Election 2012

[Scheavo]

Oh, so I thought of the worse Obama attack so far - his comment about Romney's wife not having to work. I think the point being made is valid, but it was horribly expressed. IT wasn't that being a stay at home wife is a bad thing - it's that for many, many, many people, that's not an option. I'm sure my own mom would have loved to raise me more, but our family needed the money, so she worked 12 + hours a day, and barely got to see me.

Hopefully that point doesn't get lost, because it's an important one.

When did OBAMA actually say that?

Well, if want to use that logic, neither candidate is going to really get that negative. They'll have "third-party" super pacs do it. I should have been clearer, and said the Obama Campaign.

Cause if Obama did make that point, he wouldn't fuck it up so badly, me thinks.

But she doesn't work for the Obama nor is she employed by the Obama campaign.

Well I was under the impression she was involved in some fashion. If not, it does mitigate it much more - but, to partly plays devils advocate and to just keep the discussion going, the media and people who listen to the media are still going to associate this attack as a "Obama" vs "Romney" issue.  Assuming that this statement was made by Obama (which it wasn't) against Romney, let's compare this statement to the statements Romney has made about Obama. Both may be "negative," but that doesn't make them the same.

[kirksnosehair]

Here's the thing about this too, that really bugs me:  What Hillary Rosen actually said, in context, is TRUE!

Here are the actual comments:

Rosen, also a CNN political contributor and a working mother, made her original comments on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" on Wednesday.
"What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what?  His wife has actually never worked a day in her life," Rosen said on CNN. 
"She's never really dealt with the kinds of economic issues that a majority off the women in this country are facing, in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future," Rosen continued, adding that Romney "just seems so old fashioned when it comes to women."

There's really nothing provocative about that statement.  Ann Romney got married at a very young age and yes, she did raise 5 kids, but she did not have to work WHILE raising those kids.  She had the luxury of being a stay at home mom, something very few middle-class women get to do these days.  THAT was her point.  So while the Republicans genuflect and gesticulate wildly to try to pin this as someone from the "Obama Camp" trying to "Attack Ann Romney" it was nothing of the kind.  It was simply an observation that Mitt Romney isn't really getting the inside scoop on "women's issues" from his wife who has led a sheltered and very easy life compared to most middle class women.
Truth be told, Michelle Obama has led the same kind of life, pretty much.

[jsem]

I don't see how any of that is any issue.

[PraXis]

Who cares? Ann Romney had a successful husband and didn't need to work. Rosen is just being a cvnt.

[tofee35]

Hey guys, sorry to change the direction of this a bit. This has been on my mind for awhile:

I've been following Obama and Romney on Twitter for a year now. Despite what their policies and promises are, they are putting a very negative face forward. The amount of smear going on is embarrassing. It makes me feel sick that one of the most powerful men in the world and the person trying to become that want to portray themselves as 5 year olds fighting for a candy bar. I don't get it. I really don't. I've never understood smear campaigns in the first place. A couple years ago Scott Brown won the Massachusetts Senate seat as a Republican. He used nothing but positive messages in his campaign. He made people feel comfortable about letting him be their representative. Meanwhile, his competitor (forget her name) ran nothing but smear campaigns and lost badly. There's something to be said about how a candidate wants to be perceived. I think it has more of an effect on the general public than actual policies and campaign promises. What do yo think?

First, let me start by saying that I agree with the sentiment expressed in your post.  Negative ads are pretty sickening and the do make our politicians look petty and immature.  Unfortunately, they run negative ads because they are -BY FAR- the most effective ads in political campaigns. 

I live in MA and I am a registered Democrat.  Martha Coakley was possibly the worst person to replace Ted Kennedy that I could think of.  By the way, she didn't "lose badly" she lost by 5% - hardly a landslide. 

Martha Coakley lost because she ran a completely inept campaign and because the national Democratic Party never imagined that an upstart Republican who was a relative nobody would win Ted Kennedy's seat in the bluest of blue states.  So they did not provide her with any funding early on.  By contrast, Scott Brown had financial support from the RNC from day one.  By the time the DNC realized that she was in trouble (about 10 days before the election) it was too late.  But in a last ditch effort they funded, produced and aired a bunch of attack ads in that final week.  This is why a lot of people believe that ALL she ran was attack ads.  That's not true and I personally remember at least two or three ads she ran that were not negative at all.  The problem was, they didn't air all that often because her campaign did not have the financial resources necessary to air them frequently. 

