gave her cancer. I don't know why you said that.

 

The reality was that she didn't know she had cancer until two days before she died, FIVE YEARS after he was fired. One LITERALLY had nothing to do with the other. Yet that was the accusation.

 

That's the exact same thing. ZERO truth to it. Completely fabricated. And the only reason Obama's campaign is now saying they're sorry is that someone called them on their bulls***, otherwise they would have accepted the benefits of the negative ad.

 

So there's distortion or misstatements or obfuscation, I'll grant that for the sake of argument. But the core message, that this man lost his job and his health insurance because of Bain, is arguably true. It may not be a completely honest portrayal, but the message is built around some factual claim.

 

 

(Not at all backing Romney or Newt. Just saying it's f'n politics man, at this point people should know that everything a politician says is complete and utter bulls***, ESPECIALLY during a campaign.)

 

No, this is different. There is literally nothing to back up Romney's claim that Obama is gutting welfare rules. It is the exact opposite of reality.

 

edit: I'm not defending the P-USA ad. It's not accurate and they should have (and likely easily could have) found someone with a better story that they didn't have to twist for this sort of commercial. The Obama campaign looks silly with their flailing away from it as well. But it's still not comparable to LITERALLY pulling something out of their ass and calling it Obama's position. It would be no more justified for Obama's campaign (remember, that terrible welfare ad is directly from the Romney campaign) to come out and claim that Romney wants to gut child labor laws and it'd have exactly the same factual basis.

Edited August 9, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

So they didn't LITERALLY claim that Romney gave her cancer. I don't know why you said that.

 

 

 

So there's distortion or misstatements or obfuscation, I'll grant that for the sake of argument. But the core message, that this man lost his job and his health insurance because of Bain, is arguably true. It may not be a completely honest portrayal, but the message is built around some factual claim.

 

 

 

 

No, this is different. There is literally nothing to back up Romney's claim that Obama is gutting welfare rules. It is the exact opposite of reality.

 

The message was not that the guy lost his health insurance, but that his wife died because of what Romney did. That's a straight up lie. She didn't even know she had cancer until 2 days before she died. AND, she had her own health insurance from her own job. The guy losing his job and his health insurance had NOTHING to do with her death. Nothing. If you don't think that's a lie, I don't think we agree on the definition of the word.

[Balta1701]

The reality was that she didn't know she had cancer until two days before she died, FIVE YEARS after he was fired. One LITERALLY had nothing to do with the other. Yet that was the accusation.

Actually hadn't paid enough attention to see that part and it wasn't discussed in your link. Can you add a link on this so that i can read that part of the story?

[StrangeSox]

The message was not that the guy lost his health insurance, but that his wife died because of what Romney did. That's a straight up lie. She didn't even know she had cancer until 2 days before she died. AND, she had her own health insurance from her own job. The guy losing his job and his health insurance had NOTHING to do with her death. Nothing. If you don't think that's a lie, I don't think we agree on the definition of the word.

 

I'll agree to call that a lie if you can agree that completely fabricating your opponent's position is a bigger step than that misleading ad.

 

edit: the P-USA ad may be comparable to something like the Willy Horton ad in terms of honest portrayal of the truth. The Romney ad is in its own category.

Edited August 9, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fi...c161d_blog.html

 

 

It's admitted in the ad she wasn't diagnosed until 2006. The plant went bankrupt in 2001. I think Politico had the exact date, I can't remember where I read that.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll agree to call that a lie if you can agree that completely fabricating your opponent's position is a bigger step than that misleading ad.

 

edit: the P-USA ad may be comparable to something like the Willy Horton ad in terms of honest portrayal of the truth. The Romney ad is in its own category.

 

I think campaigning about the responsibility of someones death without a bit of truth to back it up is just as bad if not worse. Politicians lie about the extreme hypothetical that come with certain policies. Palin and her death panel is another good one. From a moral standpoint I feel like that's just par for the course. But pinning someones death on your business practice? Come on...

[Balta1701]

For the record, I'd like to say that the "Which side is the bigger liar" contest strikes me as much more annoying and far less interesting than it used to. Thanks for the link, didn't realize that about the ad.

[Cknolls]

I think Cutter saying she knew nothing of the woman's illness was laughable, after it was revealed she was on a conference call with the husband. Between her and Romney's spokeswoman, I don't know who is the bigger boob.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fi...c161d_blog.html

 

 

It's admitted in the ad she wasn't diagnosed until 2006. The plant went bankrupt in 2001. I think Politico had the exact date, I can't remember where I read that.

The woman still had insurance at HER job even after the husband was let go, so that is another 'distortion'. Remember Jenks, it's all semantics when defending the chosen one.

[StrangeSox]

Palin's death panels were more factually-based than Romney's welfare ad.

[StrangeSox]

I think Cutter saying she knew nothing of the woman's illness was laughable, after it was revealed she was on a conference call with the husband. Between her and Romney's spokeswoman, I don't know who is the bigger boob.

That their defense against the ad was to support obamneycare is pretty hilarious.

[Y2HH]

This is why voting has become an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time.

 

We tend to put a lot more blame/credit on the presidents desk than they deserve. It's of my opinion that it doesn't matter if Obama or Romney win, the Senate/Congress either will have to deal with will be pretty much the same mix of bad meets evil...and it's what's truly broken in our system.

 

We like to blame presidents, past and present, for 90% of what the houses of congress do.

[Jenksismyhero]

This is why voting has become an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time.

 

We tend to put a lot more blame/credit on the presidents desk than they deserve. It's of my opinion that it doesn't matter if Obama or Romney win, the Senate/Congress either will have to deal with will be pretty much the same mix of bad meets evil...and it's what's truly broken in our system.

 

We like to blame presidents, past and present, for 90% of what the houses of congress do.

 

In theory this was how the system was designed, in practice, especially modern times, the President initiates just about every major legislative effort. He's the spokesperson for the side either for or against something.

[StrangeSox]

 

lol'd