Did Obama Spike the ball.
Did Obama Spike the ball.
She'd be right, assuming the advertisement is what it sounds to be. I despise attack ads from anyone, aimed at anyone.
I'll just take my chances with those salt water joys.
Well... Obama certainly has the right, it seems to me, to celebrate his accomplishments... including the elimination of a high-profile enemy.
What candidates DON'T have the right to do is to question - on no evidence - what goes on inside their opponent's head. A gratuitous - again, on no evidence... or in spite of the existing evidence - shot at another's motives or character.
Is that what Obama did? Of course we'll all decide for ourselves. Probably based on our pre-existing partisan biases... what else is new.
My first thought was that I didn't like such negative advertising, and I assumed it was a cheap-shot. In fact, it reminded me of a thread I'd just started:
Then I recalled that Romney had criticized efforts by the Obama folks to hunt down BinLaden (partly as a defense of Bush's failure to do so, IIRC). Maybe he opened himself up to such speculation by the Obama team? Maybe's Obama's comments WEREN'T 'on no evidence'.
Then I watched the ad.
First -- I still hate negative ads. I hate that they're effective. I hate that even the good guys (you define that for yourself) have to resort to them... or risk being overwhelmed by the opponents attack ads. I hate that we're stuck with them.
Second -- I'm not convinced that Obama's speculation about Romney's backbone was such a cheap-shot as I initially thought. But still - no one knows for sure what decision a man will make when the rubber hits the road... and you're in the hotseat. Probably, no one of us even knows it about themselves. So... it's speculative. But... given Romney's prior comments on the issue... not gratuitously speculative.
"It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)
I have a question related to Mrs. Huffington's comments, given her usual status (or lack of) as a commentator by the right wing. Does her equanimity in her criticism of the President make anybody who'd normally be inclined to discount everything she says see her in a different light, or do you reckon she just slipped? I have always found her witty, charming and exceptionally well informed, so it comes as no surprise to me that she plays the field in this way.
She's easily my number one pick for any debate with right leaning commentators or political consultants. So bobbys, will you have any more of her or was she only any good just this one time?
She sold her sight for Zillions, she has no word NOW. So, here we are. WHO will use the law, in office, to confine us? All our right wingers are banned.EEKK!
Romney said what he said. Obama said what he would do and did it.
If the issue is using the death of OBL or 911 for political purposes, I can't believe rightwingers would be so stupid as to make that an issue.
Where was all the Republican outrage when Karl Rove was hammering the democrats with 9/11 back in 2002 and 2004?
Does AH realize she is on the same team as Karl Rove? She should be wearing sack cloth and ashes, fercryingoutloud. The NERVE of the woman!
I am in favor of the Obama campaign doing anything necessary to win. We saw what happened last time a Democrat took the high road when being smeared: four extra years of the worst president in living memory.
Sic 'em, boys.
I am surprised that Huffington took the tack she did on this, but reckon it's an anomaly. Everything is subject to being political fodder. Rove has and will stoop to anything to make his point. The gloves are off.
When Huffington returns to form, the right will disavow her just as quickly.
I'm not surprised; Democrats have a long history of self-inflicted wounds. It comes with the liberal psychology.
I watched the video, and failed to see anything controversial about it, whatsoever.
We see Bill Clinton arguing that Obama made a VERY tough decision which involved enormous risks... and that strikes me as completely true.
If you're going to argue that launching the raid which got Bin Laden was a political thing, then think about the risks: a failed raid would have basically ended Obama's career, instantly.... by providing enormous amounts of political ammunition for his political opponents. Just think about it... dead SEAL team members in a failed raid would have dominated the political attack ads throughout the campaign. A successful raid would accrue to his credit, of course... but wouldn't stop opponents from doing precisely whgat they're doing now: arguing that the raid was either unnecessarily risky, or was done for political purposes. In other words, the political downside was far greater than any potential upside.
Now think about the raid, in the context of a responsible Presidential decision, and presuming that politics was NOT the driving factor. If Bin Laden's whereabouts were known, and a President decided NOT to go after him, just imagine the hue and cry, and the criticism of Obama being soft on National Security.... 'unfit' the be commander in chief.
The video was completely correct: it was a brave decision, made at tremendous risk, to the SEAL team, to national security, and least of all, to Obama's reputation and chances for re-election. The 'safer' decision would have been to take a pass.. but he didn't.
Why not give the guy props, for a change, when it's deserved?
I got in touch with my inner self today... that's the last time I'll buy single-ply toilet paper!
Whenever Arianna shows up as Protector of the Downtrodden an image flashes into my mind of her at the Trinity May Ball of 1973 wearing a dress of cloth of gold.
