PDA

View Full Version : What is Obama re-election strategy?



genglandoh
07-30-2012, 08:14 AM
Does anyone know?

I do not see a well thought out re-election strategy coming from Obama.
So far we have only seen his attempt to distract away from the issues of the economy and unemployment.

Bob Adams
07-30-2012, 08:18 AM
Given his opponent, does he really need one?

John Smith
07-30-2012, 08:26 AM
I expect those running his campaign know.

One think it will have to incorporate is convincing people that Romney is lying.

If I were in charge, I'd likely have commercials that start with Romney saying, "Do you believe Obama said thiis?" and then put Obama's statement in full context. I'd start with Romeny saying, "Obama can't run on his record," followed by Obama running on his record.

There's also a ton of in context statements by Romney that are self contratdicting. And more are probably coming.

I'd like to see an ad series that shows Republican obstruction. I'd also like to see one that points out that the two wars and the tax cuts kept adding to the deficit after Bush left office.

If I could put a single ad together, I would show some great things we did, such as the moon landing, the space shuttle, and the interstates, then point out tha we couldn't do any of those things today because taxes are too low on the upper class and the Republicans would filibuster.

Rum_Pirate
07-30-2012, 09:02 AM
I say an ad, in which Obama approved, that tried to throw mud on Romney saying that his companies exported jobs to China and Mexico and that he had millions in overseas accounts and phrases to that effect etc.

Nothing about how he was going to continue(?) to improve the USA economy and and better lives of his fellow citizens.

Has he no ideas?

I was rather disappointed in this purported stance.

Paul Pless
07-30-2012, 09:13 AM
And so far, it appears to be working.I thought the race was 'neck and neck'. . .

LeeG
07-30-2012, 09:18 AM
Does anyone know?

I do not see a well thought out re-election strategy coming from Obama.
So far we have only seen his attempt to distract away from the issues of the economy and unemployment.

So far you acknowledge what you don't see and are able to speak in the plural for what you do. Sounds to me that your committee needs to help you answer the first question.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-30-2012, 09:24 AM
What is Obama re-election strategy?

It's called "Let Romney be Romney"

Bob Adams
07-30-2012, 09:31 AM
What is Obama re-election strategy?

It's called "Let Romney be Romney"

See post #2.

Paul Pless
07-30-2012, 09:33 AM
What is Obama re-election strategy?

It's called "Let Romney be Romney"probably the best idea

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-30-2012, 09:40 AM
Does anyone know?

I do not see a well thought out re-election strategy coming from Obama.
So far we have only seen his attempt to distract away from the issues of the economy and unemployment.

As usual,you don't see what you don't want to see.
What you haven't been able to see is that Obama's people are professionals at the presidential election game. They have been there before and were amazingly successful.

What they don't have is an antidote for the legions of racists, birthers, right-to-lifers, souvereign citizens, gun huggers, Mormons, no-new taxers and any other single issue types that will vote for Romney no matter how he looks on the campaign trail.
Can you imagine how Romney's campaign would be doing if he didn't have all those single-issue types?
Can you imagine how conflicted a Romney administration would be if all those single-issue people demanded their issue be on the front burner ASAP?

Paul Pless
07-30-2012, 09:43 AM
What you haven't been able to see is that Obama's people are professionals at the presidential election game. They have been there before and were amazingly successful. But how much of that success was due to Bush and then Sarah Palin? It would have taken a truly ugly Democrat to have lost the last presidential election.

Rum_Pirate
07-30-2012, 09:45 AM
What they don't have is an antidote for the legions of racists, birthers, right-to-lifers, souvereign citizens, gun huggers, Mormons, no-new taxers and any other single issue types that will vote for Romney no matter how he looks on the campaign trail.
Can you imagine how Romney's campaign would be doing if he didn't have all those single-issue types?
Can you imagine how conflicted a Romney administration would be if all those single-issue people demanded their issue be on the front burner ASAP? Are you seriously suggesting that Romney's campaign is doing as it is, by only being supported by 'all the legions single issue types' ?

LeeG
07-30-2012, 10:23 AM
Are you seriously suggesting that Romney's campaign is doing as it is, by only being supported by 'all the legions single issue types' ?

I don't see Chuck using the word "only" or suggesting it.

wardd
07-30-2012, 10:23 AM
From what I can see, the strategy is to portray Romney as a stuffed shirt, dangerously incompetent in issues like foreign policy, and someone who would intend to implement the same trickle-down economic policies, and the same laissez faire attitude towards regulation, that got us in this hole in the first place.

And so far, it appears to be working.

it suks when your opponent tells the truth about you

beernd
07-30-2012, 10:56 AM
But how much of that success was due to Bush and then Sarah Palin? It would have taken a truly ugly Democrat to have lost the last presidential election.

+1 Y>

I think that given the issues at hand, the GOP does not want to win the elections.

Romney deliberatly makes his gaffs,, seriously you don't believe that he really is that dumb, do you ;)

ljb5
07-30-2012, 10:58 AM
Does anyone know?

I do not see a well thought out re-election strategy coming from Obama.
So far we have only seen his attempt to distract away from the issues of the economy and unemployment.

Obama is running an ad during the Olympics in which he looks into the camera and explain why he thinks his approach to helping the economy is better than Romney's.

He also mentions the fact that we've added millions of jobs in the last few years.

It's just that simple.

You might not agree with his approach, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist, umkay?

John Smith
07-30-2012, 11:00 AM
I say an ad, in which Obama approved, that tried to throw mud on Romney saying that his companies exported jobs to China and Mexico and that he had millions in overseas accounts and phrases to that effect etc.

Nothing about how he was going to continue(?) to improve the USA economy and and better lives of his fellow citizens.

Has he no ideas?

I was rather disappointed in this purported stance.

totally dishonest post. Obama has put forth a number of ideas; many which have enjoyed support from Republicans for years, and the Republicans block them.

One such idea is the repairing, rebuilding, and modernizing our infrastructure with all material from domestic providers.

Meanwhile he's been facing an opposition party who's top priority is his failure.

He also faces lies, which you perpetuate, that his policies are responsible for the growing deficit. We've had this discussion elsewhere, and the fact is that when Bush took office he inherited policies that were increasing the surplus. Bush actually initiated polices that turned that surplus into a deficit: two tax cuts and two wars, as well as the Medicare prescription drug plan. He took none of those with him when he left office and the Republicans in congress would not allow ending the tax cuts.

