By Dean Putney at 1:25 pm Fri, Nov 11, 2011
"We may just run clips of the Republican debates verbatim." You're a bold kid, Barack. Real bold. via USA Today. Thanks, Noah!
Just a thought, but perhaps we can borrow an idea from Herman Cain, and put electrified pant suits on the women he works with, so he will not be tempted to grope any of them.
Or, he could wear the electric pants, IT Crowd style.
God damn these electric sex pants!
Wild Barack Obama uses humor!
It’s Super Effective!
“Let them die! Let them die! Let them die!”
That’d certainly work for me.
I’m just glad my fellow country men aren’t so terrifying.
Also known as hanging them with their own rope. Actually, it’s more like just standing by and watching them hanging themselves. I bet Mitt’s not hating it either, though.
I think this was a strategy used by the Stainless Steel Rat: Let the other guy make the first mistake.
First mistake? First? HAHAHAH
I can only think that the Republicans want Barack to win… maybe they know of some very damaging decision that Mr Obama is going to have to make soon, and they’d rather not be the one to make such a decision so figure it’s safer to let him take the bullet.
That or they’re all just fucking nut jobs.
Nathan: nah, you’re giving them too much credit, they’re just nut jobs. Or to put it more mildly, they live in their own circlejerk parallel universe of yes men. But don’t we all?
I weep for the polarization of American politics and the wall we’re running ourselves into.
To which the obvious riposte would be to run Obama’s 2007-08 speeches in full, against a lovely montage of failed cities, breadlines (oops, I mean lines full of hopeful job seekers seeking retraining in the brave new economy!), and dancing plutocrats. Because somehow the crazy talk that will likely never happen is scarier than all the happy talk that could have happened but didn’t because, well . . .
Obama 2012: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with a passionate intensity, so vote for us, because while we will further erode your rights and increase corporate power, we can remember lists of three things or more and we won’t outright kill you.” Nifty slogan, no?
Even in polls of the general public, most people understand that Obama isn’t responsible for those images you just laid out. And it’s certainly well understood by most politically aware people.
Keeping in mind that I voted neither Republican or Democrat, I think it is a case of thinking, “Yeah I might not like Obama all that much, and he has done some things I don’t like…but that other guy is bat shit insane!”
That could be pared down to a pretty good bumper sticker: “Obama 2012 – because the other guy is batshit insane”
About time you guys get yourselves a system that doesn’t limit you to two (viable) candidates ;-).
If you can figure out how to get that past the two parties who have all the money and all the power and all the infrastructure, I’m pretty sure that most of us would be thrilled to get on board.
There’s something to be said for the stability the American two-party system provides though: it tends to shut the real extremists out.
Although you could probably debate that given what we’ve seen over last ten years or so…
Our current choices do seem to be right wing and righter wing.
I’d like to take this opportunity to ask everyone to please NOT support a race with more than 2 candidates unless it comes with alternative (ranked choice) voting. The state of Maine has its present terrible governor because of a 3-candidate, single-choice vote.
no no, dozens of your fine citizens had the opportunity to stop him over many years. I am sorry my friend, but mediocrity which rises to public office is everyone’s responsibility.
” Because somehow the crazy talk that will likely never happen is scarier than all the happy talk that could have happened but didn’t because, well . . . ”
Timothy, enlighten us. Why didn’t the happy talk stuff happen? You’re implying it was Obama’s fault. Explain how that works. Please.
I thought the debates WERE Democratic Campaign Ads. Very compelling stuff.
It’s the Daily Show approach. I love it.
and for posters he can print his reply to all those petitions so people can see how much CHANGE he brought …
“Obama 2012 – At least I won’t threaten to Murder you”
“Obama 2012 – Part of the 1% (of politicians that don’t sexually harass people)”
“Obama 2012 – Using notes when allowed is a *good* thing”
I know it’s a joke, but it’s not exactly a losing strategy. Part of the reason the insane verbal vomit rhetoric works is that the other party is compelled to respond to it seriously and make it look like they’re all on the same level of imbecility.
Then, once the target audience thinks all candidates are equally devoid of merit and sentience, they just vote for the one who promised a tax cut.
While I’d rather Obama have tossed the Rubin acolytes into a sack of broken glass than cave to the extortion of Wall Street threats, the argument that there’s no difference between the parties is hipster gibberish.
The link goes to USA Today. Many of the comments in that anglo-saxon-y, “middle-America” periodical are, predictably, batshit insane, devoid of humor and/or living in a fact-free zone.
Maybe it’s the same people that shrugged when Bush did his “Where ARE those weapons of mass destruction?” skit.
Is it the clip where the GOP candidate says to end the wars, bring ALL the troops home, and repeal the Patriot Act? I don’t think that would put Obama in a very favorable light.
I like Ron Paul about as much as the Republicans do. He can win, place, or show in a (R) poll and they will talk right around him, every time. Again, As I do not like him, this does not displease me, but he is a (R) who holds each of those positions. Bitter irony. They refuse to run a winner.
Is it the clip where the GOP candidate says to end the wars, bring ALL the troops home, and repeal the Patriot Act?
Oh, you mean the Republican candidate who believes that the Constitution does not confer a right to privacy; believes that the states have the power to criminalize contraception, abortion, and sex; and has repeatedly voted to ban abortion himself – that Republican candidate?
Yes, show clips of him, too. Clearly his positions are not well-known, even among his supporters.
This is one of my favorite bits of his:
He believes that environmental legislation, such as emissions standards, should be handled between the states or regions concerned. “The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards.”
Cause of course there’s an impenatrable barrier surrounding the state of Texas and the supergeniuses who’ve been in charge of Texas would never allow pollution that somehow affects another state.
That issue just pissed off a bunch of East Coast Republicans who do NOT want to breathe their neighbors’ air pollution.
“Oh, you mean the Republican candidate who believes that the Constitution does not confer a right to privacy;”
“believes that the states have the power to criminalize contraception, abortion, and sex”
They do, by the 10th amendment.
Have you READ the constitution?
Have you read the 14th Amendment, cupcake?
Um, yes. Trying to see how it applies here. Not really seeing it.
Update on Obama’s media strategy: A GOP candidate just came out opposed to waterboarding and other torture. Will that be included in the TV campaign?
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin