2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

what?

it does not make him petty and pathetic to take credit for something for which he is being openly applauded by his direct rival

It makes him petty and pathetic to use it to attack his rival with, there is a difference between taking credit, and welding it as a political hammer to attack his rivals. Something Obama has done, and as I posted, he is being attacked from the left and right for.

[kurai]

perhaps romney should not have started by saying something that he later would have to change his position on?

this is kind of a constant problem for him - pointing this sort of thing out will be a pretty substantial part of the anti-romney campaign

but anyway this particular subject arises due to the one-year anniversary and the fact that this event was a substantial boon to obama's approval rating when it initially happened

have we already forgotten 2004? if you say or do anything at all critical of military operations, you get destroyed for being weak and indecisive while your opponent takes the credit

[Roy Karrde]

perhaps romney should not have started by saying something that he later would have to change his position on?

this is kind of a constant problem for him - pointing this sort of thing out will be a pretty substantial part of the anti-romney campaign

Romney said that he wouldn't spend billions going after Bin Laden, but would keep the options open, a sentiment echoed by the left, including Chris Dodd, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Vice President Joe Biden during the campaign in 2007.

But however that does not negate the fact that Obama is using a unifying moment as a political tool.

but anyway this particular subject arises due to the one-year anniversary and the fact that this event was a substantial boon to obama's approval rating when it initially happened

In which case, downplay your role, act humble, thank those that did the mission, and say it was a event all Americans can take part in. Don't use it as a political tool, because again that only makes you look petty and pathetic. Or as Mrs. Huffington of the Huffington Post called it "despicable"

have we already forgotten 2004? if you say or do anything at all critical of military operations, you get destroyed for being weak and indecisive while your opponent takes the credit

2004 was also right after the 9/11 attacks in which security was front in mind with Americans, no one can say that now. Furthermore I do not remember George W Bush saying that John Kerry would not have acted properly during 9/11

[Dark Sage]

Do you really think any sane politician is going to admit that he opposed the strike that killed the world's most wanted terrorist?

Do that, and your popularity would take a freefall.

[Roy Karrde]

Do you really think any sane politician is going to admit that he opposed the strike that killed the world's most wanted terrorist?

Do that, and your popularity would take a freefall.

Obama would want you to think Romney would.

Obviously no one would, as it is much better to attempt the strike and fail than to not attempt the strike and let it come out. Just ask Bill Clinton. However the big beef with the 2007 campaign from Hillary and the rest was that Obama made a rookie mistake by publicly saying he would violate Pakistan's airspace. It is fine to privately say that, but by saying it in a public forum, he is giving Pakistan the heads up that something may be coming. And inturn endanger the operation by having Pakistan boost their defenses.

[kurai]

it was a "political tool" long before it actually happened

it was a campaign promise in the 2008 season - that's where the quote comes from

OBAMA: What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants. And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

(this was from the debate in which McCain memorably said "I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him. I'll get him no matter what and I know how to do it.")

so we're talking about a specific course of action which a presidential candidate openly expressed his intentions to complete

this course of action was taken and successfully accomplished - and widely received as an achievement for the obama administration

this is not just randomly taking credit, though!

during this same campaign, the proposed pakistan incursion was criticized by the gop, and romney took part in this (as we have seen)

now we see the transition of this event into what is now called a "unifying moment", but in fact the proposal of the very same process was itself criticized.

it was not a unified plan to conduct a military operation into pakistan for the purpose of killing obl! obama was ridiculed for this!

so yes, obama will take credit for taking an action promised in the last campaign (which was opposed outright). it is strange to call this petty and pathetic. it is a rare issue on which obama is particularly strong and decisive.

also, kerry was indeed criticized for voting against intelligence/military funding in the lead-up to 9/11 - it was a pretty notable part of the campaign to prove he was wrong for america on national defense (ie. these liberal cowards voted in a manner which made america less safe and allowed 9/11 to happen, and aren't supporting our troops in iraq)

[Roy Karrde]

it was a "political tool" long before it actually happened

it was a campaign promise in the 2008 season - that's where the quote comes from

OBAMA: What I've said is we're going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants. And if we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I think that we have to act and we will take them out. We will kill bin Laden; we will crush Al Qaida. That has to be our biggest national security priority.

(this was from the debate in which McCain memorably said "I'll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I'll get him. I know how to get him. I'll get him no matter what and I know how to do it.")

so we're talking about a specific course of action which a presidential candidate openly expressed his intentions to complete

I wouldn't necessarily call it a political tool, neither side was saying that the other WOULDN'T take out Osama Bin Laden, as Obama is doing here, they all seem to agree they would kill him if they had the opportunity.

this course of action was taken and successfully accomplished - and widely received as an achievement for the obama administration

Which again you celebrate as a moment for all Americans, instead of using it as a political hammer against your opponents.

this is not just randomly taking credit, though!

during this same campaign, the proposed pakistan incursion was criticized by the gop, and romney took part in this (as we have seen)

As it was opposed by the Democrats for a variety of reasons. Now Romney did not say that if the opportunity presented itself that he wouldn't kill Osama Bin Laden, as Obama falsely claims. But as Clinton, Dodd, and the rest said, you do not try to publicly undermine Pakistan's sovereignty. If you want to acknowledge privately that you would go in with or with out Pakistani approval that is fine, saying it publicly opens up a whole new can of worms.

now we see the transition of this event into what is now called a "unifying moment", but in fact the proposal of the very same process was itself criticized.

it was not a unified plan to conduct a military operation into pakistan for the purpose of killing obl! obama was ridiculed for this!

Did anyone, and I mean anyone, say that if they had information on Osama Bin Laden they would not take the shot?

so yes, obama will take credit for taking an action promised in the last campaign (which was opposed outright). it is strange to call this petty and pathetic. it is a rare issue on which obama is particularly strong and decisive.

It is petty and pathetic to make it a campaign issue against your opponent, again it is taking a moment of national unity and using it to be devicive.

also, kerry was indeed criticized for voting against intelligence/military funding in the lead-up to 9/11 - it was a pretty notable part of the campaign to prove he was wrong for america on national defense (ie. these liberal cowards voted in a manner which made america less safe and allowed 9/11 to happen, and aren't supporting our troops in iraq)

And that was in response to Kerry and the Democrats saying that Bush ignored reports in the lead up to 9/11. And if Romney had voted or suggested cutting Seal Funding or CIA or Black Site funding you would have a point.

But you don't, a proper comparison would be if Bush said that Kerry would have acted differently in ON 9/11 as that was a moment of paramount decision, just as Obama is saying Romney would have acted differently ON the Bin Laden raid, as that was a moment of paramount decision.

[kurai]

obama was criticized for proposing a pakistan raid to kill obl - now he is being criticized for taking credit in doing so. this was a partisan issue in 2008; it is, of course, going to be used in 2012. he was criticized from both sides on it during the primary. this isn't particularly relevant - he won the primary, the party fell in line, he won the election, he executed the plan.

but yes, actually, the entire opening quote of romney states that excessive funding should not be used to kill one person - "I wouldn't want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden." the billions of dollars which should not be spent includes the specialized training for seal team 6. what seal team 6 does is micro-scale insertion operations - exactly what killing obl required. the campaign against kerry as a result of funding criticism is directly analogous.

obama did concentrate on bin laden, and this concentrated raid and continuation of funding succeeded in killing bin laden. romney is unable to insert himself into the timeline with a claim that he would focus on small scale assassination when he deliberately staked his position elsewhere. he can say "yeah i said i wanted him to be dead", but both his party and himself personally were not behind the plan which was used.

it is inescapable that obama 'got it done' and his rivals campaigned against the specific plan which was used.

but this has been transfigured into a situation in which, because 'everyone' said obl ought to die, obviously the competitors would have done the same thing given the same situation even though they expressly opposed the plan which succeeded. this is misleading - we are engaged in a rovian dialectic.