That's simple truth. If you wish to vote based on lies about this, vote Republican, but you do so at the nation's peril. If you can be honest with this recent history, you'll see Obama's done a fairly decent job in spite of the Republican opposition.

If Romney had been president, Bin Laden would be alive and GM would be dead. Is that what you really want? I think there's a great Obama ad in that.

Romney told us he wouldn't waste time/money looking for Bin Laden, then tells us he'd have made the same [easy] decision to kill him Obama made. Romney wrote that we should let GM go bankrupt and opposed Obama's plan: then he took credit for devising the plan.

Nothing need be taken out of context.

John Smith
07-30-2012, 11:05 AM
As usual,you don't see what you don't want to see.
What you haven't been able to see is that Obama's people are professionals at the presidential election game. They have been there before and were amazingly successful.

What they don't have is an antidote for the legions of racists, birthers, right-to-lifers, souvereign citizens, gun huggers, Mormons, no-new taxers and any other single issue types that will vote for Romney no matter how he looks on the campaign trail.
Can you imagine how Romney's campaign would be doing if he didn't have all those single-issue types?
Can you imagine how conflicted a Romney administration would be if all those single-issue people demanded their issue be on the front burner ASAP?

BINGO! It's hard to campaign against myths. Look at how often the Right uses Reagan to support stuff Reagan didn't support.

Rum_Pirate
07-30-2012, 11:07 AM
it suks when your opponent tells the truth about you

It is bit like when one posts something that is ever so slightly negative about Obama on this forum.

Legions of hordes of single issue types (of the 'Obama is right regardless' and 'Obama can do no wrong' persuasions) descend upon the post and if unable to dispute the post, as is oft the case, proceed to crucify the poster.

Yep it sucks. :ycool:

Gerarddm
07-30-2012, 11:07 AM
The strategy is to get re-elected. :D

The tactic is to keep on illuminating the paucity of real ideas, the prevarications, and the blatant lies that power the Romney candidacy.

John Smith
07-30-2012, 11:10 AM
Are you seriously suggesting that Romney's campaign is doing as it is, by only being supported by 'all the legions single issue types' ?

You disagree? We've got the president of the NRA telling his members Obama's failure to suggest a single anti-gun law while signing some gun right expansions is a secret plan to take away all your guns: and the gun nuts believe him. You've got Romney taking Obama's words (which are very similar to words spoken by Romney) totally out of context so they mean something vastly different. In other words lie, and have Fox News swear he's telling the truth.

How much of the "evil" things the ACA was going to lead to have fallen into place? How much destruction of our economy was caused by Clinton's tax hikes? Where are the WMD's? Why isn't the oil paying for the Iraq war?

My big question is: how many times can these rightwingers lie to us and people still believe them?

John Smith
07-30-2012, 11:13 AM
+1 Y>

I think that given the issues at hand, the GOP does not want to win the elections.

Romney deliberatly makes his gaffs,, seriously you don't believe that he really is that dumb, do you ;)

Depends on how you define "dumb". He is certainly out of touch. He seems to think saving a company by outsourcing all the jobs was good for the middle class. This man has no concept of what it is like to not be able to afford something.

John Smith
07-30-2012, 11:15 AM
It is bit like when one posts something that is ever so slightly negative about Obama on this forum.

Legions of hordes of single issue types (of the 'Obama is right regardless' and 'Obama can do no wrong' persuasions) descend upon the post and if unable to dispute the post, as is oft the case, proceed to crucify the poster.

Yep it sucks. :ycool:

I don't think there's a single poster here who doesn't disagree with some of what Obama has done. That's vastly different from the Right who fail to give him any credit for anything he's done.

genglandoh
07-30-2012, 11:15 AM
From what I can see, the strategy is to portray Romney as a stuffed shirt, dangerously incompetent in issues like foreign policy, and someone who would intend to implement the same trickle-down economic policies, and the same laissez faire attitude towards regulation, that got us in this hole in the first place.

And so far, it appears to be working.

I think you are right.
The Obama strategy has been to make Romney look like he cannot handle the job of President.

But in a re-election campaign the President needs to put forth reasons to vote for him and not just reasons not to vote for Romney.
He should be explaining how is programs has helped and should be continued.

Without a positive forward message from Obama he will lose the election.

PS I do not think his current re-election strategy is working. Being tied in the polls is not winning.

wardd
07-30-2012, 11:22 AM
what the dems need to do is engage in a long term ongoing education program about what reagan was really was and other rep myths not just wait until an election

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-30-2012, 11:23 AM
But how much of that success was due to Bush and then Sarah Palin? It would have taken a truly ugly Democrat to have lost the last presidential election.

How much? We'll never know.
What we do know is that Obama, being a black man, had to be a particularly attractive candidate and his committee had to be very knowledgeable to win that election. It should be obvious that those opposed to seeing a black man in the Oval Office came out in droves in the next election to elect the most right wing congress in living memory.

Rum_Pirate
07-30-2012, 11:27 AM
You disagree? I would think that Mr Romney has support from 'types' other than the 'legions single issue types'. :ycool:

Bob Adams
07-30-2012, 11:27 AM
Where are the WMD's? Why isn't the oil paying for the Iraq war?



Back when everybody was condemning Bush over the WMDs or rather, the lack of them I stated a few things. We know Saddam had chemical weapons, he used them on his own people. While we were waffling over what to do, I said he's hiding them, after we began searching , I said "better look in Syria". Now if Syria uses it's chemical weapons as it has threatened, I bet they say "Made in Iraq". What ever did happen to Iraq's oil helping to pay for operations anyway? Need to start a new thread on that.

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-30-2012, 11:35 AM
But in a re-election campaign the President needs to put forth reasons to vote for him and not just reasons not to vote for Romney.
He should be explaining how is programs has helped and should be continued.

Without a positive forward message from Obama he will lose the election.

PS I do not think his current re-election strategy is working. Being tied in the polls is not winning.

You are looking for that elusive pony again. The wishful thinking in the above is obvious. The polls show most have made up their minds already. The battle now is for those few undecideds who may have intellectual questions about the two or they may be folks who are just too lazy to trouble their brains this long before the election.
I predict that when the two are seen side by side Romney will not be able to deliver your pony. Obama is just too smart, just too stylish, just too practiced a politician. Romney is a prisoner of his Richey Rich upbringing that has enabled him to easily go from win to win but leaves him with no common touch.

leikec
07-30-2012, 11:37 AM
I thought the race was 'neck and neck'. . .


