Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Morning News: Vagina Ice Cream and… | Courtesy of My Brother »

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

2012 Two New Anti-Obama Ads

Posted by Paul Constant on Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:06 AM

I'm really surprised the Obama campaign is letting the Romney campaign frame the Medicare fight like this:

Now, all of a sudden, Obama is the mean man who wants to cut Medicare and Romney and Ryan are the nice young boys who want to save it. The Obama campaign has been way out front with their ads since the very beginning. They can't let Romney take the lead like this too many times between now and November. And as to the content of the ad: It's not true, according to Politifact.

The Romney campaign did not respond to our inquiry about this statement. We assume that when he said Obama cut Medicare, he was talking about the 2010 health care reform law that, among other things, reduces future Medicare spending by $500 billion.

But that’s just it — the cuts don’t come from the current Medicare budget, they put a leash on future growth and payment increases.

And after the jump is a new anti-Obama super PAC ad that takes Romney's disappointed-in-Obama theme and runs with it.

I dunno about this ad. I have a hard time believing this new-ish theory that voters need permission to vote against Barack Obama. The whole idea reminds me of the dumb theory that circulated in 2008 that voters would say while polling and talking to friends that they were pro-Obama but would secretly (and with racist intent) vote for McCain once they were in the privacy of the voting booth. It wasn't true then, and I don't think this narrative that people somehow would feel guilty about not voting for Obama is true now.

FacebookShare

Comments (12) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Wow. You're easily surprised.

Posted by DOUG.

on August 15, 2012 at 8:12 AM

For the 2nd Ad, meh I think the problem is that people are getting tired of the "Vote Romney, He's Not Obama!" Strategy. If Mitt ever wants to gain in the polls he will have to say something of substance that can be contrasted to Obama.

The first ad is more along these lines; but it's not accurate, and I think a properly done Obama ad can discredit it fairly easily.

Posted by Pick1 on August 15, 2012 at 8:27 AM

As a side note: Who is doing the URL stuff? Cause I'm getting so many 404 errors lately and they are taking longer to get fixed.

Posted by Pick1 on August 15, 2012 at 8:29 AM

This, and the Welfare waiver ads=demonstrably false.

Okay here's something I don't understand: For commercial advertisements it is AGAINST THE LAW to put false or misleading claims in your ads. Taco Bell can't say that Chipotle uses dog meat in their food, or if a toy robot is depicted in an ad flying or shooting lasers, there has to be a disclaimer at the bottom of the screen saying the toy can't actually do those things.

If it's not allowed for Taco Bell or Hasbro to do this, why is it allowed for political ads?! Not to be a pollyanna, but it would be nice if our campaign ads were held to the same rigorous standards as those for Hot Wheels playsets.

Posted by BostonFontSnob on August 15, 2012 at 8:31 AM

How would Obama stop ROmeny from making some ads?

@4 Personally I would prefer the government not police the truth of political claims. Commerce is one thing, a particular administration or judge probably has little vested interest in a fight between Taco Bell and Chipotle, and if they did it would be pretty easy to spot and account for say via financial disclosure. Not really so with politics where almost everyone is going to be biased and an administration or judge would constantly be in the position of judging their political allies or opponents.

Free speech can attend to itself.

Posted by giffy on August 15, 2012 at 8:48 AM

The Obama campaign and the Dems in general can't afford to trust ad "consumers" to figure out the inaccuracies in Romney's attack ads. That's how we lose. Nor can we issue ads that patiently point out the details of those inaccuracies. This campaign is emotionally based (as they always are) and the Dems must make ads that grab the emotions of people. The day of intellect in politics is over, if it ever existed.

Posted by sarah70 on August 15, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Romney and Rand...your choice if you want seniors to live under a bridge eating cat food during their golden years. I mean seriously, Obama should respond like that.

But then I think every Democrat on any ballot should run ads based on all Republicans wanting to force every young lady into back alley abortions. I mean how hard is it to run ads that should scare the shit out of any person from voting for the GOP?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on August 15, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I didn't look at the videos. That woman's angry looking face was enough to scare me off. I am not going to vote against Obama, because all the Obama haters tell me that they aren't against him because he is half African in descent but because he is a socialist. Don't believe people, especially when they are lying to themselves. What scares me is all the old people who are FOR Romney in spite of all the warning lights about his love thy neighbors values. He should be ashamed of himself, as a Mormon if not as a human being. It is apocalyptic when the richest society in the history of the human race can't take care of its own, but can afford to develop and deploy ever increasing lethal weapons against its 'enemies'. The time may not be too distant when all those death toys will be deployed against the American people, and those soldiers goose stepping in Red Dawn won't be foreigners but home grown fanatics.

Posted by Gonesouth on August 15, 2012 at 8:59 AM

What really matters is what state these ads are running in, and through what medium. There must be a way to determine that (or maybe not). My guess is that there are about 10 states where these will be seen 24/7.....

Oh - and back to something that may have deleterious consequences: Voter suppression.

The Pennyslvania case is important because Obama is running a 7-10% lead, which would be endangered by the voter suppression scheme. A look at swing states: Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, and New Hampshire, means that if you happen to watch a bit of TV, you should be thankful that you or I do not live there.

A good site for an overview of Voter ID laws state by state....

Posted by Sean Kinney

on August 15, 2012 at 10:13 AM

This is proof that it's the issue the GOP is really scared about.
The standard play for the GOP is to take your biggest weakness and project it on your opponent or take their biggest strength and turn it upside down.
The GOP version:
2008: Obama is the extremist and McCain is calm and sensible.
2004: Kerry is a wimp who never got more than a band aid in Vietnam while Bush is a war hero.
2000: Compassionate conservatism.
If they're trying to muddy the waters this early on Medicaire, you know it's their biggest weakness. Obama's team would be wise to get out in front of this now before the GOP BS sticks.

Posted by SPG on August 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Why the fuck would you quote politifact?

Posted by judgemental on August 16, 2012 at 12:29 AM

What I'd love to know for sure is if these are real people in these adds or paid actors ....I swear I've seen "Maria" in a Vonage add!

Posted by Rich P on August 27, 2012 at 9:26 AM