August 21, 2012 - 8:46 am
What was said in a press conference yesterday, is used in an ad today, to show that the president is either lying or does not know what his own campaign is doing and saying.
Stephanie Cutter did not accuse Mitt Romney of committing a felony on a lark. The campaign organized a teleconference with reporters to lobby that specific charge. Campaigns don’t set up teleconference by accident, and they don’t levy serious charges against opponents that haven’t been authorized by the candidate.
In this case, the Obama campaign based its accusations on flimsy, inaccurate and ill-informed reporting by Josh Marshall at TPM. The only question is where did that reporting originate, with Marshall or with the Obama campaign itself?
Of course. Obama was so used to puff piece coverage in 2008-09 that he expects it now. When challenged, the whole operation is confused and reacts poorly (like the example above). No wonder they are restricting their interviews to friendly outfits.
Note how the Ministry of Propaganda (a/k/a the LSM) does not call him out on this at the newsconference, and note how no one in the Ministry has said boo about the outright lie. Compare that to the pounding Akin is taking because he was too stupid to realize that the LSM is the Ministry of Propaganda.
Asterisk for Jake Tapper of ABC. See http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/21/Tapper-Slams-Obama-Presser
Akin deserves his pounding though. His comments were incredibly stupid. Although the dem claims that somehow Akins ignorant comments somehow represent the entire repub party (or even acurately represent the views of those who oppose the abortion rape exception) are equally stupid.
Most acts of sexual intercourse do not result in pregancy. I recall from trying to get kids on my first wife, that we initially had trouble due to stress affecting fertility. I guess that doesn’t happen any more. So much has science advanced, or so partisian pundits would pretend in pursuit of a good way to bash a Republican.
And “Legitmate Rape” is distinguished from rape as committed against Tawana Brawley, or as committed by the Duke Lacross Team. One could also distinguish between forcible and statutory rape. Of course Democrats only distinguish between rape types when the rapist is someone they like, as in e.g. Roman Polanski or someone related to the Kennedys.
What was that you said about incredibly stupid?
As I understood him, he was suggesting that punishment for rape should be inflicted on the rapist. The innocent child should not pay. Ideally the aspiring rapist would be shot by an armed and trained woman before he could commit the crime. Perhaps Democrats could support individual self defense a bit more?
Of course, perhaps today Democrats believe that the children of rapists should be murdered…. Even their adult children, or is it only very young children that Democrats are up to murdering? I don’t have much respect for their courage.
Perhaps it would sometimes be psycologically helpful to a woman raped, for her to complete her pregnancy, if one resulted, with the child resulting being considered a good thing, a gift from her to the child, that compensated the world for that bad event. That gift, by today’s laws, would be completely the mother’s choice, to give, or two withhold.
“The only question is where did that reporting originate, with Marshall or with the Obama campaign itself?”
Aren’t Talking Points Memo and Marshall a part of the Obama campaign?
THE COMMERCIAL I’D LIKE TO HAVE SEEN:
OBAMA: “When you’re running for President, your life should be an open book….”
ANNCR: “And, yet, President Obama has never released any of his transcripts from Occidental College, Columbia or Harvard. He never explained how he got a Social Security Number issued in Connecticut where, by the way, he never lived. And he has spent millions in legal fees to prevent Hawaiian officials from releasing his birth certificate.
OBAMA: “…your life should be an open book.
ANNCR: “Yes, it should be, Mr. President. Why don’t you lead by example?
You need to understand – he said ‘your life’ (Mitt, et al) – not ‘his life’ (nor democrats). He seems to have much to hide – we have much to uncover. Sooner or later we’ll find the truth about him and I have a feeling he’ll be tarred and feathered and unable to show his face in public – like Nixon went through. Well – I can dream can’t I???
This is constantly true of the dems. They love to apply rules to others that they never follow themselves, whether it is transparency, civility, attitudes and comments about women, and even free spech.
Man, why didn’t those goombah reporters howl in dismay at that whopper? How powerful is the Kool Aid over there at President Gutsy’s snack bar?
– kissing up to him now will be writing critical books about him after his presidency. Gotta make a living.
Wow, he took a question and I missed it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqnG27r-8tg
5000+ views on YouTube already
One lonely voice in six years? We are greatly dis-served by a lapdog media.
I want a serious discussion here, on why the polls at RealClearPolitics show that Obama is doing very well with the American electorate.
This cycle plays out in campaigns all over the world since the caveman days; both challengers and incumbents do it:
Candidate X takes oppo on Candidate(or incumbent) Y to Friendly Reporter (or blogger), who breaks story slamming Incumbent. Article and scary headlines then become part of the X’s earned & paid media ads and events. Repeat as needed.
The Cutter/Coptic is a case of basic incompetence and hishonesty. The moral imo is not “talking to outside reporting sources especially friendly ones is bad,” but is more “Dont be innaccurate or dishonest in your claims in the first place and you wont get burned.”
Excellent ad. I very much like the choice of words “in order to hold power”.
I have never seen those words used in a presidential political advertisement, and I think they are simple, direct, accurate, and reflect the nature of what is at stake.
Regular readers here would probably desire to see a bolder stance. I would suggest the ad is not aimed at those who are already convinced, but at those who are still fooled and therefore would not respond to more aggressive words.