"Look, I don’t attack people on their weaknesses. That usually doesn’t get the job done. Voters already perceive weaknesses. You’ve got to go after the other guy’s strengths. That’s how you win."

such is the key pivot on which modern american politics swivel

[Roy Karrde]

obama was criticized for proposing a pakistan raid to kill obl - now he is being criticized for taking credit in doing so. this was a partisan issue in 2008; it is, of course, going to be used in 2012. he was criticized from both sides on it during the primary. this isn't particularly relevant - he won the primary, the party fell in line, he won the election, he executed the plan.

He was criticized for saying it publicly, that there could be repercussions from it both politically and militarily in Pakistan, get it right. Clinton, Dodd, McCain and the rest did not say Obama would never go after Osama.

but yes, actually, the entire opening quote of romney states that excessive funding should not be used to kill one person - "I wouldn't want to over-concentrate on Bin Laden." the billions of dollars which should not be spent includes the specialized training for seal team 6. what seal team 6 does is micro-scale insertion operations - exactly what killing obl required. the campaign against kerry as a result of funding criticism is directly analogous.

Seal Team 6 is already funded, it was not directly created for the missions, it does a variety of missions already. Nor did Romney ever hint or suggest at defunding them. So no the criticism is not analogous, try again.

obama did concentrate on bin laden, and this concentrated raid and continuation of funding succeeded in killing bin laden. romney is unable to insert himself into the timeline with a claim that he would focus on small scale assassination when he deliberately staked his position elsewhere. he can say "yeah i said i wanted him to be dead", but both his party and himself personally were not behind the plan which was used.

Really, show me the exact quote where the party said they would have done differently on the exact same situation with the exact plan? Quote, Date, Person.

it is inescapable that obama 'got it done' and his rivals campaigned against the specific plan which was used.

Again they campaigned on him saying it openly as it could have consequences in Pakistan and our relation to them, as well as jeopardize the success of a mission:

"You can think big, but remember, you shouldn't always say everything you think if you're running for president, because it has consequences around the world," Sen. Hillary Clinton

....

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd joined Clinton in criticizing Obama. He said Obama's stance could undermine Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, the country's military ruler, who has been a U.S. ally in the fight against al Qaeda.

....

But Clinton countered by saying that while U.S. forces might have to pursue action inside Pakistan "on the basis of actionable intelligence," it was "a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamist extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and the Taliban."

but this has been transfigured into a situation in which, because 'everyone' said obl ought to die, obviously the competitors would have done the same thing given the same situation even though they expressly opposed the plan which succeeded. this is misleading - we are engaged in a rovian dialectic.

Really? Clinton said this:

But Clinton countered by saying that while U.S. forces might have to pursue action inside Pakistan "on the basis of actionable intelligence,"

Biden said this:

"Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts," Biden said. "It's already the policy of the United States -- has been for four years -- that there's actionable intelligence, we would go into Pakistan."

Romney said this:

It’s wrong for a person running for president of the United States to get on TV and say we’re going to go into your country unilaterally. Of course America always maintains our option to do whatever we think is in the best interest of America. But we don’t go out and say “ladies and gentleman of Germany, if ever there was a problem in your country [and] we didn’t think you were doing the right thing, we reserve the right to come in and get them out”. We don’t say those things, we keep our options quiet.

ALL of those things suggest that they would go after him if the chance provided, ALL of them say they would also not go around telegraphing to the world what they were going to do, as that has dangerous repercussions, and THAT is what Obama did.

"Look, I don’t attack people on their weaknesses. That usually doesn’t get the job done. Voters already perceive weaknesses. You’ve got to go after the other guy’s strengths. That’s how you win."

such is the key pivot on which modern american politics swivel

Thing is by attacking Romney on this, he is taking his own strength and making it a weakness, because not only is the left attacking him on this, but the military is too.