Had the DNC backed Coakley from the beginning, I don't know if Brown would have won.    He ran a brilliant campaign, though.  Gotta give him credit for that.

Wow, I didn't realize the race was that close! I'm sure I never actually saw the final numbers because I would have remembered the 5%. I lived in Ma at the time. All I remember are the negative Coakley campaigns and the pickup truck Brown campaigns. The last 10 days are the most memorable for voters. There's the big push by both candidates. That's probably why it's still vivid in my mind. What it also says about politics is that really positive press can be misleading too. I don't know how well Scott Brown is doing in the Senate, but I think he's a nice guy. I couldn't tell you what one of his campaign policies or promises was at the time (or if he's followed through). Granted, I was in grad school and totally immersed in projects, but still.


Scheavo: I can tell you that both Romney and Obama are guilty of it. It's tough for me to think one is worse than the other because they both do it. One can be more annoying than the other, but what matter's is that they do it at all. Obama's on Romney for his personal income tax rates. Romney's on Obama for the job market and gas (to name a couple examples off the top of my head).

[Scheavo]

I'm not sure how you are really comparing Obama factually pointing out that Romney pays a 15% tax rate, while a middle class family pays probably around double that. It's something Romney not only supports, but has lobbied for in the past publicly. That's a policy issue, a true one, and one that massively effects the budget. Obama has proposed a much fairer approach to the budget - Obama's proposed budget

Romney's attacks on Obama for the job market and gas prices are false. Obama has improved the Job market, perhaps not enough, but not for a lack of his effort. It's false to say we're not exploring our energy policies, manufacturing is going up for the first time since Bush took over (partly due to incentive given by Obama, going after offshore tax havens / loopholes, as well as stimulus spending), and the stock market is doing rather well. Things can still get better, but the reason it's not getting better is because Senate Republicans, especially, won't let anything pass that would benefit Obama. The stimulus plan, by the vast majority of economists, created jobs. It just didn't do enough, partly becuase we later learned that the problem was much worse. If you listen to Romney, things aren't getting better, even though they are, and depending upon when you listened to him, things were actually getting worse, which they weren't. Our momentum started to change pretty quickly after Obama got into office.

As for gas prices, it's ridiculous to think Obama can influence gas prices *edit* domestically. It's a pure political statement, not based upon anything factual, but just a cheap attempt to make a scape goat of the President. Meanwhile, since Romney wants to attack Iran, he'd actually massively raise prices.

So that's what I mean. One statement is negative, but at least it's true. One statement is negative - and totally made up.

[hefdaddy42]

One statement is negative, but at least it's true. One statement is negative - and totally made up.

Exactly this.

[tofee35]

I'm not sure how you are really comparing Obama factually pointing out that Romney pays a 15% tax rate, while a middle class family pays probably around double that. It's something Romney not only supports, but has lobbied for in the past publicly. That's a policy issue, a true one, and one that massively effects the budget. Obama has proposed a much fairer approach to the budget - Obama's proposed budget

Romney's attacks on Obama for the job market and gas prices are false. Obama has improved the Job market, perhaps not enough, but not for a lack of his effort. It's false to say we're not exploring our energy policies, manufacturing is going up for the first time since Bush took over (partly due to incentive given by Obama, going after offshore tax havens / loopholes, as well as stimulus spending), and the stock market is doing rather well. Things can still get better, but the reason it's not getting better is because Senate Republicans, especially, won't let anything pass that would benefit Obama. The stimulus plan, by the vast majority of economists, created jobs. It just didn't do enough, partly becuase we later learned that the problem was much worse. If you listen to Romney, things aren't getting better, even though they are, and depending upon when you listened to him, things were actually getting worse, which they weren't. Our momentum started to change pretty quickly after Obama got into office.

As for gas prices, it's ridiculous to think Obama can influence gas prices *edit* domestically. It's a pure political statement, not based upon anything factual, but just a cheap attempt to make a scape goat of the President. Meanwhile, since Romney wants to attack Iran, he'd actually massively raise prices.

So that's what I mean. One statement is negative, but at least it's true. One statement is negative - and totally made up.

I can definitely respect your last comment there and I see where you're coming from.

I'm not debating what's right and wrong. I can do my own research there. I'm simply expressing that the negativity of their back and forth doesn't help either of them in my eyes and comes off as childish, unprofessional, and unethical. I can do my own research of the facts and make my own judgment calls based on my personal beliefs. That's why I didn't cite anything specific in my original post, because it's not about the specific content, but the intent of the content (which is to knock the other person down instead of bringing themselves up). In my opinion, they bring themselves down when they attack each other. You addressed this in your last statement. It seems that you don't mind the negativity as long as it's true, which makes total sense to me. I, personally, don't agree with it whether true or false.

