Ricketts' father out to take down Obama with what will be termed i

[StrangeSox]

The Rev. Wright stuff was a bunch of silly nonsense that didn't work in 2008 and certainly isn't going to work in 2012 after Obama's been President for nearly 4 years. Pew found in 2008 that most people thought the Wright story was overcovered, including half of Republicans. There's also some pretty disgusting wording in the proposal like what gatnom quoted and the whole idea that Obama is some radical black separatist bent on destroying the nation to get reparations. This proposed media strategy is rightfully being attacked for the vile crap that it is.

 

Ads that attack Mormonism should be equally admonished as bigoted. Ads that attack someone Romney worked with decades ago will likely be even less effective than the Wright/Ayers stuff was on Obama.

 

Billionaires who are funding expensive political campaigns are not off limits. They are choosing to insert themselves into national politics in a very real way and deserve to be criticized by people who oppose what they're spending lavishly on (both left and right!) Ricketts is funding an anti-Obama "stop wasteful spending!!!" campaign while turning around and begging a broke state and a broke city for $150M. Of course it's not out of bounds.

[StrangeSox]

Frankly yeah, I'm going to hate seeing ads about how bad it would be to vote for a Mormon if they do show up, and that ought to be considered out of bounds.

 

TDS had a great segment on this the other day, how some in the media are already asking really dumb, biased questions to Romney supporters and team members about Mormonism that they've never asked about Reid or any other Mormon public official.

 

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mormon, Mo' Problems
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

The thing is, the Democrats are smart enough to know that going that route doesn't help but only rebounds against them.

 

The biggest advantage that Obama has now is "likeability" (not relatability, necessarily) and his calm/cool/aloof nature which is actually often cited as one of his biggest weaknesses (to many), but which now comes off as a strength because his personality is so consistent.

 

The people who will vote against Romney who are Dems or independents don't need to be reminded about his religious beliefs.

 

But taking that attack mode (which will be perceived as unfair, especially against an incumbent when it should have been put to better use 4 years ago strategically) against a pretty popular sitting president will rebound against them with women, young people, independents and Hispanics who might be sitting on the fence.

 

Despite Romney's record at Bain Capital, more people trust him with the economy despite it being another rehash of voodoo economics that's been tried already twice in our lifetimes and has failed miserably both times under Reagan and Bush II.

 

However, despite their disastisfaction with Obama's policies, they would rather keep Obama as president because they like Romney even less and know what they're getting with him by now...and they feel that his ability to handle world/foreign affairs has been a pleasant surprise.

[scenario]

Hmm the new articles now say Ricketts' had nothing to do with the plan.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-17/r...ttack-plan.html

 

 

 

Terrible press regardless haha

 

 

They can try and spin it anyway they want.

Ricketts is guilty as sin.

Here's the full document.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357313/ricketts.pdf

 

Someone approved a $10M budget at a meeting in New York prior to the creation of this plan. (see pages 46 and 48).

Not sure you have to go past the front cover of the document to figure out who.

Edited May 17, 2012 by scenario

[Quin]

STOP GOVERNMENT SPENDING

 

FIX OUR BALLPARK

 

OUR BALLPARK ISN'T FRIVOLOUS SPENDING.

 

Metrosexual black Abe Lincoln will be a popular Halloween costume, I predict.

 

 

Dan Bernstein ‏@dan_bernstein

Crain's reports Rahm "livid" with Ricketts family's "blatant hypocrisy," not returning their calls.

 

Oh s***.

[Jake]

I just don't see how that 25% of the electorate that's STRONGLY anti-Obama is going to be even more induced to vote...

 

They're already motivated.

 

It's always the independent voters who decide elections, and despite the overall unpopularity of many current issues (handling of economy, gas prices, which can't be directly influenced over a matter of days and weeks, the health care mandate, gay marriage, Wall Street bailouts), Obama continues to run 20-30% ahead in terms of the enthusiasm of his party. (Charles Blow wrote a column on this in the NY Times yesterday).

 

Then you have the huge divides in the women's and Hispanic votes that were opened up in the GOP primary process and will be very tough to walk back.

 

By all past measures, with the state of the economy being what it is, Romney should be 5-10 points ahead at this juncture, but it's basically dead even and most betting folks are still putting their money on Obama.

 

While winning independents typically wins elections, Bush Jr. lost independents twice yet still won two elections (well, one...kinda). Rallying the base has worked for Republicans in the past.

 

STOP GOVERNMENT SPENDING

 

FIX OUR BALLPARK

 

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

While winning independents typically wins elections, Bush Jr. lost independents twice yet still won two elections (well, one...kinda). Rallying the base has worked for Republicans in the past.

 

 

 

 

 

Except why would that tactic work better now?

 

He's the sitting president. All that information is already out there from 4+ years ago.