[kurai]

the issue is not just openly stating that you would unilaterally go into pakistan

that is only one of the positions romney held, and that isn't the quote that is being used in the ad here

recall that "It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

an example of spending such 'billions of dollars' includes the very funding of seal team 6 - a unit specifically designed for small-scale operations. one example of such operations aimed towards the killing of one person was the seal team 6 assassination of obl.

in the same interview, romney's very next claim is that "Yes, [the world would be safer], but by a small percentage increase – a very insignificant increase in safety by virtue of replacing bin Laden with someone else. Zarqawi – we celebrated the killing of Zarqawi, but he was quickly replaced. Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is – it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin Laden or a few of his associates."

a targeted approach for bin Laden would have "a very insignificant increase in safety"; it is not worth "moving heaven and earth." seal team 6 is the targeted approach which romney claims can only bring about an insignificant effect.

the assassination directly contradicts this central argument which romney provides.

his argument is as such:
1) the value gained from the assassination of one person is minimal
2) such a plan should not be announced publicly (as was a common criticism)
therefore,
3) the direct and indirect cost of obama's plan is not worth the potential gain

yet we find that the american public accept the direct cost (they approve of the action) and that the indirect cost is nullified (nothing happened as a consequence of the actual event)

romney should not have downplayed the death of obl in 2007 in such a manner - his criticism didn't work out in reality - but obviously he couldn't see the future. he could not have known at the time that mccain would lose the election and obama would succeed in actually overseeing obl's death.

instead, obama did discuss the plan publicly, and the plan was actually executed. and obama gained 6 points from the event when the result was announced. the death of obl is a wild success for obama and a position on which romney can be made to appear weak - or at least not as strong.

such is part of the 10-15 point lead over romney on security and foreign affairs

[Roy Karrde]

the issue is not just openly stating that you would unilaterally go into pakistan

that is only one of the positions romney held, and that isn't the quote that is being used in the ad here

recall that "It's not worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person."

an example of spending such 'billions of dollars' includes the very funding of seal team 6 - a unit specifically designed for small-scale operations. one example of such operations aimed towards the killing of one person was the seal team 6 assassination of obl.

And again he is stating to spending billions of dollars on just that one mission, just catching that one person. Again the billions of dollars are already being spent already on missions used by Seal Team 6, now if Seal Team 6 had been specially created, trained, appropriated funds, and flown to Afghanistan only to attack Bin Laden, you would have a point. But since they have already been trained, were in Afghanistan, already had equipment and such, and had already been used on other missions. You don't have a point.

And mind you, the Obama commercial cuts off one very important part: "It is worth fashioning and
executing an effective strategy to defeat global, violent Jihad and I have a plan for doing that.""

Romney was speaking of defeating Jihad as a whole, not putting all of our time and resources into killing Bin Laden, something I will remind you that even Obama followed. Because at the end of the day, Bin Laden is a man cut off from his network with very little control over it. Spending all of our time and money working only to kill him does not stop a single al Qaeda mission, nor does it really weaken the leadership in control of it now.

tin the same interview, romney's very next claim is that "Yes, [the world would be safer], but by a small percentage increase – a very insignificant increase in safety by virtue of replacing bin Laden with someone else. Zarqawi – we celebrated the killing of Zarqawi, but he was quickly replaced. Global Jihad is not an effort that is being populated by a handful or even a football stadium full of people. It is – it involves millions of people and is going to require a far more comprehensive strategy than a targeted approach for bin Laden or a few of his associates."

And from Bin Laden's documents we know that is true, you do not conduct a entire war on destroying one man, especially when that one man is largely cut off from the operation. That is not how even Obama has managed the war.

ta targeted approach for bin Laden would have "a very insignificant increase in safety"; it is not worth "moving heaven and earth." seal team 6 is the targeted approach which romney claims can only bring about an insignificant effect.