 

[hefdaddy42]

Obama is demonstrating a contrast between the two.
Romney is lying.

I don't see both as equally negative.

[Scheavo]

You addressed this in your last statement. It seems that you don't mind the negativity as long as it's true, which makes total sense to me. I, personally, don't agree with it whether true or false.

I guess I only really think its negative if it get's personal or is false. When it's an accurate statement of the other persons record, I think it's a valid point to bring up in a Presidential Race. You need contrast, you just don't need enemies, falsehoods, etc.

Just so it's clear, the comment about Romney's wife, made by the CNN talking-head, is in my opinion too personal. Even though I agree with the point being made, the way it was made was too personal.

[rumborak]

Yikes. Romney kicks off the presidential race by speaking in front of the NRA?

*shudders*

rumborak

[snapple]

Yikes. Romney kicks off the presidential race by speaking in front of the NRA?

*shudders*

rumborak

Looks like they have some real talent at the NRA. Don't blame him.

[rumborak]

The thing for me is, it's not even a question of 2nd Amendment or whatever, but I find the NRA one hell of a creepy organization.

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

The thing for me is, it's not even a question of 2nd Amendment or whatever, but I find the NRA one hell of a creepy organization.

rumborak

As a proud gun owner, I agree.

[snapple]

The thing for me is, it's not even a question of 2nd Amendment or whatever, but I find the NRA one hell of a creepy organization.

rumborak

As hef just put it, as a proud gun owner, I agree. Well, I used to own a gun. But, I have seen some of the ladies that show up to NRA conventions, they can have some smokin hot babes. I used to competition shoot (never was that good. just enjoyed it). So, you'd have those people show up or have to go to one sponsored(?) by them. Some real talent. I got beat by a fair share of hotties. I think the titties were a good distraction.

[Scheavo]

Yikes. Romney kicks off the presidential race by speaking in front of the NRA?

rumborak

Nice to see he still insists on making shit up, like saying Obama isn't enforcing gun laws, is against gun ownership - and of course, in his second term he's going to completely take away your guns.

Does this man say anything that's true, policy wise? I'm about the think the only thing he says that's true is that his name is Mitt Romney - and I think some comedian pointed out a while ago, that that's technically not his name.

[PraXis]

Obama and the DOJ got caught with their dicks in their hands with the Fast and Furious scandal, but nothing will come of it to further infringe further on our Second Amendment rights. Romney only joined the NRA in the 90s for political reason. He couldn't care less about guns, as he can afford private, armed security (same with that asshole Bloomberg). He just wants the NRA vote. He ain't gettin' mine.

[Super Dude]

Just out of curiosity PraXis, who is getting your vote? You hate Obama, you say Romney isn't getting your vote, but Paul ain't exactly an option.

[Scheavo]

Ya, the fast and the furious plan was retarded. The basic concept had some merit, but the execution was sloppy as hell, and major mistakes made it a horrendous idea. But it didn't have anything to do with legal gun ownership, and it's conspiratorial to think that Obama is just waiting to get reelected go come take your guns away, or something.

[PraXis]

Just out of curiosity PraXis, who is getting your vote? You hate Obama, you say Romney isn't getting your vote, but Paul ain't exactly an option.

I will write in Ron Paul or vote Libertarian (if I like the candidate). I refuse to participate in the false left-right paradigm presented by the Democratic and Republican parties. They are two sides of the same coin.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Just out of curiosity PraXis, who is getting your vote? You hate Obama, you say Romney isn't getting your vote, but Paul ain't exactly an option.

I will write in Ron Paul or vote Libertarian (if I like the candidate). I refuse to participate in the false left-right paradigm presented by the Democratic and Republican parties. They are two sides of the same coin.

What a waste

[Super Dude]

He wouldn't have voted for Obama even if he didn't "opt out," so what does it matter?

[antigoon]

I don't really agree with Praxis on much but I understand where he's coming from. I don't feel represented by anyone running for president.

[Scheavo]

I've felt this way for a long time, but I think there's no way to possibly deny it anymore.

Mitt Romney is a charlatan and a demagogue, and he's everything our founding fathers hated and feared bout a democracy. Our entire system was almost set up to try and avoid people like him.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/demagogue

1
: a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charlatan

2
: one making usually showy pretenses to knowledge or ability : fraud, faker

That's about the closest definition of Mitt Romney you could ever have. Nothing the man says is true, he plays off prejudices and false claims, and makes lofty promises, all becuase he just wants to be the President and the power that comes with it.