The race is very close, but most of the swing state races seem to be moving toward the president--I think that is what Norman is referring to when he answered you.

I'm quite sure Romney will carry the traditionally republican states (Utah, Wyoming, Montana...etc), but he is going to have to win most of the swing states to have a chance. He's doing well in North Carolina, and Florida and Ohio are going to go right down to the wire. It seems to me that Romney will have to do well in all three of those states and score an upset victory in some of these:

Michigan
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
New Mexico
Colorado

I think conservatives have oversold Romney's chances in Wisconsin, and he is not doing as well as expected in Michigan. I also think the president has the upper hand in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, so Romney must pull off a surprise in a few of those states and do well in Colorado and Virginia to have a real shot at winning.

The president had a lousy month of June (at least until the SCOTUS health care ruling), and Romney has had a tough time in July. I think the race will tighten even more in August with the conventions, and then turn one way or another in September and October.

Given Romney's performance this month, I'm not sure I'd be salivating at the prospect of him debating the president if I wanted Romney to win in November.

Jeff C

Gerarddm
07-30-2012, 11:45 AM
Saw The Chris Matthews Show last night and his guests were nearly unanimous that there will be 5-10% of voters who won't make up their mind until the last week. The debates may very well be quite important in deciding this slice of the electorate.

2MeterTroll
07-30-2012, 12:20 PM
John
Rummy dont give one little **** about America as a nation; he just wants his money. he has only his little investment portfolio in the game and all he sees is the promised dollar signs the republicans spout.
great for him out in the carib but his care for the US is minimal. you continue to wast time arguing with he and Kaa, neither is worth the effort and both simply have no real stake in the election.




totally dishonest post. Obama has put forth a number of ideas; many which have enjoyed support from Republicans for years, and the Republicans block them.

One such idea is the repairing, rebuilding, and modernizing our infrastructure with all material from domestic providers.

Meanwhile he's been facing an opposition party who's top priority is his failure.

He also faces lies, which you perpetuate, that his policies are responsible for the growing deficit. We've had this discussion elsewhere, and the fact is that when Bush took office he inherited policies that were increasing the surplus. Bush actually initiated polices that turned that surplus into a deficit: two tax cuts and two wars, as well as the Medicare prescription drug plan. He took none of those with him when he left office and the Republicans in congress would not allow ending the tax cuts.

That's simple truth. If you wish to vote based on lies about this, vote Republican, but you do so at the nation's peril. If you can be honest with this recent history, you'll see Obama's done a fairly decent job in spite of the Republican opposition.

If Romney had been president, Bin Laden would be alive and GM would be dead. Is that what you really want? I think there's a great Obama ad in that.

Romney told us he wouldn't waste time/money looking for Bin Laden, then tells us he'd have made the same [easy] decision to kill him Obama made. Romney wrote that we should let GM go bankrupt and opposed Obama's plan: then he took credit for devising the plan.

Nothing need be taken out of context.

Kaa
07-30-2012, 12:34 PM
John ... you continue to wast time arguing with he and Kaa.

I don't recall arguing with John Smith about politics beyond throwaway one-liners... Could it be that you are imagining things? :-D

Kaa

2MeterTroll
07-30-2012, 12:37 PM
Actually Bob they wont say made in Iraq because iraq never made chemical weapons. they will say made with pride in the USA. umm and Syria? really? you dont read much about the middle east do you?
Saddam was hated by Assad. in fact saddam was hated by almost every other regime in the middle east. You really need to look back beyond the rhetoric from the first gulf war. Iraq was a valued allied for decades. Iraq was hugely successful it had good schools, we supplied them with aid. however when saddam nationalized the oil business and tried to expand into Kuwait we responded by playing police man. then bush 2 hit the scene and had to avenge daddy. We actually destroyed what could have been a very strong ally in trade for a weak puppet government that will not hold together with out US support. Pretty much the exact same story as Iran. Sad to see the US propaganda machine so successfully washing folks brains.



Back when everybody was condemning Bush over the WMDs or rather, the lack of them I stated a few things. We know Saddam had chemical weapons, he used them on his own people. While we were waffling over what to do, I said he's hiding them, after we began searching , I said "better look in Syria". Now if Syria uses it's chemical weapons as it has threatened, I bet they say "Made in Iraq". What ever did happen to Iraq's oil helping to pay for operations anyway? Need to start a new thread on that.

2MeterTroll
07-30-2012, 12:40 PM
nope cause i didnt say you where arguing i said John was arguing. you, as usual where baiting. its a different thing altogether.



I don't recall arguing with John Smith about politics beyond throwaway one-liners... Could it be that you are imagining things? :-D

Kaa

Rum_Pirate
07-30-2012, 12:42 PM
John
Rummy dont give one little **** about America as a nation; he just wants his money. he has only his little investment portfolio in the game and all he sees is the promised dollar signs the republicans spout.
great for him out in the carib but his care for the US is minimal. you continue to wast time arguing with he and Kaa, neither is worth the effort and both simply have no real stake in the election.


I respectfully request, and do wish, that you would find out the truth before you open your mouth (read keyboard) sound off and make aspersions against me personally, to my finances, the size of my investment portfolio and whether or not I have 'no real stake in the US election'.

Your post proves my point.
'Those on this forum that cannot debate and defend a point tend to personally attack the poster.'

John Smith
07-30-2012, 12:42 PM
I would think that Mr Romney has support from 'types' other than the 'legions single issue types'. :ycool:

He has the support of the "no tax" crowd, the gun lobby, and those who hate him because he is not white. Also the Fox News viewer.

Who else is supporting Romney?

John Smith
07-30-2012, 12:47 PM
Back when everybody was condemning Bush over the WMDs or rather, the lack of them I stated a few things. We know Saddam had chemical weapons, he used them on his own people. While we were waffling over what to do, I said he's hiding them, after we began searching , I said "better look in Syria". Now if Syria uses it's chemical weapons as it has threatened, I bet they say "Made in Iraq". What ever did happen to Iraq's oil helping to pay for operations anyway? Need to start a new thread on that.

We would have signicantly more options available if we hadn't spent the blood and treasure in Iraq. My friend called me when we found all those protective suits, and he thought they proved Saddam had the weapons. I told him the fact that the suits were all in storage proves he does not have the weapons. If those weapons were still in Iraq the suits would be worn by those who knew. If those weapons were shipped to elsewhere, the suits likely would have gone with them.