Which does not mean that he wouldn't take him out if he didn't take the opportunity, it means that he is not going to divert the war on terror into killing Bin Laden alone, and not work to take down his entire organization. I ask you, which is more important, killing Bin Laden? Or defeating al Qaeda? Because you seem to believe that killing Bin Laden is the better approach, than al Qaeda's defeat.

the assassination directly contradicts this central argument which romney provides.

his argument is as such:
1) the value gained from the assassination of one person is minimal
2) such a plan should not be announced publicly (as was a common criticism)
therefore,
3) the direct and indirect cost of obama's plan is not worth the potential gain

yet we find that the american public accept the direct cost (they approve of the action) and that the indirect cost is nullified (nothing happened as a consequence of the actual event)

And Romney was absolutely right on the first one, on the second one we were lucky that it did not become a rallying cry from Jihadist for taking down the Pakistani Government.

Third you have to take a nuanced approached, would sending a private Seal team in be worth the cost? Of course, and that is one of the options Romney talked about in my quote. Would bombing Bin Laden's compound be worth the cost? Of course, again another option. Would invading Pakistan ala the Bush Doctrine of 2001, be worth the cost? No of course not. You cannot assume that there is only one cost that Romney was talking about.

romney should not have downplayed the death of obl in 2007 in such a manner - his criticism didn't work out in reality - but obviously he couldn't see the future. he could not have known at the time that mccain would lose the election and obama would succeed in actually overseeing obl's death.

And yet Romney was right, and shown to be right when Bin Laden's raid uncovered the information to show that al Qaeda was not listening to Bin Laden. Romney was taking a macro view of the war on terror, looking at how to defeat the enemy, not just how to get a figure head.

instead, obama did discuss the plan publicly, and the plan was actually executed. and obama gained 6 points from the event when the result was announced. the death of obl is a wild success for obama and a position on which romney can be made to appear weak - or at least not as strong.

And Obama stupidly endangered the security of a nuclear power. Is it making Romney look weak? Or is it making Obama look petty? Right now Romney is taking the high road and saying this is a event for all Americans. While Obama is taking the low road and attacking him. Furthermore it looks even worse for Obama as members of his own base are coming out and attacking him on it. And even further than that you have members of the military now coming out in attacking Obama.

In conclusion Obama has taken his ONE strength in this election, and turned it into a weakness, but making Romney look like the victim, and by having the military and members of his own party attack him for it.

[kurai]

i think you are misunderstanding what i'm providing here?

i'm not arguing that a particular side of this argument was more correct than the other (as a consequence of the events of 2008 and 2011) but rather that one has a much better position on which to build a campaign moving forward

the validity of romney's nuanced critique is unimportant - it stands as a critique, in contrast to the assassination which itself is viewed as a success. the simplification involved in such characterization is the essence of the "One Chance" video; obama's mission, obama's victory, whereas his opponents stand ineffectively as mere critics.

this is the value of the kerry comparison: nuanced criticism of military operations by a presidential candidate is looked upon unfavorably regardless of its truth value if conducted too closely to the event in question. this event is too recent to gain a benefit from being associated with its criticism in any way, and romney clearly provided the argument that obama had the wrong strategy to solve the problem.

it is sufficient to say that that this premise favors the person in charge who stood behind the plan as was actually executed, as opposed to the one who criticized that person (to whichever degree you are willing to accept).

consider then why romney is then taking such a high road: this is the very denial of obama's strength. in the past, romney criticized the person who then solved the problem in the role of commander-in-chief after the fact - to dilute the effects of this, people need to be convinced that the credit for this event ought to be dispersed.

but initially, the assassination of obl was very effective in capturing the swing segment - nothing seems to suggest that such swing can not be captured again (though from the negative side) on this anniversary. yes, arianna huffington is personally offended by the ad. nonetheless, campaigning on the basis of this (problem? criticism v solution) premise, to the advantage of one party over the other, ought to result in an expansion of the approval gap on defense/security.

