2012 Tuesday: Obama officially ditches Hope for Fear
New York Magazine has a revealing and worthwhile look at the Obama campaign’s approach to this year’s election and GOP opponent Mitt Romney. Here is the crux of it:
Though the Obamans certainly hit John McCain hard four years ago — running more negative ads than any campaign in history — what they intend to do to Romney is more savage. They will pummel him for being a vulture-vampire capitalist at Bain Capital. They will pound him for being a miserable failure as the governor of Massachusetts. They will mash him for being a water-carrier for Paul Ryan’s Social Darwinist fiscal program. They will maul him for being a combination of Jerry Falwell, Joe Arpaio, and John Galt on a range of issues that strike deep chords with the Obama coalition. “We’re gonna say, ‘Let’s be clear what he would do as president,’ ” [senior White House adviser David] Plouffe explains. “Potentially abortion will be criminalized. Women will be denied contraceptive services. He’s far right on immigration. He supports efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. …
Thus, to a very real degree, 2008’s candidate of hope stands poised to become 2012’s candidate of fear. For many Democrats, this is just fine and dandy, for they believe that in the Romney-Republican agenda there is plenty to be scared of. For others in the party in both politics and business, however, the new Obama posture is cause for concern. From the gay-marriage decision to the onslaught on Bain, they see the president and his team as coming across as too divisive, too conventional, and too nakedly political, putting at risk Obama’s greatest asset — his likability — with the voters in the middle of the electorate who will ultimately decide his fate.
Now, this portrait of the strategy — which carries the title “”Hope: The Sequel; For Obama & Co., this time around it’s all about fear” — is not revealing because it’s surprising. Americans routinely tell opinion pollsters they’re underwhelmed by President Obama’s record in the White House and unnerved about the country’ direction, so there’s only so much “Morning in America” the campaign can promote. Fear of the other guy represents most of what they have to sell.
It is revealing, however, to see how open Plouffe and other Democrats are about this strategy. And it is revealing to see how quickly they have to resort to falsehoods to explain it.
To begin, let’s take each of the examples Plouffe gives in his own words:
- “Potentially abortion will be criminalized.”: Not even the reddest of red states have “criminalized abortion” in the 39 years since Roe v. Wade; they have only tried, with mixed results, to place limits on it. The idea that Romney, in just four or eight years, would spend his political capital trying to push a nationwide ban on abortion through Congress — and that the Supreme Court would overturn precedent to uphold said law — is beyond far-fetched. At most, a President Romney might get to replace a liberal justice with a conservative one more inclined to entertain limits on abortion. That is, of course, a possibility in every single administration. And the reverse — that Obama in a second term might get to replace a conservative justice with a liberal one — is just as motivating to conservatives.
- “Women will be denied contraceptive services.” This issue came out of left field when the Obama administration this year tried to force religious entities to violate their consciences to expand subsidies — not legal access — to contraception, and only to a tiny sliver of women. When that maneuver prompted an outcry, the administration doubled down by suggesting Republicans would try to chip away at the status quo.
- “He’s far right on immigration.” During the primaries, Romney described his policies toward illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. as one which would encourage “self-deportation” by making it harder for them to make a living from the shadows. The Obama administration, however, constantly touts the large number of illegal immigrants whom it has deported over the past three years. Does that put Obama on the far-far right on immigration?
- “He supports efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.” This is actually true. But, as a senior White House adviser, Plouffe surely knows presidents aren’t involved in the amendment process.
These are just the ones for which Plouffe was quoted. There is plenty of intrigue about the ones the magazine paraphrased. For instance, how’s that attack on “vulture capitalism” working out? (Not well.) How is Obama going to portray Romney as a failed governor, given that a) his advisers claim to have used Romneycare in Massachusetts as a blueprint for Obamacare, and b) his record as president on unemployment and economic growth makes for a poor comparison to Romney’s record on those issues as governor?