The UN weapons inspectors, following the first Gulf War, reported Saddam have been disarmed of virtually all such weaponry. There is zero evidence that he still had any other than his own boasting of still having 100's of tons. It's also likely, if he had any of these weapons, he would have used them to defend himself.

Rum_Pirate
07-30-2012, 12:47 PM
He has the support of the "no tax" crowd, the gun lobby, and those who hate him because he is not white. Also the Fox News viewer.

Who else is supporting Romney?


Apparently quite a few others according to this post #12:


. . . What they don't have is an antidote for the legions of racists, birthers, right-to-lifers, souvereign citizens, gun huggers, Mormons, no-new taxers and any other single issue types that will vote for Romney no matter how he looks on the campaign trail.

John Smith
07-30-2012, 12:55 PM
The race is very close, but most of the swing state races seem to be moving toward the president--I think that is what Norman is referring to when he answered you.

I'm quite sure Romney will carry the traditionally republican states (Utah, Wyoming, Montana...etc), but he is going to have to win most of the swing states to have a chance. He's doing well in North Carolina, and Florida and Ohio are going to go right down to the wire. It seems to me that Romney will have to do well in all three of those states and score an upset victory in some of these:

Michigan
Virginia
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
New Mexico
Colorado

I think conservatives have oversold Romney's chances in Wisconsin, and he is not doing as well as expected in Michigan. I also think the president has the upper hand in Pennsylvania and New Mexico, so Romney must pull off a surprise in a few of those states and do well in Colorado and Virginia to have a real shot at winning.

The president had a lousy month of June (at least until the SCOTUS health care ruling), and Romney has had a tough time in July. I think the race will tighten even more in August with the conventions, and then turn one way or another in September and October.

Given Romney's performance this month, I'm not sure I'd be salivating at the prospect of him debating the president if I wanted Romney to win in November.

Jeff C

There's a great deal of money yet to be spent. The Romney strategy is clear: lie. Many lies become accepted myths and are impossible to fight.

Facts don't work. If they did people would not believe Reagan balanced the budget or never raised taxes.

You need only look at some posters here who refuse to accept the fact that we are still suffering from Bush policies that congress (Republican filibusters) has refused to let Obama change.

It's been posted here that the Republicans STRONGLY supported an individual mandate to buy health insurance form '94 - '09. As soon as Obama picked up on the idea they all changed their minds. I don't know of anyone, in any party, that doesn't see a need to repair and rebuild our roads and bridges, but the Republicans in congress prevent this from happening.

Their plan has been quite simple: don't let Obama do anything positive, then blame him for not getting anything done.

There are enough fools that this could work.

Also, what do we compare Obama's first term to? Do we compare where we are to where we would like to be? To where the rest of the world is?

Would we prefer Bin Laden be alive and GM be dead?

Cuyahoga Chuck
07-30-2012, 01:03 PM
Are you seriously suggesting that Romney's campaign is doing as it is, by only being supported by 'all the legions single issue types' ?

Those folks are the life's blood of Romney and the Republican party as it stands today. To vote Republican in national elections is to get in bed with those people.

Nicholas Scheuer
07-30-2012, 01:04 PM
Like Obama is about to broadcast his strategy so Repubs can torpedo it?

Look for this info in the post-election books, genglandoh.

2MeterTroll
07-30-2012, 01:37 PM
would you like me to dig out your posts where you say just that or are you busy cleaning up after your self. I really dont care about your little island, i do care that your POV on the american elections is side tracking serious discussions by continuing to feed as much misinformation as you can into them. I do consider elections important enough to say butt out of the conversation unless you are actually bringing information instead of already flagged as rumor and false side tracks. it gets tiring making arguments that are rebutted by unsupportable in anyway rumor. there are 98 days till an election that very well could leave this country a wasteland and may just foment a civil war. your finances and little island pale in comparison.




I respectfully request, and do wish, that you would find out the truth before you open your mouth (read keyboard) sound off and make aspersions against me personally, to my finances, the size of my investment portfolio and whether or not I have 'no real stake in the US election'.

Your post proves my point.
'Those on this forum that cannot debate and defend a point tend to personally attack the poster.'

genglandoh
07-30-2012, 01:54 PM
Obama is running an ad during the Olympics in which he looks into the camera and explain why he thinks his approach to helping the economy is better than Romney's.

He also mentions the fact that we've added millions of jobs in the last few years.

It's just that simple.

You might not agree with his approach, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist, umkay?

Thank you for pointing out the ad Obama is running during the Olympics.
I have not watched the Olympics and have not seen the ad.

If this is a change in strategy them Obama will have a better chance to win the election.

genglandoh
07-30-2012, 02:04 PM
Obama is running an ad during the Olympics in which he looks into the camera and explain why he thinks his approach to helping the economy is better than Romney's.

He also mentions the fact that we've added millions of jobs in the last few years.

It's just that simple.

You might not agree with his approach, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist, umkay?


Is this the ad you are talking about?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obamas-olympics-opening-ceremony-ad-i-believe/2012/07/27/gJQAsXa3CX_blog.html

Rum_Pirate
07-30-2012, 02:12 PM
would you like me to dig out your posts where you say just that or are you busy cleaning up after your self. I really dont care about your little island, i do care that your POV on the american elections is side tracking serious discussions by continuing to feed as much misinformation as you can into them. I do consider elections important enough to say butt out of the conversation unless you are actually bringing information instead of already flagged as rumor and false side tracks. it gets tiring making arguments that are rebutted by unsupportable in anyway rumor. there are 98 days till an election that very well could leave this country a wasteland and may just foment a civil war. your finances and little island pale in comparison.

Yet again you resort to attacking me personally.

Just for the record. Nothing absolutely nothing that is said on this forum will influence the election results one way or the other.
All the 'contributers' can do here is post their own post or C&P from and discuss it.
So there is really no justification whatsoever to attack an individual poster personally.

2MeterTroll
07-30-2012, 02:16 PM
no if i wished to do that i would do so. this is not an attack and i am sorry that you continue to think this way. it is an appeal to either provide substantiated data or stop involving your self in a discussion that has turned into something important. A simple request and an explanation of why.



Yet again you resort to attacking me personally.

