You’re quoting the blog of a right-winger, hardly an objective source. Some of the companies that Bain torched were profitable. It’s well known that Bain saddled them with debt, plundered the assets, raided the pension fund, and let the employees to fend for themselves.
I’m fine with PACs. I don’t have time to produce a television commercial, so I like being able to pool my money with other people to do it more efficiently.
I’m also fine with this ad airing. It might do some harm to Romney, but I doubt it. It certainly does less harm than a reasonable, non-hyperbolic ad would that people wouldn’t just laugh at and might actually strike a chord with.
For an example of a great, effective ad, see this one:
Not unfair. Full context given. Absolutely devastating to Obama. I hope Romney keeps airing it and more like it.
I’d say both.
People largely fall into two categories on this:
-
Don’t follow politics. Don’t know what Citizen’s United is. Assume that all ads come from the candidates and don’t pay attention to details.
-
Know about Citizen’s United. Might like it or hate it. Cynically assume that Super PACs, especially the main ones like Priorities USA which are run by former campaign staff, are working with the campaign on some level.
Thanks for the chuckle. It might appeal to those who hate Obama anyway. The phony outrage over the “you didn’t build that” statement is old news now and hasn’t moved the polls. Maybe you should resurrect the old “cling to guns and religion” tape.
What exactly do you mean by “Full context given”? I took that to mean that Pres Obama’s remarks were not edited, but it must mean something else.
Really, no third category of people who know what’s going on?
It played large blocks of Obama’s statement, not just the “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that” part. I’ll grant you it doesn’t play the “roads and bridges” part, but it makes it very clear what Obama was talking about. But, short of just playing Obama’s speech exactly word for word without any editing or commentary, it’s as “in context” as these sort of political attack ads get.
This. When you live by cheap appeals to the peanut gallery, you don’t get to whine and moan about low blows. Live by the sword; die by the sword.
I’d argue that category #2 ARE the people who “know what’s going on”.
If you know what’s going on though, please enlighten us.
First of all there hasn’t been a single cite in this thread yet of conservatives whining or moaning about it. It’s more of a sense of amazement of how over the top it is.
Secondly, your comment could be pointed right back at Obama for playing this ad. Next time Romney hits him with something unfair, like when he quoted Obama who was quoting McCain, Obama can just live by the sword, die by the sword.
You allege that the Obama campaign is illegally coordinating with Priorities USA, I say post proof or STFU.
You’ve got me. I don’t have a video in my hand at this moment of Obama illegally coordinating with his former staffers who now run his largest PAC.
That must mean it never happens.
Somebody tell Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert. They’re going to need to start working on some new material.
:rolleyes:
No, I’m an American that believes in the concept of innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on you.
Yes the ad is disingenuous, just like, unfortunately, a large proportion of political ads. I don’t care for this type of thing from either side.
But “over the top” and “a sign of panic and desperation”? Seriously? I find those two descriptions to themselves be over the top and signs of panic and desperation on the part of the right. 
Seriously though, they sound more like right-wing manufactured outrage than anything else, and when the right starts attacking something with this kind of faux outrage you know they see it as a danger.
It makes clear that Obama’s remark was about small business owners not having built roads and bridges by selectively editing out any reference to roads and bridges?
Holy crap, your definition of context is unlike any I have ever heard of.
I’ll grant you that incident with the intruder in your balcony wasn’t very pleasant, but other than that how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?
Now now, you’re taking what Debaser said out of “context”.
Suffice it to say I disagree that Obama was only speaking about who built roads and bridges. His comments are clearly disrespectful to small business owners and it’s plain to see, especially in full context.
I don’t expect you to agree, of course.
Do you really expect Romney not to use that statement against him? It’s free money.
Well, no, any more than you should expect us to agree with “The moon landings were a hoax”, “The pyramids were built by space aliens”, or any other such absurdity.
But you’re just factually wrong that the statement is in context. You can view it as being an insulting statement - fine. I’m not here to tell you what you may and may not be offended over.
But the debate on the context of the remark is to the degree to which Obama was relating “build[ing] that” to roads and bridges… and the ad that you says has context REMOVES the roads and bridges part, and plays a lot of other stuff. That’s quite literally the textbook definition of taking things out of context.
Now, I see, that you’re changing your position: maybe the context wasn’t there, but Romney sees it as an effective attack ad. Well, no argument there, unless you’re implying that it is an honest attack ad.
ETA: By the way, you might want to think about rephrasing your statement about Obama’s comments being offensive to small business owners. We heard from numerous small business owners on this board who were not offended in the least. Perhaps you should say that Obama’s comments were offensive to Romney voters, which is utterly unsurprising. Tea Party types nearly have a coronary if the President says “Good morning.” “OH YEAH?!?!? WHAT’S SO GOOD ABOUT IT, SOCIALIST!?!?!?!”