I have no doubt that fear will the watchword for the Obama 2012 campaign — and, to be fair, that Romney will engage in much the same kind of discussion about what a second-term Obama, facing no more need to win over voters, might do as president. But Obama’s supporters better hope this isn’t the best the campaign has to offer.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
220 comments Add your comment
md
May 29th, 2012
5:00 pm
“And yet every Republican candidate has some agenda on sex related issues. For a party that preaches reduced government involvement everyone of them want government involved in the bedroom.”
Amazingly enough, there are many in the country that do not view abortion as a sex related issue…..for me, it is purely a “life” related issue with a basis in science…….the entire issue depends on definitions………..
iggy
May 29th, 2012
5:02 pm
“even though such a stance likely costs more money than it saves.”
Highly doubtful Free or not there are those that are just too lazy to use or retrieve their free birth control or subsidized for that matter. These would be along the lines of the same sorry lot that refuse to work, scam every govt program available, vote for the libs and still whine and complain cuz they just cant seem to get a fair shake.
Awww…such a sad story. Its all the fault of the banks, big business, the blue meanies, stock brokers, the big bad insurance company, used car lots, predatory lenders, grocery store clerks selling rotten melons, the neighbors cat and that swindler of swindlers, Toms Aardvark.
md
May 29th, 2012
5:05 pm
“And I suppose you think that Republicans wanting to deny people birth control doesn’t constitute an intrusion in the bedroom…”
There’s a huge difference between “denying birth control” and “having others pay for birth control”….
md
May 29th, 2012
5:08 pm
“even though such a stance likely costs more money than it saves.”
Irrelevant……putting “fat” America on a diet would also save billions in healthcare…..but I’m certainly not in favor of regulating those choices……As would limiting drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, etc etc….
Kyle Wingfield
May 29th, 2012
5:09 pm
JDW: Nice of you to try to change the subject to money.
But your suspicions are correct: I do not believe that not subsidizing something is the same thing as denying it to them, and I do not think that not subsidizing birth control is the same thing as intruding in the bedroom.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
May 29th, 2012
5:38 pm
Libtards are so pathetic that the taxpayer not paying for their condoms is the same as denying them condoms.
md
May 29th, 2012
5:41 pm
“Libtards are so pathetic that the taxpayer not paying for their condoms is the same as denying them condoms.”
Sadly seems to be the case on numerous issues……
MarkV
May 29th, 2012
6:07 pm
Kyle: “He supports efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.” This is actually true. But, as a senior White House adviser, Plouffe surely knows presidents aren’t involved in the amendment process.
“But?” There should be no “but.” Plouffe talked about Romney’s position on the matter. That the president is not involved in the process is immaterial. It would be different had Plouffe claimed that Romney promised he would actually take some action.
Dusty
May 29th, 2012
6:08 pm
Well, so what’s new? Nothing really.
The liberal commune members here have first attacked Kyle as their first duty and then on to demonize Romney.
Ho hum…same old party line excuses, accusations, Bushdidits, sex, women, my bedroom,…all so we will forget the HUGE deficit hanging over the USA It has grown larger with Obama. Mucccch larger.
The FDR /stimulus approach aint working! Nothing is working, including Obama except on his re-election circuit. That is not to be mentioned but there it is! He’s the president,,, in case you’ve been visiting the WhiteHouse and couldn’t find anybody. .
Carry on , my liberal lovlies! A fair and honest view (!) from the commune tomorrow with some new lines would be a nice change.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
6:10 pm
“And I suppose you think that Republicans wanting to deny people birth control doesn’t constitute an intrusion in the bedroom”
No, it is an intrusion into MY WALLET, JDW.
NOT an intrusion into the bedroom.
Kyle Wingfield
May 29th, 2012
6:15 pm
MarkV: As is clear from the NY Mag story, the context for Plouffe’s reference to the gay-marriage constitutional amendment was:
“We’re gonna say, ‘Let’s be clear what he would do as president‘ ” (emphasis added).
So you’re trying to draw a distinction without a difference.
Dusty
May 29th, 2012
6:21 pm
MarkV,
You explained your position quite well @6:08.
The trouble is, you seem to have forgotten the political method of “planting an idea”. That is,you don’t have to quote an opposing candidate. You just suggest that is what he is “going” to do or say.. Then you have planted the idea and still have a retreat (I didn’t actually say that Romney said that).
MarkV
May 29th, 2012
6:23 pm
Kyle Wingfield @6:15 pm “We’re gonna say, ‘Let’s be clear what he would do as president‘ ” (emphasis added). So you’re trying to draw a distinction without a difference.”
Nonsense. His words about Romney were clear: “He supports efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.” You cannot change that.
MarkV
May 29th, 2012
6:23 pm
Kyle: “He’s far right on immigration.” During the primaries, Romney described his policies toward illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. as one which would encourage “self-deportation” by making it harder for them to make a living from the shadows. The Obama administration, however, constantly touts the large number of illegal immigrants whom it has deported over the past three years. Does that put Obama on the far-far right on immigration?”
No, it does not. There is a world of difference between deporting illegal immigrant based on selected criteria, and forcing ”self-deportation” of some 12 million. In addition, the “record numbers” deported under Obama is only technically correct, and does not represent any spectacular increase.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
6:25 pm
“So you’re trying to draw a distinction without a difference.”
Other people would say MaryV is grasping at straws, Kyle.
yuzeyurbrane
May 29th, 2012
6:28 pm
Unfortunately, it will be a fear campaign. . . by both sides. That is a direct result of the Republicans choosing to be the “Party of No” and then having the chutzpah for campaigning against Obama as a President of few accomplishments. It like a man who murders his parents and then asks to be acquitted because he is an orphan. The question will then be which side’s fear inducing claims are substantially based on facts and which side is merely pulling their “facts” out of their derriere. One need look no further than the clown show that passed for a Republican Presidential Primary and the retarded statements that came out of the candidates mouths to make a reasonable prediction of what the answer will be.
DawgDad
May 29th, 2012
6:30 pm
At the end of last week Illinois cut $1.6 BILLION from Medicaid, to help shore up a $2.7 BILLION shortcoming in a $15 Billion program. That’s a $1.6 BILLION cut in Medicaid funding in Obama’s home state, one of the bluest in the nation, directly impacting the poorest of the poor. THIS is the reality of “hope and change” – when the Dems run out of other people’s money they are harsher than ANY conservative.
MarkV
May 29th, 2012
6:31 pm
Dusty @6:21 pmUnfortunately, you have not explained what you had in mind that well. There was no problem of not quoting the opposing candidate and just “planting an idea.”. Romney is on record about supporting efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. There is no dispute about that. Kyle and others wanted to minimize that by saying, well, but he would not be involved in the amendment process. That is not the point. The candidate have positions, and we can make judgments about the positions regarding issues, and this is one of those.
Kyle Wingfield
May 29th, 2012
6:35 pm
Yes, by all means, MarkV, let’s ignore why Plouffe was talking about Romney’s stance on gay marriage in the first place.
You are a piece of work.
Kyle Wingfield
May 29th, 2012
6:36 pm
yuze: So why isn’t Obama campaigning on his “accomplishments” in the first half of his term, when Republican opposition didn’t matter?
AmVet
May 29th, 2012
6:39 pm
Kyle, it is an irrefutable fact that the GOP – in the last few years alone – has waged a full scale legislative assault on women’s rights, equality and well-being.
Granted, Mitt Romney, a northeastern, moderate RINO (LOL) is not a depraved human being like Georgia’s own Terry England, but nonetheless, my claim stands on it’s own merits.
I can and have listed dozens of examples from South Dakota to Georgia to Montana to Pennsylvania to Washington DC, but to what end?
After all these women are sluts, prostitutes and FemiNazis, right? And Rush wants their videos. (Yeah, I know, who is Rush Limbaugh? He certainly doesn’t represent millions of rank and file Republicans. LOL!)
By the end of 2011, 135 pieces of legislation had been passed out of 1100 introduced, and in 2012 alone over 30 new provisions or measures have already been enacted out of 944 bills introduced.
Even if could find and list all of them, it would not convince one Republican of the truth, I fear.
After all these are the Male Masters of the Uterus…
-
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
6:48 pm
“Kyle, it is an irrefutable fact that the GOP – in the last few years alone – has waged a full scale legislative assault on women’s rights, equality and well-being.”
Actually, it is VERY refutable. If you believe in reality rather than fantasy. And do not engage in persistent hyperbole.
“but nonetheless, my claim stands on it’s own merits.”
And yet, it really doesn’t.
“By the end of 2011, 135 pieces of legislation had been passed out of 1100 introduced, and in 2012 alone over 30 new provisions or measures have already been enacted out of 944 bills introduced.”
Cite, please? Because let’s face it; having 50 state legislatures creating 1100 different pieces of legislation on just one issue in only one year would be rather impossible, even if EVERY state had a GOP majority instead of the 27 which do. For you math minors out there like AmVet, that would be an average of 22 separate bills per state. Stating the obvious here, but even the most rabid of GOP legislators would be hard pressed to find 22 different things regarding women’s rights to try to curtail.
So basically, I’m calling BS (again) on AmVet’s post.
“Even if could find and list all of them”
Which means, obviously, that they do not exist.
Dave Francis
May 29th, 2012
6:50 pm
Whatever the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to Arizona’s policing law (SB 1070), nobody is going to be very happy with the outcome? For years now the upper courts have placed the unfunded mandate burden of supporting the illegal alien invaders, which is costing eligible citizens and permanent residents their own public welfare? By law the courts have forced upon us to pay for their ‘foothold children, in education to K-12, health (so called emergency) treatments for the whole family. This is taking a huge chunk from the welfare system, so that it undermines the entitlements to our old, handicapped, mentally ill, homeless and even our troops that need extra care from war wounds. A foreign person who has numerous children, who has slyly worked the system, can gain low income housing, (Section
housing, then welcoming the whole family circle there—illegal and legal.
This is a disgusting situation when birthright citizens and naturalized citizens should be the first priority, but instead the state governments have allowed illegal migrants and immigrants to apply for welfare on a massive scale, unprecedented since before Ronald Reagan signed an all purpose amnesty into law during 1986. There were some reasonable assertions of fairness before 1987, when every country had a fair quota, but now it’s a free for all. There is no conclusion to the illegal immigration occupation, because whether you have some credence that the numbers have slowed to a crawl or not, 20 million plus still remain, with unknown numbers of criminals who have slipped past the insecure fence or sneaking through to America on international flights.
A battle will ensure, no matter the final outcome of Arizona’s (SD.70), as the illegal immigration will keep coming and when the $113 billion dollar, 50 state payout will rise. Everybody understand the need for skilled workers known as ‘STEM’ workers (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) from foreign countries, who have earned a right to immigrate to any country that needs their special experience? But what we don’t need and cannot afford is people coming here, taking the jobs of our children and the millions of Americans who are just scraping by. Mitt Romney, who may become president and Senator Marco Rubio who could become the running mate, need to comprehend that there promises of enacting laws of bringing to a halt to illegal immigration is not going away and will be very prevalent come the election in November.
The Tea Party has no intentions of allowing any Comprehensive Immigration reform, when the last time was full of fraudulent applications. The time has come to clear both the Senate and House, of politicians having no qualms in passing another amnesty or the Democratic Dream Act. Senator’s as Harry Reid needs be ‘put out to pasture’. This has already happened when Tea Party State Treasurer Mourdock unseated Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, as he had approved of illegal alien amnesty. Senator Lugar believed that illegal immigrants should have the same rights as citizens and law-abiding legal residents. Moudock stated that he will fight to secure our borders and ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent only on those legally allowed to live in the United States. Lugar had a long record of fighting for amnesty for illegal immigrants and was a primary sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would have fast-tracked amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants nationwide. Never before has a political membership in modern times, sprouted with such gigantic influence from the Republican Party in the millions. Liberal Democrats have a fight on their hands, from the Tea Party roots in our Democracy, founded on the U.S. constitution and representing all the people, not just the special interests.