[rumborak]

Yeah, I don't think anybody has a particularly good feeling about Romney. I don't see how he really stands for anything.

rumborak

[jsem]

This whole election is a joke. Obama's going to sail to victory, more coercion to come.

[Super Dude]

Speaking of coercion:

https://www.frumforum.com/confessions-of-a-climate-change-convert

Just thought it was an interesting argument for libertarians in favor of regulation.

[Scheavo]

Yeah, I don't think anybody has a particularly good feeling about Romney. I don't see how he really stands for anything.

rumborak

I don't get how people could vote for him over Obama. It's like no one has ever heard the old phrase, out of the kettle and into the fire. I mean, who the fuck knows, Romney could end up being a very moderate, reasonable and successful President, but if he actually governs like he's promised in running, he'd pretty much destroy the American Empire. He'd cut taxes, then go to war with Iran, and watch as our deficit sky rockets to proportions that actually are catastrophic (historically speaking, and compared to our GDP, our debt is fairly moderate, which isn't to say it should continue rising). His policies are in direct contradiction to his stated goals.

If there's a year for a third party run, it's this year. If Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate, makes it on the stage, I think he could actually draw a lot of attention. Pretty sure it's Gary Johnson, who was pretty much DT's candidate of choice. Considering congress won't let any truly ridiculous libertarian idea's through (where Johnson might ave them, he seems fairly moderate and reasonable), but the President has full authority to end our empire, and to end the War on Drugs, single-highhandedly. It wouldn't legalize anything (that would require congress), but he can stop prosecuting for it, and he could theoretically give pardons/clemency to offenders.

[Super Dude]

Funny you mention that, I actually did this Facebook app called "I agree with..." and it actually had me voting for Johnson over Obama.

Also, on the environment, I apparently agree most with the "The Rent is Too Damn High" guy.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

Scheavo, the feeling I'm getting is that Republicans will vote for Romney for the sole reason of: "any Republican is better than Obama". There seems to be no other prominent reason. It's not what Romney or whoever stands for, and it's not because they're somehow going to undo the last 4 years.

'Independent' voters are going to decide the election. Dems are gonna vote blue and the GOP will vote red because that's what we expect them to do.

[Scheavo]

Scheavo, the feeling I'm getting is that Republicans will vote for Romney for the sole reason of: "any Republican is better than Obama". There seems to be no other prominent reason. It's not what Romney or whoever stands for, and it's not because they're somehow going to undo the last 4 years.

Ya I know, and my point is that such blind hatred is harmful.

[The King in Crimson]

I am sad that Huntsman got dropped so early in the process.  I didn't agree with much all of his points, but I think he was unfairly dismissed by the GOP.  He was probably the best candidate they had.

[snapple]

Scheavo, the feeling I'm getting is that Republicans will vote for Romney for the sole reason of: "any Republican is better than Obama". There seems to be no other prominent reason. It's not what Romney or whoever stands for, and it's not because they're somehow going to undo the last 4 years.

Ya I know, and my point is that such blind hatred is harmful.

Two edged sword.

[rumborak]

I am sad that Huntsman got dropped so early in the process.  I didn't agree with much all of his points, but I think he was unfairly dismissed by the GOP.  He was probably the best candidate they had.

That was a bummer indeed. He might never have gotten far anyway, but in that candidate circus of "who can stand for the most extreme position" he was drowned out.

rumborak

[PraXis]

I don't really agree with Praxis on much but I understand where he's coming from. I don't feel represented by anyone running for president.

This country was bought and sold years ago. Look no further than taxes. Every page of the 66,000+ page tax code was lobbied to give someone an edge over another...same with the various regulations in banking, health care, health insurance, etc.

There is NO difference in the two parties. Yea, they'll bicker back and forth about marriage or abortion on TV shows, but they still high-five each other when the cameras go away because of the power they keep taking away from us (not to mention, the money from future generations). What is really obvious is how Ron Paul has been predicting all these national/international messes the last 30 years, and many in the GOP will support his domestic policy.. but when he went into those debates and realistically described our imperial foreign policy, "oh it's just crazy Uncle Ron again!"... these same cvnts have hardons for a war with Iran, yet they don't say how they're going to pay for it..consider how they're always bitching about high taxes. How else will we fund the extended foreign invasions?