New dem ad smears/lies about mitt killing woman

[Ravenous1]

No fan of Obama but find Mitt an even less desirable choice. Looking at the electoral map though unless Mitt does something and fast he is pretty screwed. Obama has approx 172 all but wrapped up in states such were he leads by 10+ points and that's by Rasmussen polling. I think its a tough road to tow for It even if were a dynamic and appealing candidate but he is not and I think he ends up losing big. I have no horse in this race just find it sad the Republican party I once was proud of has turned into a bunch of crazy radical Christian freaks who say they want smaller govt (but do nothing) while wanting to legislate their version Christian morals on the rest of society. Unbelievable. I am not alone in this opinion, the Republican christian right wing has alienated most moderate republicans at a time were power is there for the taking. I mean seriously the Tea Party idiots want Rubio but would protest Condeleeza Rice who is far far more qualified andelectable cause she is pro choice..... way to marginalize your party

Sent from my AT100 using Tapatalk

[HoustonRaven]

Condi turned down the job.

Again.

Mitt would take her in a heartbeat if she agreed to it.

[AirFlacco]

The moderates have pissed off the Christians which is why they're not voting and why they will lose again.

The moderates have taken over the GOP and we're in this mess because W wanted to legalize 20M immigrants.

That gave control of congress back to the DEMs and led to OBY and OBAMACARE.

Mitt is a terrible campaigner like Mc Cain the last moderate that lost. He's unlikeable by the middle class that doesn't relate to him.

As for the map, Rasmussen still has it about even including Florida and Ohio and Colorado and OBY isn't that far ahead in VA.

W won the map and the WH with less popular votes than Gore and thus the re-count.

DEMs would have never pulled this crap on Nixon and Reagan.

The race just shouldn't be this close in the worse economy in 80 years.

Good point about the Roberts court and what I mean about the moderates turning off the Christians.

Rove was on the committee that interviewed Roberts. They thought he was a conservative but when Rove asked who his favorite justice was, he gave a name. I forget it but Roberts liked him because he was his own man. Another words,
he wasn't always going with the majority and he didnt.

But that answer should have told Rove something and he never picked up on hit so now we're in this mess.

They're all RINOS.

[NCRAVEN]

Your link doesn't tell me anything about how many individual people watch CNN. It talks about primetime nightly averages.

Either way, I've acknowledged I don't know anything about media. But congratulations for defeating me in an internet forum on a subject I've already acknowledged I know nothing about, and then applying that logic to the rest of my opinions to conclusively determine that I am in fact the village idiot.

You can FINALLY sleep at night. Congratulations.

Yawn...

Nice try attempting to minimize my point, that "tens of millions" of people don't watch CNN.

I remember a few threads back I asked if you Lib's could come to a discussion without mocking or ridicule.. guess not.

[NCRAVEN]

The race just shouldn't be this close in the worse economy in 80 years.

I'm not sure it is that close.

Think about this. A media (NBC) that edits 911 tapes (Treyvon Martin), won't report stories that would hurt the image of Obama, or report half-truths to protect him.

Why should we trust their polling data to be accurate? I'm not saying they are lying, but I definitely think it's possible for example when they call... Wisconsin they call a city like Madison to get their sample. Or Virginia they call Fairfax.

Polls are fluid, and generally don't start getting accurate till after labor day when they want to keep their credibility up for future elections.

[HoustonRaven]

Obama admits what we all knew ...

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ry-131577.html

[AirFlacco]

NC:

Go to REal Clear.

Rasmussen has them even and he's always accurate.

His elect map is almost even.

That's pretty close and shouldn't be but Mitt just can't sell himself. His European trip was suppose to move him up in the polls but didn't and it started out with a huge gaffe.

As posted above, Mitt just isn't hitting back hard on these ads like
Nixon and Reagan would have.

Hell, even PoP Bush hit Dukakis hard.

Remember the commercial with the tank and the commander had his head sticking out and he looked like
Alfred E. Newman.

It depicted Dukakis as a nut who would be commander in chief.

It won the election for him.

[Haloti92]

Wait... I thought this ad was unprecedented in it's scurrilousness.

Just because things have long been bad on the campaign trail (which they have) doesn't mean they couldn't (and haven't) gotten substantially worse on both sides of the aisle as a result of the Citizens United ruling. We regressed when we needed progressive reform of the way campaigns operate.

Another word for that is regulation. Of course, regulation that produces accountability is something every American should support (unless they (like you) approve of the political climate this ruling has given us).

The current political climate pre-dated the ruling. And I am not sure I follow your logic as to why Citizens United somehow causes people to say more 'scurrilous' things. Free speech is free speech. "Acceptable" free speech never needs to be defended.

