Question: Does anybody see anything wrong with this political advert?
Because I don't.
First, it's politics and it's an election year. Of course, a President trying for re-election is going to harp for all it's worth on his major achievements; and say what you will about President Obama, Right and Left, finding and killing Osama bin Laden was one of the signature pieces of his foreign policy.
Putting it bluntly, bagging bin Laden occurred on President Obama's watch. It was an extremely risky procedure, and it worked. If Dubya Bush had achieved this, prior to 2004, he would have rammed that fact down the throats of political pundits nationwide, and people would have responded resoundingly at the polls. If the same act had happened after the 2004 election, we'd be looking at President McCain today.
Achievements of this nature are political goldmines for candidates aspiring for either election or re-election. As for Bush, here was his attitude toward bin Laden, only six months after 9/11:-
Bin Laden, according to Bush, was "marginalised." He was not someone about whom the President chose to accord much thought (not that Bush accorded much thought to anything in particular, but there you go).
But, at the same time, Bush wasn't afraid to lend his response to the events of 9/11 to his own re-election efforts in 2004, and he was, in an covert and indirect way, aided and abetted by an audiotaped message from Mr Marginalised, someplace deep in the mountains of Pakistan or wherever.
That message from bin Laden basically scared the living shit out of most voters and sent them to the polls for Bush.
I remember at the time, it stuck mightily in the craw of most Republicans that bin Laden's location and death occurred during President Obama's administration. Many Rightwing commentators, including Fox News's Sean Hannity, publically thanked and credited George Bush for the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Go figure that one.
Their main gripe, however, on this anniversary of bin Laden's death is the abovementioned political advert for the President which - what else? - touts his successful dispatch of bin Laden, and also reminds the public of a public remark made by Willard back in 2007, when he was gearing up for his first run for President of the United States. That remark basically stated that it was not worth moving heaven and earth and spendig trillions of dollars just to track down one person, even if that one person were Osama bin Laden.
So the Democrats played politics and played the Republicans at their own game, because anyone who doesn't think a Republican candidate would not have picked up a Democrat making a remark like this and made political hay while the sunshines is just this side of stupid.
So, the President insinuates that Romney wouldn't have made the call ... that's a pretty fair assumption, based on Romney's actual remark and Bush's earlier one about the relative unimportance of bin Laden only six months after the Towers fell. And it irks the Republicans to be handed their asses in the sort of political advert for which they (and such ilk as Frank Luntz) are famous.
Remember this one from 2004, impugning the character of John Kerry?
The Republicans took a fact and used it against the Democratic candidate who was behind that fact.
And now, when it's done to them, they whinge and whine that it's not fair, that it's dirty politcs ... that it's divisive.
Pappy McCain and George Pataki, amongst others, have had a moan about how mean the advert is. But what's worse ... it's brought the ratfucking brigade charging from the woodwork.
Queen Ratfucker Omnipotent of MediaLand Whoreanna Fuckington Arianna Huffington took to the airwaves on CBS This Morning to do what she's done best for the past four years: piss on every achievement the President has accomplished. Here's what this noted political pundit and plagiarist had to say:
Such actions offend the delicate sensiblities of Madame, the same Madame, who trolled the United States on the eve of the 2010 Midterms, reminding the public that the President "just wasn't into" the middle class. This is the same Madame, who referred to the President as "nowhere man."
This is the same Madame who was once known as Newt's Muse and who led the rabble against President Clinton, campaigning online for his impeachment. This is the same Madame, who - along with the late Andrew Breitbart - founded the online rag known as The Huffington Post, ostensibly a Progressive organ, but - in reality - a subversive apparatus designed to sow disaffection and dissatisfaction amongst the lesser intellectually-endowed Progressive population.
This is the same Madame, who not only voted twice for George W Bush, but contributed to his campaign fund. And this is the same Madame whose unpaideslave labourers staff at HuffPo look like charter members of the Young Republicans.
I don't see anything wrong with crowing about a singular achievement of a particular Administration, nor calling out words spoken on the record by your political opponent, which more than imply that he would have reacted differently, given the situation.
Now, it's also time for Democrats to start fighting back against the words spoken by someone who, in her lifetime, has held three different passports, whose journalistic record is peppered with plagiarism and who hasn't held an elective office in her life. Huffington is practicing Class A ratfuckery and really wants nothing more than to see the Republicans, whom she nurtured at her toxic bosom for decades, back in power led by a President to whose top-flight social status she aspires.
She should remember that when Icarus flew too close to the sun, his wings melted. Let's melt Madame's botox.