For those American citizens, legal residents that are against the further pampering of illegal aliens and the astronomical costs out of taxpayers’ pockets, go to the sovereignty web site of ALIPAC, to see those in Congress who have been endorsed and also represent the Tea Party in oncoming elections. To also remember that Illegal aliens (non citizens) DO and HAVE voted in the past and will in future elections, so we must be vigilant, specifically in Blue Democrat states, with the hard core liberal backers. Florida is a great example of 129.000 non citizens on the voter rolls. Many states still have their voting based on trust and the integrity of the system, but alas, it has been compromised in many states. The only chance we have against voter fraud is that every person show a form of governmental picture ID.
Our immigration laws have been a mockery for far too long, and must be grind to a halt. By the end of June we will know if the legal populace comes first or if unfunded mandates are further going to be magnified by the courts, so illegal aliens attain the same rights as ourselves. All 50 states are confronted by billions of dollars to pay for illegal immigration in public welfare. The cost to Alabama for Costs for Illegal Aliens as studied by The Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIRUS) it was $2.7 billion dollars owing to the growing illegal alien population. But of course nobody knows the true amount as figures for population and the costs to support these people are kept under wraps. In Texas there have been harsh words rebounding between David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz about illegal immigration, a report overshadows the latest Census data indicates Texas’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to more than $3.7 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $725 per Texas household headed by a native-born resident. EVERY AMERICAN WHO PAYS HIS/HER TAXES SHOULD VIEW HOW MUCH IS BEING SPENT ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS? NOT GOVERNMENT AGENCY DOLLARS AS THEY ARE UNDERCOUNTED, BUT AT NUMBERSUSA, THE FEDERATION OF IMMIGRATION REFORM OR THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION.
Repeating that any thoughts of gaining passage of Amnesty by either party will condemn the majority of states to even more need for health care treatments, hospital inpatients for dialysis and serious surgeries all for free? These are more costs dumped eventually on taxpayers of uncompensated care from the central government. Awarding education for hundreds of thousands of illegal children, who can claim citizenship under a very shaky law, which is destined to reach the Congress thanks to Rep. Steve King? In less than 15 years are schools are overrun by illegal children who cannot speak English, necessitating more time spent by teachers and therefore affecting the failing grades across the country in education.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada must go. Not only has he derailed an amendment to stop illegal aliens living in this country, receiving mostly fraudulent IRS child tax reimbursement, to the tune 0f 4.2 billion dollars, he has done nothing to halt the influx of foreign nationals occupying Nevada. The tired old lawmaker has guaranteed that those working in this country illegally will be sustain in receiving billions of dollars in tax reimbursement for children that are not even present in this country. He is responsible for stopping ICE from raiding the building construction sites, but clandestine inviting mass illegal aliens into the state. The TEA PARTY must attach to his seat a new young Senate leader in his place, as he is just one of the liberal-Democrats, involved in wrecking this country’s economic return. According to (FAIRUS) Nevada’s Foreign-born population has grown by 61 percent. In 2008, the foreign-born population in Nevada represented nearly one in every five residents (19.6%), and illegal aliens constitute nearly one in every twelve residents (8.1%). FAIR estimates that the annual fiscal burden on Nevada taxpayers associated with illegal immigration to be about $630 million. This equates to an annual average cost of about $763 per native-born headed household in the state. In addition, there is a cost to the state’s economy resulting from remittances sent abroad that amounted to $618 million in 2006.
There are obstacles in Washington by both sides of Congress, but even so 87 bipartisan sponsors Birthright Citizenship law by amending its wrong purpose. Similar is to mandate the very controversial E-verify bill (The Legal Workforce Act), that instead of voluntary for businesses, so it becomes the rule of the land. That every business, no matter how large and small must authenticate their workers, showing they are eligible to work in the United States. E-Verify would open up more than 7 million jobs for American citizens and legal residents.
Many of those empty spots would go to seasonal jobs for teenagers and legal Hispanics, making their hope for a better future a reality.
