Take a look at this video below.
This is the first volley against Obama by American Crossroads, a Super PAC run by Karl Rove and some other like minded individuals. The ad is running in swing states like Florida and Ohio. It struck me as interesting for several reasons.
First of all, where's all the Barack X stuff? Well, apparently it's gone because it doesn't play very well.
Middle-of-the-road voters who said they thought the country was on the wrong track were unmoved when they heard arguments that the president lacks integrity. And they did not buy assertions that he is a rabid partisan with a radical liberal agenda that is wrecking America.
Well, that's because it's not true and doesn't exist in reality. The fact is that even though many people don't agree with the president's policies and/or feel disappointed, they still like him personally. If he is attacked in a manner that was recently floated by some high level conservatives, you can say buh bye to the independents and swing voters. This would be why Mitt Romney always inserts that line "The president is a nice guy but..." into most of his stock answers to questions. He, like McCain before him, knows about the dark side to American populism.
Another thing that struck me was where was the husband? The ad obviously intimates that this is a single woman as she complains about her life and struggles in the job market. VERY interesting considering this is from a conservative group. Have they seen the writing on the wall and know they can't win without the women's vote? This, along with the leaving behind of the Barack X garbage, is a sign of progress. Even though I realize that there are millions of Americans who need to have Barack X to get out of bed and identify themselves every day, themes like this give me hope. Sorry, fuckos, I guess you can't win by calling the president a Kenyan socialist who constantly apologizes for America, spent more than anyone ever in the history of forever, raised taxes, is destroying free enterprise, and is making us weaker.
Yet neither of these points can hold a candle to the two more subtle messages contained therein....two messages that hilariously expose the metaphorical slip, if you will, of the right's dress. Remember all that talk about how if people are having financial problems, it's THEIR fault and blaming others for their own shortcomings is sacrilege? Well, I guess that's gone now because none of this woman's problems are her fault. The fact that she is low on cash and has adult children living at home is the fault of the government.
Wow.
Truly, one of the most titanic examples of hypocrisy I have seen in awhile. And, uncharacteristically, a complete capitulation.
Diving deeper, we can clearly see the Michael Jordan Generation on full display. The reason she has two adult kids living at home is because she has done a poor job in raising her children. Like many in her generation, she has babied her kids to the point where the can't function outside of her home. And without a two parent home it was likely made worse. But that's all the fault of the liberals and their social agenda, right?
No, it's not. This is how our culture is right now and it's truly awful. It's not because of the government or the education system (whose job it is most certainly not to parent or nanny) or the unions made up of people who make 50K a year or less. It's the fault of all of us because we have allowed our culture to be mostly socialized by the corporate owned media who tell us that the definition of success is a guy like Michael Jordan.
And not the winner of the science fair. Or the mathlete. Or the Model UN winners. Or the...well, I think you get the idea.
6 comments:
It's not because of the government or the education system (whose job it is most certainly not to parent or nanny)
You are schizo, aren't you? First you complain that anyone who criticizes the govt is a radical individualist with unrealistic ideals. Now you whine that the govt isn't parent or nanny (despite your support for every form of middle class welfare).
Or are you just stupid and fiercely partisan?
So here are three great reads from today.
One, two, and three.
As usual, people must be nice to the democrats cause the independents will flock to the dems. Not buying it.
No, if ads like this continue to run (people being nice to the democrats but yet still critical), independents are going to vote for Romney. This is what the focus groups told Rove and his folks. Don't attack the president personally because people like him personally and will be turned off by such attacks. I'd certainly be happy if folks like Rush and Michelle Malkin were out front and center foaming at the mouth but it's been shown to be a bad strategy.
Take a look at what happened when the Ricketts plan came out that I linked in this post. I don't think I've ever seen so many conservatives falling all over themselves to back away from it. They've read these focus group polls and they know it will backfire.
Obama is spending time on college campuses and Holder is talking to black pastors. You mean obama doesn't already have a lock on young people and black churchgoers ? That must suck.
last - I think it is a lock, as long as they actually get out and vote. The fear must be that having disappointed these constituencies - they must engage them to turn out.
I'm seeing Obama give up on moderates and independents, and attempt to motivate the core to deliver - which could be enough to squeek out a win.
Romney's problem is the opposite - getting the hard core Repubs to turn out because he will stand well with moderates/independents. If he can't get the solid conservatives to vote for him he won't win.
Back to my original point about the role of the federal govt, Brooks (my first link) has this to say:
In each case, a good impulse was taken to excess. A government that was energetic and limited was turned into one that is omnidirectional and fiscally unsustainable. A government that was trusted and oriented around long-term visions is now distrusted because it tries to pander to the voters’ every momentary desire. A government that devoted its resources toward future innovation and development now devotes its resources to health care for the middle-class elderly.
Post a Comment