Because I don't.
First, it's politics and it's an election year. Of course, a President trying for re-election is going to harp for all it's worth on his major achievements; and say what you will about President Obama, Right and Left, finding and killing Osama bin Laden was one of the signature pieces of his foreign policy.
Putting it bluntly, bagging bin Laden occurred on President Obama's watch. It was an extremely risky procedure, and it worked. If Dubya Bush had achieved this, prior to 2004, he would have rammed that fact down the throats of political pundits nationwide, and people would have responded resoundingly at the polls. If the same act had happened after the 2004 election, we'd be looking at President McCain today.
Achievements of this nature are political goldmines for candidates aspiring for either election or re-election. As for Bush, here was his attitude toward bin Laden, only six months after 9/11:-
Bin Laden, according to Bush, was "marginalised." He was not someone about whom the President chose to accord much thought (not that Bush accorded much thought to anything in particular, but there you go).
But, at the same time, Bush wasn't afraid to lend his response to the events of 9/11 to his own re-election efforts in 2004, and he was, in an covert and indirect way, aided and abetted by an audiotaped message from Mr Marginalised, someplace deep in the mountains of Pakistan or wherever.
That message from bin Laden basically scared the living shit out of most voters and sent them to the polls for Bush.
I remember at the time, it stuck mightily in the craw of most Republicans that bin Laden's location and death occurred during President Obama's administration. Many Rightwing commentators, including Fox News's Sean Hannity, publically thanked and credited George Bush for the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Go figure that one.
Their main gripe, however, on this anniversary of bin Laden's death is the abovementioned political advert for the President which - what else? - touts his successful dispatch of bin Laden, and also reminds the public of a public remark made by Willard back in 2007, when he was gearing up for his first run for President of the United States. That remark basically stated that it was not worth moving heaven and earth and spendig trillions of dollars just to track down one person, even if that one person were Osama bin Laden.
So the Democrats played politics and played the Republicans at their own game, because anyone who doesn't think a Republican candidate would not have picked up a Democrat making a remark like this and made political hay while the sunshines is just this side of stupid.
So, the President insinuates that Romney wouldn't have made the call ... that's a pretty fair assumption, based on Romney's actual remark and Bush's earlier one about the relative unimportance of bin Laden only six months after the Towers fell. And it irks the Republicans to be handed their asses in the sort of political advert for which they (and such ilk as Frank Luntz) are famous.
Remember this one from 2004, impugning the character of John Kerry?
The Republicans took a fact and used it against the Democratic candidate who was behind that fact.
And now, when it's done to them, they whinge and whine that it's not fair, that it's dirty politcs ... that it's divisive.
Pappy McCain and George Pataki, amongst others, have had a moan about how mean the advert is. But what's worse ... it's brought the ratfucking brigade charging from the woodwork.
"Using the Osama bin Laden assassination, killing, the great news that we had a year ago, in order to say basically that Obama did it and Romney might not have done it ... to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do."
"It's also what makes politicians and political leaders act irrationally when it comes to matter of war, because they're so afraid to be called wimps that they make decisions which are incredibly destructive to the country. "
Such actions offend the delicate sensiblities of Madame, the same Madame, who trolled the United States on the eve of the 2010 Midterms, reminding the public that the President "just wasn't into" the middle class. This is the same Madame, who referred to the President as "nowhere man."
This is the same Madame who was once known as Newt's Muse and who led the rabble against President Clinton, campaigning online for his impeachment. This is the same Madame, who - along with the late Andrew Breitbart - founded the online rag known as The Huffington Post, ostensibly a Progressive organ, but - in reality - a subversive apparatus designed to sow disaffection and dissatisfaction amongst the lesser intellectually-endowed Progressive population.
This is the same Madame, who not only voted twice for George W Bush, but contributed to his campaign fund. And this is the same Madame whose unpaide
I don't see anything wrong with crowing about a singular achievement of a particular Administration, nor calling out words spoken on the record by your political opponent, which more than imply that he would have reacted differently, given the situation.
Now, it's also time for Democrats to start fighting back against the words spoken by someone who, in her lifetime, has held three different passports, whose journalistic record is peppered with plagiarism and who hasn't held an elective office in her life. Huffington is practicing Class A ratfuckery and really wants nothing more than to see the Republicans, whom she nurtured at her toxic bosom for decades, back in power led by a President to whose top-flight social status she aspires.
She should remember that when Icarus flew too close to the sun, his wings melted. Let's melt Madame's botox.
No comments:
Post a Comment