The current issue isn't so much the scurrilousness of the ad, it is that anyone (the admaker) would think it would not get universally panned (i.e. that anyone would think it could be effective let alone not backfire). Of course once you realize that the Administration or the Democratic leadership have not disavowed it, and considering the other general sleaziness of Reid and today's Democratic leaders, and considering the general tendency of the MSM to carry water for or give a pass to leftist nonsense, you can see how the admakers could have convinced themselves it was worth doing.

As for 'regulating' free speech, I think the Founders had it right when they assumed the risks of allowing the government to silence its people was much higher than the risk the people would fail to be able to correctly judge for themselves the relative value of various speech.

[AirFlacco]

Rack it.

Outstanding post.

[NCRAVEN]

Obama admits what we all knew ...

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ry-131577.html

Wonder how much (if any) attention this story will get.

[TheExtraPoint]

[QUOTE=Haloti92;471143]

The current political climate pre-dated the ruling. And I am not sure I follow your logic as to why Citizens United somehow causes people to say more 'scurrilous' things. Free speech is free speech. "Acceptable" free speech never needs to be defended.

The current issue isn't so much the scurrilousness of the ad, it is that anyone (the admaker) would think it would not get universally panned (i.e. that anyone would think it could be effective let alone not backfire). Of course once you realize that the Administration or the Democratic leadership have not disavowed it, and considering the other general sleaziness of Reid and today's Democratic leaders, and considering the general tendency of the MSM to carry water for or give a pass to leftist nonsense, you can see how the admakers could have convinced themselves it was worth doing.

As for 'regulating' free speech, I think the Founders had it right when they assumed the risks of allowing the government to silence its people was much higher than the risk the people would fail to be able to correctly judge for themselves the relative value of various speech.

First of all, the argument that this particular ad is unprecedented in its nastiness is not mine, and I don't agree with it. It was made elsewhere in the thread.

I do however support the notion that the overall political climate in this country has taken a precipitous downward fall in recent years, and that can be attributed at least in part to the lack of accountability and proliferation of anonymous, corporate, and/or special interest money in campaigns. Citizens United in my view made this far worse. If you choose to argue that it does not, that's your prerogative and we'll have to agree to disagree. These things are not easily quantifiable.

But in addition to free speech - an important individual right that is nevertheless in my view appropriately limited in a variety of ways ie. slander, libel, hate speech, incitement, and in other circumstantial instances - our founders also advocated for a representative democracy. An environment in which all engaged citizens collectively determine our fate on the strength of one vote per person and equal influence across the American voting landscape. That's evaporated and this ruling has taken us even further away from that ideal.

Call me idealistic. That's fine. I am. But when one individual, corporation OR special interest group can contribute countless millions of dollars directly to or indirectly in support of political campaigns, irrespective of their particular motives, intentions, nationality or background, it suggest to me that my influence is not directly equal to that of my peers, and begets the type of mess in terms of leadership and divisive rhetoric (as seen in this ad and elsewhere) we see today. I think that's a HUGE problem for our country that was only worsened by the ruling.

As for all of the conservative buzzwords you tossed out there, you'd be both flat wrong and totally unfair to view the nastiness or sleaziness of today's climate as exclusive to either political party or a given individual. That's just intellectually dishonest and I suspect as a smart person, you know it to be the case.

[HoustonRaven]

Both sides have their individual donors.

Both sides have their corporate donors.

Both sides have their Super PAC's

Both sides have their uber wealthy individuals.

How is this unfair?

And to say that some ruling made things worse shows a lack of historical perspective. Circa 1800, opponents to then candidate Thomas Jefferson called him ""a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

[TheExtraPoint]

Both sides have their individual donors.

Both sides have their corporate donors.

Both sides have their Super PAC's

Both sides have their uber wealthy individuals.

How is this unfair?

And to say that some ruling made things worse shows a lack of historical perspective. Circa 1800, opponents to then candidate Thomas Jefferson called him ""a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

It's unfair to the people of this country, not to the political parties. And it is my opinion that these rules make things more divisive. I thought both views were made fairly clear.

[HoustonRaven]

It's unfair to the people of this country, not to the political parties. And it is my opinion that these rules make things more divisive. I thought both views were made fairly clear.

Who said anything about political parties?

And again I ask, how is it unfair to "the people of this country"? No matter your position, there is a candidate for you. No matter your position, there is a special interest group you can join / contribute.

[NCRAVEN]

Obama admits what we all knew ...

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2...ry-131577.html

Wonder how much (if any) attention this story will get.

From TheEP, I'm guessing...none.

[TheExtraPoint]

Who said anything about political parties?

And again I ask, how is it unfair to "the people of this country"? No matter your position, there is a candidate for you. No matter your position, there is a special interest group you can join / contribute.

When you said "both sides" I assumed you were talking about parties, no?

FWIW, there really isn't a candidate for my positions. Like many Americans, my vote will generally be for who I perceive to be the lesser of two evils among the candidates of the only relevant parties in modern American politics.

