Team Obama would be wise to not respond to the ads directly, but rather to simply put out ads that feature Obama saying these exact words, with a tagline that shows the date he said them:
No other commentary, no reference to the idiots putting forth the idiotic theory that Obama took all the credit for himself. No comment needed about how the main proponent is a crazy birther, or that he was not even in the Forces at the time of Obama’s capture and death.
I think your model is flawed. The Swiftboating hurt Kerry because he was using his military service to make the claim that he was a better choice than Bush to lead the country, and the Swiftboating cast doubt on that service. His campaign didn’t respond to it effectively and in general he didn’t run a good campaign. When you consider the country’s deeply conflicted feelings about Vietnam, Kerry’s own mixed feelings about his own service, and the weaknesses inherent in campaigning based on long-ago military service, it’s not surprising that it hurt him. This is a much simpler claim: they’re not saying Obama did not really order the Bin Laden raid or that he didn’t really kill Bin Laden or something. They’re agreeing he did all that and saying he’s being impolite about it. So I ask again: so what? Obama drew contrasts with Bush and McCain on foreign policy, Romney really has nothing to offer in this regard.
It doesn’t matter. None of these people were voting for Obama.
The broader issue is that Leon Pannetta did not just march into the Oval Office one day and say they had a solid lead on Bin Laden. Obama told the CIA to make it a priority that Bin Laden be found because it had not been one in recent yeras, and as a consequence, new evidence turned up and eventually they located him in Abbottabad. It’s not something that just happened.
Let’s also remember that Romney himself criticized Obama during the prior election for saying that he would strike inside Pakistan to get at bin Laden.
In the last election Obama said he would pursue bin Laden into Pakistan even if it meant keeping the Pakistani government in the dark. Both Romney and McCain opposed that course of action. The raid that actually resulted in bin Laden’s death would not have happened if either of those men had been elected President. They either would have passed on the opportunity, or attempted a joint operation with Pakistani intelligence that would have resulted in Al Qaeda being tipped off in advance.
Well, the poo-flingers won’t confine themselves to one or two discrete points, they’ll fling *all kinds *of poo. We’ve already got: “taking too much credit”, “any President would have done it, so it’s not anything special”, “leaks are threatening the Seals/National Security”, “unspecified others actually made the decision anyway”, “he bungled the announcement, contaminating additional security value of found documents/etc”, and no doubt a few more I’m forgetting off the top of my head. Note that Birtherism/911ism/whatever, is never just one coherent narrative, but a jumble of (frequently contradictory) poo. I guess I just lack faith in some element of the middle who are clearly able to be impacted by loons (such as the 25% ‘unsure’ I keep referring to, and yes, I fear it could swing them. “So much smoke, there must be something to it”.
All of this has been out there since the day after Obama announced that Bin Laden was dead. This kind of fearful condescension is not going to do you any favors.
Well, you call it ‘fearful condescension’ if you want, and you may be right.
I call it being old enough to remember Nixon being roadkill, and then elected President, not once, but twice.
BTW, **you’re **the one that called them “loons” in the first place, so who are you to call me ‘condescending’?
I am.
Birthers are loons. The condescending part is the assumption that Obama could lose because a significant number of people could fall for this garbage about “taking credit.” People can be very dumb, but there are occasionally limits.
Clap
Clap
Quote:
[QUOTE=Gangster Octopus’s imitiation of what the nutbags think Obama should have said]
And so shortly after taking office, somebody directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al-Qaida, even as we continued our broader efforts to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat his network.
Then, last August, after years of painstaking work by our intelligence community, somebody was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden. It was far from certain, and it took many months to run this thread to ground. ** Somebody met repeatedly with my national security team as we developed more information about the possibility that we had located bin Laden hiding within a compound deep inside of Pakistan. And finally, last week, somebody determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice.
[/QUOTE]
What? This colossal egotist said that “** Somebody met repeatedly with my national security team”?? “MY national security team”? “MY”? Who does this presumptuous twerp think he is, calling them “my national security team”? Does he own them personally? We outlawed slavery 100 years ago. They’re American’s goddamned national security team! blablabla,rantrantrant,
I admire you, your optimism, and your certainty. I would agree it is a longshot that Obama could lose enough advantage from this to lose the election.
I never in a million years thought Shrub would be re-elected, either, after the mess he made of his first term.
Sometimes you’re paranoid, and sometimes they are out to get you…
Clap Clap Clap…
If you’re trying to turn the lights off, just use the damn switch already.
He’s trying to get the strobe effect.
And this just in, from your good friends at ThinkProgress (a lefty site, hence full of truth, justice, and crunchy goodness…)
Founder of Obama Swift-Boating Group Says “I’m a Birther”.
To try conceal your shock and surprise…
I used up my shock and surprise in post #154
Well, Marley is an admin, can stick a post in wherever he wishes. Did he show you a long form Certificate of Posting? I didn’t think so…
You have, at best, an incomplete picture. Also, I take McCain’s answer to King as not being as saying that he didn’t want to address the point. But here is the explanation he gave that I was remembering:
It says just what I recalled. And it is interesting to note that then-candidate Hillary Clinton was much more aligned with McCain and took Obama to task for his Pakistan comments.
Also, there’s a difference between knowing he’s in Pakistan and knowing which building he is in. But it is fair to point out that Obama’s been much more aggressive about fighting terrorists in pakistan than McCain or Clinton would have been, if we assume that McCain and Clinton would have continued Bush’s moderate policy. Obama’s policy on Pakistan is actually pretty radical and reckless, in a good way. Sometimes you have to be. Pakistan’s playing both sides.
Enomaj, I’m not sure if you’re applauding me or trying to give me the clap.