This is a very strength of every voter, to stop the continuation of these wrongly enacted laws, to amend Birthright Citizenship, so one parent must be a U.S. citizen, by birth or naturalization. The fact of great concern is the influx of illegal alien expectant females are procuring even more billions of dollars in education and schooling for their children, once stepping on to U.S. soil, or disguising their pregnancy when alighting from aircraft, with a design to take advantage of the ‘Birthright Citizenship’ (H.R.140) law badly manipulated from its original intent.
The Obama administration stands down from proceeding with large scale ICE raids or the deportation of all individuals. Years of complete apathy by both political parties to securing the borders, interior ‘seek and detain’ has allowed large influxes of criminal illegal aliens, with many reentering time and time again. America has become a victim of Washington lax response and failed dismally—intentionally or not—to stop the human scum, bringing their criminal acts; more so the drunken driver revolution of hit and runs, who abscond mostly across our Southern border.
MarkV
May 29th, 2012
6:52 pm
Kyle Wingfield @6:35 pm: “Yes, by all means, MarkV, let’s ignore why Plouffe was talking about Romney’s stance on gay marriage in the first place. “You are a piece of work.”
Kyle,
Just like others on your side on this blog, when you are in the corner, you resort to insults. I was commenting on what you have written. You reported that Plouffe said, ““We’re gonna say, ‘Let’s be clear what he would do as president,’ ”… “He supports efforts to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage.”
By no stretch of imagination you can convert that into a claim that Plouffe claimed that Romney would be involved in the amendment process, which you disingenuously suggested he did. Piece of work? Look into a mirror.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
6:57 pm
Dave Francis, I suggest you read the rules on cutting and pasting others work.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
6:59 pm
MaryV is simply arguing for argument’s sake.
AmVet
May 29th, 2012
7:06 pm
Wow!
What a shocker!
A Pavlovian response from the hater towards yours truly?!
Will wonders never cease.
Are you a big Terry England fan, Dave?
Or are women a step up from farm animals for you?
LOL…
Dusty
May 29th, 2012
7:07 pm
Oh Plouffe, MarkV
I think he planted an idea but I think your ideas are already planted. You certainly don’t have much use for the ideas of anyone else.
Now open Sesame!
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
May 29th, 2012
7:09 pm
It’s pretty clear from the level of vitriol and frantic-ness of the Obozo receptacles here that they are very, very worried. And that’s a good thing.
When Obozo loses, America wins.
MarkV
May 29th, 2012
7:11 pm
Dusty @7:07 pm: “I think he planted an idea.”
Dusty,
Would you please explain who “planted an idea?”
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
7:12 pm
“Are you a big Terry England fan, Dave?”
First of all, don’t know who he is, nor do I care who he is.
Second of all, the name is Tiberius.
Third, you have failed to cite your quote, both a violation of Kyle’s rules and a deflection on your part.
Try again, sweetie.
Dusty
May 29th, 2012
7:16 pm
AmVet,
Please don’t speak for women of the GOP. You aren’t one in the first place.
I doubt that you know many conservative women. Well, I do and none of them are worred about their “rights” as a female. with a Republican. And don’t worry about our age We are a variety; mothers, daughters and grand daughters.
Mind your own business. We will take care of ours.
Dusty
May 29th, 2012
7:22 pm
MarkV
Please check the second word in my post. Seems you missed it. And “open Sesame” refers to the mind. Yours. So you can see what politicians try to do. It isn’t all factual!
MarkV
May 29th, 2012
7:27 pm
Dusty @7:22 pm
Dusty,
I you want to be taken seriously, then write seriously. If you claim that somebody “planted an idea,” then explain openly who according to you planted what idea.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
7:44 pm
“I you want to be taken seriously, then write seriously.”
Pot – calling kettle!
Bullet County
May 29th, 2012
8:00 pm
Fear: where’s the birth certificate Kyle?
AmVet
May 29th, 2012
8:02 pm
Dave, were you a narc in a previous life?
Dusty, follow your own advice and keep your nose where it belongs.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
8:22 pm
Amazing how the one-note-wonder known as AmVet can’t seem to come up with a cite for his nonsense.