LeeG
07-30-2012, 02:27 PM
Back when everybody was condemning Bush over the WMDs or rather, the lack of them I stated a few things. We know Saddam had chemical weapons, he used them on his own people. While we were waffling over what to do, I said he's hiding them, after we began searching , I said "better look in Syria". Now if Syria uses it's chemical weapons as it has threatened, I bet they say "Made in Iraq". What ever did happen to Iraq's oil helping to pay for operations anyway? Need to start a new thread on that.

Chemical weapons in and of themselves aren't WMD. That conflation was intentional, like conflating AlQaeda with 100,000s of different peoples who had no role in 9/11.
If you need a reminder of propaganda value of CW look to John Bolton's hand in getting Jose Bustani removed from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons as it was attempting negotiations for inspection of Iraq facilities. If the OPCW went in they would have discovered what was later found, misc. useless 155mm rounds with traces of CW.
Bolton is now one of Romney's foreign policy advisors.

Re. Iraqi oil paying for operations. It is Iraqs oil, not yours to pay for killing Iraqis. Your "whatever happened to.." was determined by the deceit and dysfunction required to invade.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josť_Maur%C3%ADcio_Bustani

Rum_Pirate
07-30-2012, 02:33 PM
no if i wished to do that i would do so. this is not an attack and i am sorry that you continue to think this way. it is an appeal to either provide substantiated data or stop involving your self in a discussion that has turned into something important. A simple request and an explanation of why.

One might be fooled but others . . .


John
Rummy dont give one little **** about America as a nation; he just wants his money. he has only his little investment portfolio in the game and all he sees is the promised dollar signs the republicans spout.
great for him out in the carib but his care for the US is minimal. you continue to wast time arguing with he and Kaa, neither is worth the effort and both simply have no real stake in the election.

Anyone here think that the above post is "'it is an appeal to either a) provide substantiated data or b) stop involving your self in a discussion that has turned into something important." ?

Is your post discussing the 'What-is-Obama-re-election-strategy' or is it personal derision against myself (and Kaa)?

I am not aware of anything that prevents anyone from involving them self in any discussion, important or otherwise, on this forum.

Any forum member is entitled to make their post, intensely intellectual, light hearted or whatever, but nobody is entitled to be rude.

Making UNsubstantiated data and personal insinuations and derision against an individual is just plain rude.

Once again I respectfully refer you to my previous post.(#39)

2MeterTroll
07-30-2012, 02:47 PM
nope as it was not directed at you i doubt it. since it is in aggregate what you have espoused the entire time i have seen you on this forum. I dont do fly bys or oblique attacks. i will state what i have seen in aggregate. if you dont like that it is your problem. you have already disrupted this thread and subject as much as possible.


One might be fooled but others . . .



Anyone here think that the above post is "'it is an appeal to either a) provide substantiated data or b) stop involving your self in a discussion that has turned into something important." ?

Is your post discussing the 'What-is-Obama-re-election-strategy' or is it personal derision against myself (and Kaa)?

I am not aware of anything that prevents anyone from involving them self in any discussion, important or otherwise, on this forum.

Any forum member is entitled to make their post, intensely intellectual, light hearted or whatever, but nobody is entitled to be rude.

Making UNsubstantiated data and personal insinuations and derision against an individual is just plain rude.

Once again I respectfully refer you to my previous post.(#39)

Rum_Pirate
07-30-2012, 02:58 PM
nope as it was not directed at you i doubt it. . .

This was not directed at me?

Then pray tell at just whom was it directed? :confused:


John
Rummy dont give one little **** about America as a nation; he just wants his money. he has only his little investment portfolio in the game and all he sees is the promised dollar signs the republicans spout.
great for him out in the carib but his care for the US is minimal. you continue to wast time arguing with he and Kaa, neither is worth the effort and both simply have no real stake in the election.






PS Still waiting Ernie.

2MeterTroll
07-30-2012, 04:44 PM
sadly most will take whatever is going on in whichever news service they watch as how the whole of the term has been. So i see both parties trying to maneuver for that last week in the news. Its going to be a bloody ugly fight till the end. with the current polarization this is not going to be a good thing, i have neighbors running around getting ammo and playing war games. Even in our little mountain top folks are polarized to the max.


Saw The Chris Matthews Show last night and his guests were nearly unanimous that there will be 5-10% of voters who won't make up their mind until the last week. The debates may very well be quite important in deciding this slice of the electorate.

genglandoh
07-31-2012, 06:16 AM
Obama is running an ad during the Olympics in which he looks into the camera and explain why he thinks his approach to helping the economy is better than Romney's.

He also mentions the fact that we've added millions of jobs in the last few years.

It's just that simple.

You might not agree with his approach, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist, umkay?

I am sorry I still can not find the ad you are talking about.
The only ad I can find is the “I Believe” ad where Obama is giving a very general I Beleave in America message.
Nothing specific about the ecomony or jobs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obamas-olympics-opening-ceremony-ad-i-believe/2012/07/27/gJQAsXa3CX_blog.html

In your statement you are acting like I am trying to pretent his message about the economy and jobs does not exist.
Well I can not find it and others (who support Obama) also have noticed that Obama is not doing this kind of ad you discribe.

Now just because I (and others) have not seen the ad does not mean is does not exist, but it does show that it has not been used very much.

Can you give me a link to the ad?

John Smith
07-31-2012, 06:20 AM
Maybe Obama's strategy should be to get Mitt to make more trips abroad.

John Smith
07-31-2012, 06:35 AM
I am sorry I still can not find the ad you are talking about.
The only ad I can find is the “I Believe” ad where Obama is giving a very general I Beleave in America message.
Nothing specific about the ecomony or jobs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obamas-olympics-opening-ceremony-ad-i-believe/2012/07/27/gJQAsXa3CX_blog.html

In your statement you are acting like I am trying to pretent his message about the economy and jobs does not exist.
Well I can not find it and others (who support Obama) also have noticed that Obama is not doing this kind of ad you discribe.

Now just because I (and others) have not seen the ad does not mean is does not exist, but it does show that it has not been used very much.

Can you give me a link to the ad?

Personally, I think the ad is a nice crock. The America we like to think we live in grows on the basis the middle class is the tid that lifts all boats, but that America is long gone. The land of the free and the home of the brave has becoming less of both. Not because of Obama, but because of the people who get elected by the people who are supressing the right to vote, limiting womens' rights, etc. and are too damned scared to try civilians in civilian courts or let a Muslim Community Center near ground zero.

The "exceptionalism" of America died: we can't do big things anymore; witness my pumping water thread. Human beings built the great wall of China and the pyramids, but a project of move water around the country is "big" so we can't do it.

