Republicans decry Obama campaign video

[Ed W]

From the Wall Street Journal:
In the days after the successful mission to hunt and kill Osama bin Laden, White House officials recoiled at any suggestion they would frame his death in a political context. One year later, Republicans say they are doing exactly that.

A new Obama campaign Web video spotlights former President Bill Clinton praising President Obama's decision to order the mission and questions whether Republican challenger Mitt Romney would have done the same.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577372280348193496.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Republicans, of course, would never engage in such tactics.  Their way is always truth, honor, and justice....except when it's not.

[nathanm]

Republicans, of course, would never engage in such tactics.  Their way is always truth, honor, and justice....except when it's not.

The difference, of course, being that crowing over your lack of achievement and calling it "mission accomplished" is just humor. When you've actually accomplished the mission, pointing that fact out in response to claims you're "weak on defense" is boorish gloating.

What's really funny is how everyone expects Republicans to be complete smile heels, so nobody really cares when they are. The Republicans, however, expect Democrats to be perfectly civil and extremely mindful of decorum and whine loudly when they are not. For the party that calls itself the tough one, they sure act like wimps. I suspect it's just an extension of the persecution complex that many of their hangers-on harbor.

[Red Arrow]

From the Wall Street Journal:
In the days after the successful mission to hunt and kill Osama bin Laden, White House officials recoiled at any suggestion they would frame his death in a political context. One year later, Republicans say they are doing exactly that.
A new Obama campaign Web video spotlights former President Bill Clinton praising President Obama's decision to order the mission and questions whether Republican challenger Mitt Romney would have done the same.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304723304577372280348193496.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Any chance of you quoting the entire article?  I choose not to subscribe to the WSJ just to get one article.

[nathanm]

Click this link, then click through to the article: Google News Search

[Red Arrow]

What's really funny is how everyone expects Republicans to be complete smile heels, so nobody really cares when they are. The Republicans, however, expect Democrats to be perfectly civil and extremely mindful of decorum and whine loudly when they are not.

The Democrats promote themselves as the politically correct, never offending anybody....... party.  There's no sense in letting an opportunity to point out that they are not to slip by.

[Red Arrow]

Click this link, then click through to the article: Google News Search

Thanks

[nathanm]

The Democrats promote themselves as the politically correct, never offending anybody....... party.

No. Some Democrats think that's what the party should be. Many others do not. Kinda like some Republicans believe in evolution and others don't.

I think most all Democrats do believe they shouldn't be racist, misogynist, homophobic, or otherwise prejudiced against others merely for the circumstances of their birth. That is not at all the same thing as saying they don't want to offend anybody or care much about being nice.

[Red Arrow]

That is not at all the same thing as saying they don't want to offend anybody or care much about being nice.

Then they need to work on their presentation.

[nathanm]

Then they need to work on their presentation.

Given that the only things the part of the Republican party that is presently electing people to office hear about the Democrats comes from right wing talk radio, I don't think presentation is really the problem here. The problem is that the part of the electorate with the most influence over the party only ever hears one side of the story.

The Democrats, for better or worse, don't suffer from the same problem (or enjoy the same luxury, if you prefer). By and large, only moderate Democrats get elected in most of the country, and they don't have the big messaging machine that the Republicans have. That's not to say that the left "wing" (more aptly described as "a feather with a bit of gristle"..not my invention) didn't try with Air America, but they haven't really been successful. I guess the best effort so far is the MSNBC of the last few years, but they still get less than half the viewers Fox News does.

[Teatownclown]

more campaign video!

[Teatownclown]

and the response:

[Ed W]

Any chance of you quoting the entire article?  I choose not to subscribe to the WSJ just to get one article.

I think the links on Google News go directly to the piece, circumventing any paywall.  But I could be wrong.  Also, I've learned there's a way around the newly installed 10 article limit on the New York Times site, though I haven't had a need for it yet.  Dunno if it works with the Whirled.

I normally use excerpts because they're protected as a fair use of the material, though AP tried to insist that as few as 5 words constituted theft of their rights at one time.  Dunno if they ever pursued anyone for it.  I'd be unhappy to find that someone took one of my pieces in its entirety, so I'm careful to extend that same courtesy to others.

[Red Arrow]

Given that the only things the part of the Republican party that is presently electing people to office hear about the Democrats comes from right wing talk radio, I don't think presentation is really the problem here. The problem is that the part of the electorate with the most influence over the party only ever hears one side of the story.

You are over simplifying or in denial of what an acceptable alternative is.  Someone here (I don't remember who at the moment.) poo-pooed the concept of looking at a candidate's philosophy as opposed to what they have/will accomplish.  I think a candidate's philosophy is still important.  If enough candidates with a like philosophy get elected, it creates a majority and their philosophy becomes law within some limits.  I believe there are a significant number of Republicans that would rather tolerate a bit of right-wing philosophy than tolerate liberal philosophy.  I will admit there are several in the OK legislature that need to be voted out just to make sure we don't get more "Personhood" type bills.  As I told Heiron, give us some acceptable alternatives, acceptable to Republicans.

The Democrats, for better or worse, don't suffer from the same problem (or enjoy the same luxury, if you prefer). By and large, only moderate Democrats get elected in most of the country, and they don't have the big messaging machine that the Republicans have. That's not to say that the left "wing" (more aptly described as "a feather with a bit of gristle"..not my invention) didn't try with Air America, but they haven't really been successful. I guess the best effort so far is the MSNBC of the last few years, but they still get less than half the viewers Fox News does.

You are focusing on the media presentation.  That is only part of what I had in mind.

I think most all Democrats do believe they shouldn't be racist, misogynist, homophobic, or otherwise prejudiced against others merely for the circumstances of their birth.

In order to show this, words become unacceptable or otherwise politically incorrect.  Other words are chosen to take their place until they too become unacceptable as they develop the same derogatory connotations the old words did because the new words did not fix the underlying problem.

[Red Arrow]

I think the links on Google News go directly to the piece, circumventing any paywall.  But I could be wrong.  Also, I've learned there's a way around the newly installed 10 article limit on the New York Times site, though I haven't had a need for it yet.  Dunno if it works with the Whirled.

I normally use excerpts because they're protected as a fair use of the material, though AP tried to insist that as few as 5 words constituted theft of their rights at one time.  Dunno if they ever pursued anyone for it.  I'd be unhappy to find that someone took one of my pieces in its entirety, so I'm careful to extend that same courtesy to others.

I understand and agree with the copyright issues.  The little bit of writing style lessons I remember about newspapers is the the glory stuff comes first.  Supporting details come later.  Judgement about the supporting details can lead to a different analysis of the glory stuff.

[nathanm]

I believe there are a significant number of Republicans that would rather tolerate a bit of right-wing philosophy than tolerate liberal philosophy.

Most democrats won't support a policy if you call it "liberal." Don't attach a label to it and suddenly the electorate agrees much more closely with the Demcrats than the Republicans. The right wing's demonization of the term "liberal" has had quite a significant effect.