Liar.
Rafe Hollister- trying to save the Choom Gang
May 29th, 2012
8:27 pm
MarkV
You would have nothing to say if you were not parsing words, picking nits, and redefining words that do not need redefining. I agree with Tiberius, you just argue for arguments sake.
MarkV
May 29th, 2012
8:51 pm
Rafe Hollister @8:27 pm
Agreeing with the infantility of Tiberius is hardly worth mentioning.
Kyle has made Plouffe’s statement regarding Romney’s support for amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage one of the four points in his critique. I have no desire to debate it with you, because you clearly do not even understand the words you are using, such as parsing and redefining. Instead of making a rational point you only attack for the sake of attacking.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
8:57 pm
“Instead of making a rational point you only attack for the sake of attacking.”
Pot – calling kettle (again) !
The next cogent argument MaryV makes will be her first cogent argument.
Today’s Rebellion News – May 29th 2012 | Rebellion News
May 29th, 2012
9:00 pm
[...] 2012 Tuesday: Obama officially ditches Hope for Fear [...]
yuzeyurbrane
May 29th, 2012
9:03 pm
Kyle, by the time of the 2010 mid-term elections, I presume you accept my argument. Even then, you overrate the Democrats’ advantage in the first 2 years of Obama’s term. I will admit that Mitch McConnell carried a lot more of the water for the Party of No in that time frame when he announced in advance of Obama’s inauguration that he intended to oppose everything from the new President. And he was quite successful in changing the Senate from a body that almost always ruled by majority vote to one that now required a 69% super-majority to pass legislation. But as implied by the criticism of the Tea Party and many other Republicans, there were quite a few significant accomplishments during the first 2 years, not the least of which were saving the economy from going down the toilet and passing legislation for the first time for affordable quality healthcare for almost all Americans. Not to even mention fulfilling campaign promises to wind down the Iraq war and end “don’t ask, don’t tell”. Now, I don’t fault you and others for disagreeing about these items on their merits, but to imply they were not significant is absurd. The last 2 years has been a depressing battle to protect his gains for the American from attack by an opposition, many of whom could arguably not even be labeled a loyal opposition since they even continue to attack his legitimacy or that of any Democrat. We have all witnessed Romney’s attack machine in the Republican Primaries and the outright lies floated by birthers and other extremists financed by SuperPac billionaires. Kyle, you are too sophisticated politically to really think that this is a time for President Obama and the Democrats to unilaterally forego pointing out why Obama is a better choice than Romney. I, too, wish it could be all positive by both sides, but that is just not going to happen when 1 side has a take no prisoners attitude.
yuzeyurbrane
May 29th, 2012
9:06 pm
Sorry for typo, should be “60% super-majority”.
stands for decibels
May 29th, 2012
9:07 pm
What has changed that Romney, considered (by everyone but the Obama campaign) as not so socially conservative, would suddenly do what born-again Christian George W. Bush didn’t?
Easy. There’s a buttload more desperation among the conservative base than there was back when they were relatively fat and happy in 2004; there is a palpable fear among the right wing that as they slip into demographic irrelevance, it’s now-or-never to get their social agenda chiseled into granite.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
9:08 pm
yuzeyurbrane, if Obama’s accomplishments were so significant, why isn’t he running on them?
Because he’s not.
That’s because they weren’t so significant to many people.
@@
May 29th, 2012
9:09 pm
Hoping for change.
Confidence among U.S. consumers unexpectedly fell in May to the lowest level in four months as optimism about employment prospects faded.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
9:26 pm
“Confidence among U.S. consumers unexpectedly fell in May to the lowest level in four months as optimism about employment prospects faded.”
Unexpectedly for this administration, but not for those of us watching the retail markets.
MarkV
May 29th, 2012
9:26 pm
Tiberius @ 8:57 pm
Tiberius’ infantility demonstrated.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
May 29th, 2012
9:35 pm
Still waiting, MaryV. . . . .
For anything relevant or accurate from you.