Either way I think the system as it stands is unfair because it corrupts the ideal of a representative democracy on the basis of money-bought influence. That's true both in campaigns and in broader governance. I don't have the same influence as Sheldon Adelson because I don't have as much money as he does. I'm asking honestly: Is that how you think it's supposed to work?

Maybe you think it's fair. I don't think it's at all what was intended for our country by the founders the right so often claims to revere.

And I happen to think that's something efficient regulation (otherwise known as reform) can fix.

From TheEP, I'm guessing...none.

It's funny. I come to this thread CRITICAL of the ad in question and yet you won't quit until you prove some vacuous point about how the President himself or his campaign as a whole is somehow any worse than his counterpart in this regard. It's nonsense.

What exactly is it you are trying to prove? That political surrogates are mean-spirited, biased and/or disingenuous? If you needed this situation to affirm that for you, you're the one who is late to the party.

That you are trying to use this to somehow frame the President as complicit, yet are somehow willing to look the way when Romney surrogates for example say that they wish the President would "learn how to be an American", is beyond me.

[NCRAVEN]

It's funny. I come to this thread CRITICAL of the ad in question and yet you won't quit until you prove some vacuous point about how the President himself or his campaign as a whole is somehow any worse than his counterpart in this regard. It's nonsense.

Can you point to an ad from Romney or a Romney supporting Super PAC that is as equally disgusting?

What exactly is it you are trying to prove? That political surrogates are mean-spirited, biased and/or disingenuous? If you needed this situation to affirm that for you, you're the one who is late to the party.

I am saying his staff coordinated with Priorities USA or at the very least made them aware of this story

That you are trying to use this to somehow frame the President as complicit, yet are somehow willing to look the way when Romney surrogates for example say that they wish the President would "learn how to be an American", is beyond me. I'm not sure I can help you.

Possibly, his staff damn sure knew about it.

What I was "trying to prove" is what you were wrong here:

Except the President didn't call Mitt anything.

As Mitt has pointed out when ads from SuperPACs supporting him have been disingenuous in the past, candidates can't have influence over or relationships with these groups..

[HoustonRaven]

When you said "both sides" I assumed you were talking about parties, no?

FWIW, there really isn't a candidate for my positions. Like many Americans, my vote will generally be for who I perceive to be the lesser of two evils among the candidates of the only relevant parties in modern American politics.

Either way I think the system as it stands is unfair because it corrupts the ideal of a representative democracy on the basis of money-bought influence. That's true both in campaigns and in broader governance. I don't have the same influence as Sheldon Adelson because I don't have as much money as he does. I'm asking honestly: Is that how you think it's supposed to work?

Maybe you think it's fair. I don't think it's at all what was intended for our country by the founders the right so often claims to revere.

And I happen to think that's something efficient regulation (otherwise known as reform) can fix.

I was speaking Left v. Right in strict political spectrum terms, not political parties.

And we're not a Democracy or a Representative Democracy, ergo you cannot corrupt something that does not exist. We're a Representative Republic. Semantics maybe, but there IS a distinct, important difference -- the right to form coalitions (i.e. groups) to represent us and our interests. They are very much what the Framers intended (Federalist 58 I believe). They viewed Democracy as mob rule and rightly so, given what they knew of past, pure Democracies. Now granted, they may not have envisioned the level of funding we see today, but both sides enjoy their deep-pocket people, then and now. The Federalists, the Anti-Federalists, the Whigs, etc all had their money-men. Just like now.

So yes, that's precisely how it's supposed to work. Every person having an equal chance, rich or poor, famous or destitute. You versus Mr. Adelson is a straw man comparison. No, you cannot compete with Mr. Adelson and you're not supposed to. For every Mr. Adelson, there is a Mr. Soros. For every Koch brother, there is a Jeffrey Katzenberg.

The Roberts court simply reaffirmed the status-qua.

[Haloti92]

First of all, the argument that this particular ad is unprecedented in its nastiness is not mine, and I don't agree with it. It was made elsewhere in the thread.

I never claimed you thought the ad was unprecedented. I was just pointing out that the tone changed long before Citizens United.

I do however support the notion that the overall political climate in this country has taken a precipitous downward fall in recent years, and that can be attributed at least in part to the lack of accountability and proliferation of anonymous, corporate, and/or special interest money in campaigns. Citizens United in my view made this far worse. If you choose to argue that it does not, that's your prerogative and we'll have to agree to disagree. These things are not easily quantifiable.

The 'proliferation' is greatly exaggerated, and as I metioned the civility decline predates Citizen United. The big change was Bush v Gore when the left truly became unhinged. To the extent things have continued to get worse over time, I don't see how allowing more and freer speech would necessarily demand that the speech become more uncivil. So agree to disagree it is.