A lot of those pople who voted all those Republicans into office: the ones restricting voting rights, the ones putting the government between women and their doctors, the ones who would rather more people don't have health insurance, are middle class voters.

We argue here about ads, but we have history to look at. Why we don't look at that history and learn from it puzzles me. How can anyone who's lived through the last three decades believe cutting taxes on the wealthy creates jobs or raising them on the wealthy kills jobs?

Is there anyone in this nation that does not believe we need to repair/rebuild/modernize our infrastructure? Is there anyone who thinks this will cost less money if we put it off longer?

Instead of opposing everything Obama tries to do in an effort to keep him a one term president, why not support rebuilding our infrastructure with domestically supplied materials, let the country do better, and pass a much improved infrastructure onto our grandkids?

Because if we do Obama might get a second term?

hanleyclifford
07-31-2012, 07:17 AM
Seems to me the Obama strategy is to sit tight, hope for an economic miracle, and watch Mitt Romney bungle around stepping on it at every turn!

Keith Wilson
07-31-2012, 07:30 AM
General strategy: Make sure everyone understands that there are two presidential candidates, who intend to do quite different things if elected.

Step 1. Point out Mr. Romney's great wealth, record at Bain Capital, and fairly obvious lack of concern for the interests of anybody who's not rich. Contrast with Mr Obama. This is going on now.

Step 2. Point out the real effects of Paul Ryan's budget, with particular emphasis on Medicare and Social Security. You don't know what these are? You damn well better. Look it up. Consider the average age of the Republican voter. This is starting. By the end of the campaign, Mr. Ryan's budget will be a stinking maggot-infested corpse tied around Mitt's neck.

Step 3-6 I don't know about yet.

At the moment Romney is doing his level best to hand Obama the entire foreign policy issue on a silver platter, but that's just gravy; elections aren't often decided on that.

ljb5
07-31-2012, 07:43 AM
I am sorry I still can not find the ad you are talking about.
The only ad I can find is the “I Believe” ad where Obama is giving a very general I Beleave in America message.
Nothing specific about the ecomony or jobs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obamas-olympics-opening-ceremony-ad-i-believe/2012/07/27/gJQAsXa3CX_blog.html

In your statement you are acting like I am trying to pretent his message about the economy and jobs does not exist.
Well I can not find it and others (who support Obama) also have noticed that Obama is not doing this kind of ad you discribe.

Now just because I (and others) have not seen the ad does not mean is does not exist, but it does show that it has not been used very much.

Can you give me a link to the ad?

Here is a link to the ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBorRZnqtMo

Around here, the full, one minute add is running frequently during the Olympics.... probably more frequently than any other political ad.


"Over the next four months you have a choice to make. Not just between two political parties or even two people. It's a choice between two very different plans for our country.

Governor Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top, roll back regulations on big banks, and he says that if we do our economy will grow and everyone will benefit.

But you know what? We tried that top-down approach. It's what caused the mess in the first place.

I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class. Asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way. So that we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy for good middle class jobs. Sometimes politics can seem very small. But the choice you face, it couldn't be bigger."


Of course, no political ad is expected to be truly detailed or nuanced.... but when it comes to laying out a vision and strategy and drawing a distinction between two different approaches, this could not be any clearer.

This source says it was released in Ohio. Maybe you missed it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-campaign-ad-choice-video-2012-7

ChrisBen
07-31-2012, 07:48 AM
This source says it was released in Ohio. Maybe you missed it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-campaign-ad-choice-video-2012-7Probably not airing on the Fox network. :d

genglandoh
07-31-2012, 07:54 AM
Here is a link to the ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBorRZnqtMo

Around here, the full, one minute add si running frequently during the Olympics.... probably more frequently than any other political ad.



Of course, no political ad is expected to be truly detailed or nuanced.... but when it comes to laying out a vision and strategy and drawing a distinction between two different approaches, this could not be any clearer.

This source says it was released in Ohio. Maybe you missed it.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-campaign-ad-choice-video-2012-7

Thanks for the link.
As 1 min ads go it is not bad.
He does try to address the difference between the two but is a little light on what his programs are.

I would advise Obama to focus on what his programs are and why they should be continued.

PS I have been in Newfoundland for the past 2 weeks and have not seen this ad.

ljb5
07-31-2012, 07:59 AM
He does try to address the difference between the two but is a little light on what his programs are.

It's a one-minute ad, of course it's not going to go into great detail. But, as far as ads go, it's actually pretty specific:


I believe the only way to create an economy built to last is to strengthen the middle class. Asking the wealthy to pay a little more so we can pay down our debt in a balanced way. So that we can afford to invest in education, manufacturing, and homegrown American energy for good middle class jobs.

That's about as clear as you're ever going to find.

If you want more information, you could follow the link (also listed in the ad) at the end where it says: "Read the President's Plan."

Please remember that it's not my job to click on that link for you too.

LeeG
07-31-2012, 08:00 AM
I am sorry I still can not find the ad you are talking about.
The only ad I can find is the “I Believe” ad where Obama is giving a very general I Beleave in America message.
Nothing specific about the ecomony or jobs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/obamas-olympics-opening-ceremony-ad-i-believe/2012/07/27/gJQAsXa3CX_blog.html

In your statement you are acting like I am trying to pretent his message about the economy and jobs does not exist.
Well I can not find it and others (who support Obama) also have noticed that Obama is not doing this kind of ad you discribe.

Now just because I (and others) have not seen the ad does not mean is does not exist, but it does show that it has not been used very much.

Can you give me a link to the ad?

Review post #8
Your inability to see what is clearly laid before you by Ljb5 might make you review the voices in your head that enable you to speak in the first person plural.

genglandoh
07-31-2012, 09:34 AM
Review post #8
Your inability to see what is clearly laid before you by Ljb5 might make you review the voices in your head that enable you to speak in the first person plural.

I am sorry but Ljb5 only gave a reference to an ad running during the Olympics that addressed the real issues of the election.
I looked and could not find it, so all I did was ask for a link so I could watch the ad for myself.

If you read the article about the ad it is a new ad.
So my not seeing it is understandable.

LeeG
07-31-2012, 09:39 AM
I am sorry but Ljb5 only gave a reference to an ad running during the Olympics that addressed the real issues of the election.
I looked and could not find it, so all I did was ask for a link so I could watch the ad for myself.