IMAGINES VEL NON FUERINT
Hypocrites.n December 2003, U.S. forces captured Saddam in Iraq. He had been hiding in a hole in the ground. Two months later, as Kerry began to wrap up the Democratic presidential nomination, Gillespie, who was then the RNC chairman, embarked on a media tour to brand Kerry a wimp. Here’s Gillespie on CBS in February 2004: “If his policies were in place, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad; he'd still be in Kuwait.” And on CNN: “If his policies were in place, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad today, he'd still be in Kuwait, and we would not be waging an aggressive war against terror.” And on NBC: “If John Kerry had his policies in place today, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad, he'd be in Kuwait.” And on Fox: “If his policies were in place today, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad, he'd be in Kuwait.” And at a Republican dinner: “"If Sen. Kerry's policies were in place today, Saddam Hussein would not only be in Baghdad, he would still be in Kuwait.” And so on. That summer, Gillespie turned the Republican National Convention into a martial victory parade. Speaker after speaker bragged that Bush had defeated, deposed, and captured Saddam—and that Kerry couldn’t be trusted to make such tough calls. “We have captured or killed hundreds of al-Qaida,” Vice President Dick Cheney crowed. “In Iraq, we dealt with a gathering threat and removed the regime of Saddam Hussein. … Tonight he sits in jail.” Cheney went on: “Time and again, Sen. Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. … America needs and America has a president we can count on to get it right.”
Introducing Bush at the convention, New York Gov. George Pataki reminded voters of the hole in which Saddam had been found: “President Bush understands we can't just wait for the next attack. We have to go after them, in their training camps, in their hiding places, in their spider holes.” The convention’s keynoter, Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., used Saddam’s capture to smear Kerry: “As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military. As a senator, he voted to weaken our military. … President Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists, no matter what spider hole they may hide in.”
McCain, the main speaker on the convention’s opening night, hailed Bush’s courage: “He ordered American forces to Afghanistan and took the fight to our enemies, and away from our shores, seriously injuring al-Qaida and destroying the regime that gave them safe haven. … President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. … We need a leader with the experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them.” Romney, in his speech, argued that Kerry lacked this toughness: “I don’t believe Sen. Kerry is the leader our country needs. … He’s campaigned against the war all year, but says he’d vote yes today. I don’t want presidential leadership that comes in 57 varieties.” And Bush, in his acceptance address, described the loneliness of making the call to take down Saddam: “I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office.”
WASHINGTON POST, PORTSMOUTH, N.H. -- Presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney said Monday that he would have given the order to kill al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Asked by reporters following a campaign event here whether he would have given the order to go after bin Laden, Romney suggested that any president would have made the same decision as President Obama.
“Of course. Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order,” Romney said, referring to the former Democratic president known for his reluctance to use military force.
"…Even Jimmy Carter…" ?
Romney's got a lot of damn gall. Evidently he doesn't remember that during the Iran Hostage Crisis Jimmy Carter rejected the Iranian demands, and ordered Operation Eagle Claw, the secret rescue mission. When Eagle Claw failed because of mechanical problems and the crash of a helicopter and a refuelling aircraft, Carter was devastated, but took full responsibility on himself.
Romney's remark was ignorant and snide.
Last edited by Shang; 05-01-2012 at 11:19 AM. Reason: typo
Quietly acknowledging the ObL anniversary would have been better. As some have noted though, the over reaction from Republicans has been as phony as a three dollar bill, given their Mission Accomplished triumphalism.
In particular, remember Joe Biden's devastating barb about Rudy Giuliani? That all Rudy has was ' a noun, a verb, and then 9/11'.
Il colore del cielo, la forza del mare.
Some here seem upset because Obama did what Bush tried to do, but couldn't, and did what Romney said, unequivocally, shouldn't be done -- eliminate Bin Laden.
Sounds to me that those who criticize the ad really want Bin Laden to be alive and well still. Romney did say that he didn't think it worth the effort to go after Bin Laden, didn't he?
How is it an "attack" for Obama to simply point out that his policy on Bin Laden was different than Romney's clearly-stated position? Isn't that why we have campaigns before elections-- to learn about the policies of the candidates?
Soon after the ad started running, GOP Senators John McCain and Chuck Hagel expressed their outrage at the dirty tactics. Cleland says that Hagel approached him and went so far as to offer to do a TV spot rebutting the hateful Chambliss ad "even though it was being aired by his own party."
Let's not forget Regan's brave order to invade Grenada! Talk about gronicles.
Then Daddy Bush took on the entire combined Armed Forces of Panama.
Then dubya invaded the wrong country.
They “faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office.” There ought to be some sort of medal for stuff like that.
then there was the iraqui army, not exactly the wehrmacht
It just occured to me what incredible, truly ballsy decisions the invasions Grenada and Panama actually were. What would have happend to Regan or Daddy Bush if either had FAILED?
It really was all on the line for those brave men.
I wonder where one draws the line at running on one's record. Especially when one's opponent says you can't run on your record.
I don't think Romney's words today carry much weight. What did he say back then? Now, we are told, he advocated exactly what Obama did to save GM. Back then, he opposed it.
Families needing food stamps is a failure of Capitalism: Those families not starving is a success of government
" Osama bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive "
Il colore del cielo, la forza del mare.