 

Doing so will only cause the media to focus more on Romney's "personal stories" (dog on the roof, bullying episode he doesn't recollect) or the fact that their healthcare plans were virtually inseparable.

 

In fact, Romney's was more liberal than the eventual Obama plan.

 

If all of America can see for the next six months the disastrous results of the austerity plans in Europe (cutting budgets without doing anything to stimulate economies), then logic would dictate that the same type of dramatic government cutbacks in the US would provide a similarly ominous solution to most Americans.

 

As Paul Krugman constantly points out, if the federal deficit was SUCH a big issue, why would our borrowing costs be exceptionally low on the bond market, and why would inflation to be so low?

Edited May 18, 2012 by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

Except why would that tactic work better now?

 

He's the sitting president. All that information is already out there from 4+ years ago.

 

Doing so will only cause the media to focus more on Romney's "personal stories" (dog on the roof, bullying episode he doesn't recollect) or the fact that their healthcare plans were virtually inseparable.

 

In fact, Romney's was more liberal than the eventual Obama plan.

 

If all of America can see for the next six months the disastrous results of the austerity plans in Europe (cutting budgets without doing anything to stimulate economies), then logic would dictate that the same type of dramatic government cutbacks in the US would provide a similarly ominous solution to most Americans.

 

As Paul Krugman constantly points out, if the federal deficit was SUCH a big issue, why would our borrowing costs be exceptionally low on the bond market, and why would inflation to be so low?

 

Meet Operation twist and QE1 and Qe2.

[Balta1701]

Meet Operation twist and QE1 and Qe2.

There was a great scene where the head of PIMCO, one of those legitimately famous investors, publicly took Krugman to task while QE2 was going on, publicly predicted a big spike in interest rates after QE2 ended, put a whole lot of money on the line from his investment firm on those statements.

 

He lost billions believing what you just said.

 

(While we're at it, so did JPM).

[southsider2k5]

There was a great scene where the head of PIMCO, one of those legitimately famous investors, publicly took Krugman to task while QE2 was going on, publicly predicted a big spike in interest rates after QE2 ended, put a whole lot of money on the line from his investment firm on those statements.

 

He lost billions believing what you just said.

 

(While we're at it, so did JPM).

 

That's because the Feds are still holding up the market. Once they quit is when it falls.

[Balta1701]

That's because the Feds are still holding up the market. Once they quit is when it falls.

5 years you've been saying this. 5 years from now...you're still going to be saying this.

[southsider2k5]

5 years you've been saying this. 5 years from now...you're still going to be saying this.

 

And when the feds divest their positions, we can talk.

[StrangeSox]

Any year now...

[southsider2k5]

Any year now...

 

I mean what is a few trillion between friends, right?

[Balta1701]

I mean what is a few trillion between friends, right?

As long as the already-rich people get bailed out and everyone who doesn't have a job in finance gets screwed, yeah.

[southsider2k5]

As long as the already-rich people get bailed out and everyone who doesn't have a job in finance gets screwed, yeah.

 

Because no one in finance lost their jobs...

[Balta1701]

Because no one in finance lost their jobs...

Not many industries out there can say they're still at their 2006 level of employment.

[kapkomet]

Not many industries out there can say they're still at their 2006 level of employment.

 

 

That's a bulls*** #.

[Cknolls]

5 years you've been saying this. 5 years from now...you're still going to be saying this.

 

 

Are you seriously going to say he is wrong. Ask the Fed what they holding as collateral. I am sure they will forthcoming. They purchased 90% of treasuries since they put The Chubbster into play.

[Cknolls]

Not many industries out there can say they're still at their 2006 level of employment.

 

If you walked on the floor of any exchange today you would not even recognize it. If familiar with the industry you would probably ask, "Is any trading occurring?" it is a ghost town compared to what it was. before I left the floor the CBOE initiated three rounds of layoffs, and that was before the 2008 crisis took effect.

[Soxbadger]

Isnt that due to computers and the death of local/broker advantage?

 

Because back in the 90s people at the CME were saying the end of floor trading was near and kept telling stories about the London Stock Exchange.

[StrangeSox]

Are you seriously going to say he is wrong. Ask the Fed what they holding as collateral. I am sure they will forthcoming. They purchased 90% of treasuries since they put The Chubbster into play.

Any year now...

[southsider2k5]

If you walked on the floor of any exchange today you would not even recognize it. If familiar with the industry you would probably ask, "Is any trading occurring?" it is a ghost town compared to what it was. before I left the floor the CBOE initiated three rounds of layoffs, and that was before the 2008 crisis took effect.

 

That doesn't matter, it is what he read on-line that is reality!

[StrangeSox]

That doesn't matter, it is what he read on-line that is reality!

 

This is rich coming from you.

[StrangeSox]

It's also data from the St.Louis fed, but i guess some old anecdotes are more valuable.