If you read the article about the ad it is a new ad.
So my not seeing it is understandable.

Do you or you plural still think Obama is avoiding the topic of the economy and unemployment?

genglandoh
07-31-2012, 10:30 AM
Do you or you plural still think Obama is avoiding the topic of the economy and unemployment?

We all agree (me, myself and I) that a single new ad showing in a few swing states does not show a change in strategy.
So we still think Obamas strategy is to distract away from the economy and unemployment.

If Obama continues to make ads addressing the major issues then I will be convinced he has changed his strategy.
Time will tell.

PS Even this new ad does not address the issue of unemployment but this ia OK he did start to address the main issues
As both Ljb5 and I pointed out it was only a 1 min ad and it cannot cover everything in 1 min.

wardd
07-31-2012, 10:52 AM
Personally, I think the ad is a nice crock. The America we like to think we live in grows on the basis the middle class is the tid that lifts all boats, but that America is long gone. The land of the free and the home of the brave has becoming less of both. Not because of Obama, but because of the people who get elected by the people who are supressing the right to vote, limiting womens' rights, etc. and are too damned scared to try civilians in civilian courts or let a Muslim Community Center near ground zero.

The "exceptionalism" of America died: we can't do big things anymore; witness my pumping water thread. Human beings built the great wall of China and the pyramids, but a project of move water around the country is "big" so we can't do it.

A lot of those pople who voted all those Republicans into office: the ones restricting voting rights, the ones putting the government between women and their doctors, the ones who would rather more people don't have health insurance, are middle class voters.

We argue here about ads, but we have history to look at. Why we don't look at that history and learn from it puzzles me. How can anyone who's lived through the last three decades believe cutting taxes on the wealthy creates jobs or raising them on the wealthy kills jobs?

Is there anyone in this nation that does not believe we need to repair/rebuild/modernize our infrastructure? Is there anyone who thinks this will cost less money if we put it off longer?

Instead of opposing everything Obama tries to do in an effort to keep him a one term president, why not support rebuilding our infrastructure with domestically supplied materials, let the country do better, and pass a much improved infrastructure onto our grandkids?

Because if we do Obama might get a second term?

at least we still have the right to as many guns as we want and unlimited ammo

Tom Montgomery
07-31-2012, 12:58 PM
Some of us refuse to pay close attention to the presidential campaign until after the conventions.

Sorry.

genglandoh
07-31-2012, 01:26 PM
This is all I am saying.

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/120714distractionRGB20120714080729.jpg

Tom Montgomery
07-31-2012, 01:28 PM
That is a silly simple-minded cartoon.

And you are not an Obama fan. That is not news.

ljb5
07-31-2012, 01:32 PM
So we still think Obamas strategy is to distract away from the economy and unemployment.

Obama has another ad that has been running for months that shows a graph of monthly job losses starting before he was elected and then taking a positive swing after the stimulus bill was implemented.

I don't have access to YouTube from this computer... but I think this might be the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LPx_9SpdMA

Again: You don't have to agree with the policy or the content of the ad.... but you don't get to pretend like it doesn't exist.

Maybe you haven't seen it. That might be your deficiency, not Obama's.

Perhaps this thread should be called, "Where has genglandoh been hiding that he has avoided seeing all these ads?"

or, perhaps:

"Why does LJB5 have to repeatedly point out things to genglandoh that he ought to be able to find for himself?"

Rum_Pirate
07-31-2012, 02:06 PM
http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by 2MeterTroll http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3486648#post3486648)nope as it was not directed at you i doubt it. . .

This was not directed at me?

Then pray tell at just whom was it directed? :confused:



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by 2MeterTroll http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=3486510#post3486510)
John
Rummy dont give one little **** about America as a nation; he just wants his money. he has only his little investment portfolio in the game and all he sees is the promised dollar signs the republicans spout.
great for him out in the carib but his care for the US is minimal. you continue to wast time arguing with he and Kaa, neither is worth the effort and both simply have no real stake in the election.



PS Still waiting Ernie.





Still waiting Ernie.

Tom Montgomery
07-31-2012, 02:10 PM
Rum_Pirate: Why are you shouting at us?

genglandoh
07-31-2012, 02:19 PM
Obama has another ad that has been running for months that shows a graph of monthly job losses starting before he was elected and then taking a positive swing after the stimulus bill was implemented.

I don't have access to YouTube from this computer... but I think this might be the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LPx_9SpdMA

Again: You don't have to agree with the policy or the content of the ad.... but you don't get to pretend like it doesn't exist.

Maybe you haven't seen it. That might be your deficiency, not Obama's.

Perhaps this thread should be called, "Where has genglandoh been hiding that he has avoided seeing all these ads?"

or, perhaps:

"Why does LJB5 have to repeatedly point out things to genglandoh that he ought to be able to find for himself?"

I know you want to avoid the issue that Obama has been running a campaign of distractions (or attacks as norm put it) so he does not have to talk about the economy or unemployment but this is what he has done.

Maybe he is starting to change and I hope he does if he does not address the real issues of this election he will lose.

Obama Negative Campaign Ads: President's Spending On Attack Ads Soars
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/14/obama-negative-campaign-a_n_1673609.html

About three-quarters of the president's advertising has been critical of Romney as Obama struggles to turn the election into a choice between him and his rival, rather than a referendum on his own handling of the weak economy.

Rum_Pirate
07-31-2012, 02:35 PM
I know you want to avoid the issue that Obama has been running a campaign of distractions (or attacks as norm put it) so he does not have to talk about the economy or unemployment but this is what he has done.




That shouldn't take very much time. :rolleyes:

Rum_Pirate
07-31-2012, 02:39 PM
Rum_Pirate: Why are you shouting at us?

Apologies, I am not shouting at you/the forumites.


Just trying to attract Ernie's attention to a point that he is desperately trying to ignore and possibly pirouette out of. :p.

ljb5
07-31-2012, 02:42 PM
How you noticed how many of your posts are about stuff you could know, but don't?


I have not watched the Olympics and have not seen the ad.


I am sorry I still can not find the ad you are talking about.


Well I can not find it...


Now just because I (and others) have not seen the ad...


PS I have been in Newfoundland for the past 2 weeks and have not seen this ad.


I looked and could not find it...


So my not seeing it is understandable.

Obama's ads are running in heavy rotation during the biggest television event in the world. He has other ads that have been running on TV and the internet for months.

I had no difficulty seeing them... and no difficulty showing them to you.