But in addition to free speech - an important individual right that is nevertheless in my view appropriately limited in a variety of ways ie. slander, libel, hate speech, incitement, and in other circumstantial instances - our founders also advocated for a representative democracy. An environment in which all engaged citizens collectively determine our fate on the strength of one vote per person and equal influence across the American voting landscape. That's evaporated and this ruling has taken us even further away from that ideal.

Citizen United did not loosen any of the speech restrictions you mentioned, and in my opinion "hate speech" doesn't belong in that list as it is merely a trendy new leftist catchall used in a nebulous and often-nefarious 'social justice' crusade.

As for our 'representative democracy,' it is the same as it ever was; everyone gets one vote, States and districts are weighted for population.

In terms of your concerns about "equal influence," it simply not the case that this has ever existed. Wealthy individuals and talented pols have always been allowed to produce quantities and qualities of speech that may carry a disproportionate influence (to the average citizen). But it has always been the case (and still is) that the voter is trusted to evaluate this speech, debate it, and decide for oneself how to vote.

To the extent that corporate or union monied interests are now able to extert more influence than before, I would say that history and economics have proven that powerful monied interests operating under an extensive regulatory state will always find a way exert a strong influence over politicians/politics. The best way to limit this 'problem,' if indeed it is/becomes serious, is not to tread on free speech rights, but rather to limit the size and scope of the government's power over industry. The more favors there are to buy, the more money will be spent on lobbying/influencing/buying politicians for the favors.

Call me idealistic. That's fine. I am. But when one individual, corporation OR special interest group can contribute countless millions of dollars directly to or indirectly in support of political campaigns, irrespective of their particular motives, intentions, nationality or background, it suggest to me that my influence is not directly equal to that of my peers, and begets the type of mess in terms of leadership and divisive rhetoric (as seen in this ad and elsewhere) we see today. I think that's a HUGE problem for our country that was only worsened by the ruling.

I wouldn't call you idealistic, but maybe naive and perhaps paranoid. You seem to fail to understand that the campaign finance restrictions you seem to be championing (as they were) had many harmful impacts of their own. The first is that they imposed huge legal costs on those wishing to participate in the political process, effectively shutting out smaller voices who could not afford to pay campaign lawyers and risk legal trouble in getting their messages across. In short, the "little guy" couldn't be heard due to the legal burden. The second is that campaign-expenditure limits had the effect of driving corporate/union money away from public dialogue and into channels that are more corrosive and less transparent (lobbyists, lawsuits, and regulatory capture).

As for all of the conservative buzzwords you tossed out there, you'd be both flat wrong and totally unfair to view the nastiness or sleaziness of today's climate as exclusive to either political party or a given individual. That's just intellectually dishonest and I suspect as a smart person, you know it to be the case.

On the contrary, the nastiness and sleaziness has been disproportionally seen on the left. And there are many explanations for it, from a sycophantic MSM that lets them get away with it (moreso than their opponents), to the not-so-common prolonged war (where such vitriol always has existed), to the continuing 'liberalization' of our colleges and universities (where biased, pseudo-scientific studies are now routinely conducted that show conservatives are predisposed to be stupid or racist or...<fill in your baseless smear> thereby giving some kind of intellectual veneer to a vapid argument).

But the most important explanation is one that has existed for decades now, and that is, the left ascribes to a philosophy of "by any means necessary" whereby civility is not even remotely close to as important as "winning." If you need to paint/label your critics as racists (homophobes, islamophobes, backwards morons, etc) despite a total dearth of evidence, go ahead and do it, the MSM won't call you on it, it is for a 'good cause,' and this is 'total war.' And when the odds you can win on the merits of reasoned arguments or your record diminish, the likelihood of using uncivil attacks increases (they are in a sense an always-available option which will be chosen more as other options are removed).

Since Obama's record is completely indefensible, and since "by any means necessary" is in full effect, the left is currently heavily relying on uncivil tactics. We are seeing the classic case of that right now between meek, milquetoast, Mormon Mitt and his "hey fella, c'mon, that was uncalled for, can't we all be civil" politics and bare-knuckle, gutter Daley/Alinsky/Axelrod/Obama and his "F*ck you, you felon, bigot, murderer" politics. And if Mitt doesn't take the gloves off (no pun intended), and I am not sure he has it in him to do it, he will lose.

[NCRAVEN]

Great post Haloti.

One thing I disagree on and only slightly, is Mitt himself doesn't necessarily have to fight back as much has his campaign team, ads, surrogates VP etc. do, and then he has to in the debates.

Right now, I think he is (or could be) getting under Obama's skin by not getting pissed about it. I actually kind of liked his response when asked about this ad "it doesn't bother me, I've come to expect anything from a campaign that can't run on their record" (paraphrasing). Which IMO, is all this ad is - a distraction from the issues and BHO's record.