Other than your own limitations, there is no reason why you couldn't see them and find them for yourself.



I know you want to avoid the issue that Obama has been running a campaign of distractions (or attacks as norm put it) so he does not have to talk about the economy or unemployment but this is what he has done.

You might be distracted, but that doesn't mean Obama is doing it to you. We have seen over and over again that you are unaware of basic information and refuse to acknowledge it until someone shoves it in your face.

That's your problem.

genglandoh
07-31-2012, 02:42 PM
Apologies, I am not shouting at you/the forumites.

Just trying to attract Ernie's attention to a point that he is desperately trying to ignore:p.

My advice is to let it go.
When I get attacked I normally just continue on with the subject of the thread.

Rum_Pirate
07-31-2012, 02:47 PM
My advice is to let it go.

Advice taken. Y>

genglandoh
07-31-2012, 03:08 PM
Advice taken. Y>

I think I will take my own advice.
Some on this board just want to argue and attack.

Time for a beer.

LeeG
07-31-2012, 03:10 PM
I think I will take my own advice.
Some on this board just want to argue and attack.

Time for a beer.

Take a few more for the committee

Tom Montgomery
07-31-2012, 03:51 PM
Some on this board just want to argue....
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.... :d

LeeG
07-31-2012, 04:44 PM
Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.... :d

Good lord does Geng know he's referring to himself?

genglandoh
08-01-2012, 09:36 AM
After a little thought I think Obama strategy is not to let Romney get ahead in the polls.
Because once Romney starts to get ahead in the polls it would look very bad for Obama.

Obama has done the following tactics to stay ahead in the polls


Build up the largest war chest that he can. (Goal $1 Billion)
More fundraisers then other Presidents in the past.
Keeping all of the DNC money for his campaign and not giving some to other Dems in the House and Senate.

Spending more money in June then he took in.
It does seem odd that this early in the election year he would be spending so much money.
As most have stated on this forum most voters are not involved yet.

Spending most of his advertising money on making Romney look bad.
According to the Huffington post Obama has spent 75% on negative ads.
Obama Negative Campaign Ads: President'sSpending On Attack Ads Soars
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1673609.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1673609.html)
About three-quarters of the president's advertising has been critical of Romneyas Obama struggles to turn the election into a choice between him and hisrival, rather than a referendum on his own handling of the weak economy.

Pander to special interest groups
Immigration Executive order. (by passing Congress)
EPA rules about CO2 emissions which are shutting down many Coal Power Plants.(By passing Congress)
Welfare reform Executive order.(By passing Congress)
Supporting Gay Marriage.

ljb5
08-01-2012, 10:23 AM
After a little thought I think Obama strategy is not to let Romney get ahead in the polls.

The nerve of him!

Meanwhile, Obama is appearing in Ohio today to give a speech on the economy and how his proposal for extending the tax cuts will help promote employment without creating additional deficits.

Like pretty much everything else, you're probably unaware of this.

Cuyahoga Chuck
08-01-2012, 10:35 AM
After a little thought I think Obama strategy is not to let Romney get ahead in the polls.
Because once Romney starts to get ahead in the polls it would look very bad for Obama.

"Once Romney starts"? When will that occure ,pray tell?



Obama has done the following tactics to stay ahead in the polls
More fundraisers then other Presidents in the past.
Keeping all of the DNC money for his campaign and not giving some to other Dems in the House and Senate.

Spending more money in June then he took in.
It does seem odd that this early in the election year he would be spending so much money.
As most have stated on this forum most voters are not involved yet.



Obama must fight his war as it is presented to him. For instance,Romney has ONE benefactor, Sheldon Adelson, who has said he would cough up as much as $100,000,000 in order to defeat Barack Obama. That's a threat that's can't be ignored.
Romney will, undoubtedly, get major money from the wealthiest of Mormon families and from the Mormon community in general.
Plus there is other major money out there like the Koch brothers, Texas oil money, etc. etc.



Spending most of his advertising money on making Romney look bad.
According to the Huffington post Obama has spent 75% on negative ads.

Obama Negative Campaign Ads: President'sSpending On Attack Ads Soars
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1673609.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1673609.html)
About three-quarters of the president's advertising has been critical of Romneyas Obama struggles to turn the election into a choice between him and hisrival, rather than a referendum on his own handling of the weak economy.

Politics ain't bean-bag,sonny. Romney, at times is his own worst enemy. He is excessively secretive about his background be it religion, business, his governorship or the Salt Lake Olympics he headed. If you'll read Maureen Dowds column you'll get the straight skinney. Be not afraid to see what the enemy has to say about Willard.



Pander to special interest groups
Immigration Executive order. (by passing Congress)
EPA rules about CO2 emissions which are shutting down many Coal Power Plants.(By passing Congress)
Welfare reform Executive order.(By passing Congress)
Supporting Gay Marriage.



Romney panders to every single-issue group in the land. Some are so bizarre that the best he can do is to never speak ill of them and hope they will be true to him.

genglandoh
08-22-2012, 12:46 PM
After a little thought I think Obama strategy is not to let Romney get ahead in the polls.
Because once Romney starts to get ahead in the polls it would look very bad for Obama.

Obama has done the following tactics to stay ahead in the polls


Build up the largest war chest that he can. (Goal $1 Billion)
More fundraisers then other Presidents in the past.
Keeping all of the DNC money for his campaign and not giving some to other Dems in the House and Senate.

Spending more money in June then he took in.
It does seem odd that this early in the election year he would be spending so much money.
As most have stated on this forum most voters are not involved yet.

Spending most of his advertising money on making Romney look bad.
According to the Huffington post Obama has spent 75% on negative ads.
Obama Negative Campaign Ads: President'sSpending On Attack Ads Soars
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1673609.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1673609.html)
About three-quarters of the president's advertising has been critical of Romneyas Obama struggles to turn the election into a choice between him and hisrival, rather than a referendum on his own handling of the weak economy.

Pander to special interest groups
Immigration Executive order. (by passing Congress)
EPA rules about CO2 emissions which are shutting down many Coal Power Plants.(By passing Congress)
Welfare reform Executive order.(By passing Congress)
Supporting Gay Marriage.



An interesting video from MSNBC Aug 15th it states the following


The Obama Campaign is getting very worried.
They out spent Romney during the summer and they did not wrap up the election.
They expect to be out spent by Romney from now to the election.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0Pg__McpCI8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0Pg__McpCI8