[Roy Karrde]

i think you are misunderstanding what i'm providing here?

i'm not arguing that a particular side of this argument was more correct than the other (as a consequence of the events of 2008 and 2011) but rather that one has a much better position on which to build a campaign moving forward

the validity of romney's nuanced critique is unimportant - it stands as a critique, in contrast to the assassination which itself is viewed as a success. the simplification involved in such characterization is the essence of the "One Chance" video; obama's mission, obama's victory, whereas his opponents stand ineffectively as mere critics.

And yet here is the important part, and where the critique comes in. Obama can choose one path in which he takes the high road, talking about how brave the Navy Seals were, how that was a moment for everyone, basically touching on all the themes of his 2004 speech. Or he can use it to attack his opponent.

By choosing the path to attack his opponent, he has several hurdles to overcome. He has to look like he isn't politicizing a American event, he has to hope that Romney fires back with a blow that makes Romney look even worse. But most importantly of all, he has to make the American public believe that Romney wouldn't order the mission.

At this point he is loosing out on all three of those, and in essence he took what was a very large strength for him, and completely turned it into a weakness.

this is the value of the kerry comparison: nuanced criticism of military operations by a presidential candidate is looked upon unfavorably regardless of its truth value if conducted too closely to the event in question. this event is too recent to gain a benefit from being associated with its criticism in any way, and romney clearly provided the argument that obama had the wrong strategy to solve the problem.

it is sufficient to say that that this premise favors the person in charge who stood behind the plan as was actually executed, as opposed to the one who criticized that person (to whichever degree you are willing to accept).

But again that is flawed in and of itself, as it asks the American public to believe that Romney would not have chosen the mission. That when push came to shove that he would not have ordered it. That in many ways is like questioning a person's patriotism, and that is where the Kerry comparison failed.

Because while with Kerry you could say "Well it was before 9/11 and it just shows Democrats are weak on security".

Here you are asking people to believe that Romney would have passed on the opportunity to kill Bin Laden. I cannot honestly see how that is not a bridge too far for the American public, as unlike Kerry, it is questioning what they would have done at a very important American situation.

consider then why romney is then taking such a high road: this is the very denial of obama's strength. in the past, romney criticized the person who then solved the problem in the role of commander-in-chief after the fact - to dilute the effects of this, people need to be convinced that the credit for this event ought to be dispersed.

Do you honestly believe the public does not believe the credit should be dispersed? That it was all Obama? That the credit does not go to the Navy Seals that carried out the mission? The same Navy Seals that are now criticizing him for politicizing this event.

but initially, the assassination of obl was very effective in capturing the swing segment - nothing seems to suggest that such swing can not be captured again (though from the negative side) on this anniversary. yes, arianna huffington is personally offended by the ad. nonetheless, campaigning on the basis of this (problem? criticism v solution) premise, to the advantage of one party over the other, ought to result in an expansion of the approval gap on defense/security.

Here is the thing, it captured a swing segment because it was a situation that was a very American event, it was a event to be proud of the nation as a whole. This is the same as say the rebuilding effort after 9/11 it is a moment to be proud of the nation for creating this accomplishment.

In essence this wasn't a political victory, but a American victory. By trying to turn it into a political victory, he is misreading the event, and in reality polluting it by injecting American politics in. Such a thing can take that swing segment and turn it against him for trashing such a event with politics.

[kurai]

i think you are discounting the degree to which an "american victory", as you put it, is a very strong point on which the incumbent american leader can campaign.

the "One Chance" ad characterizes the negative side of the issue, telegraphed well in advance. no one needs to actually believe that romney would not have acted the same way; the evidence that he criticized the actor is sufficiently detrimental. that is how the ad works: because romney put forth one criticism, one can 'just ask questions' about his efficacy on the entire subject. it is the first of a thousand cuts.

this just opens the door. now that it is open we are able to observe - more or less in real time - the positive side of obama's messaging strategy on this issue.

it is not merely coincidence that today obama is in afghanistan providing a primetime address on the very same issue:

THE PRESIDENT: We don't go looking for a fight. But when we see our homeland violated, when we see our fellow citizens killed, then we understand what we have to do. And because of the sacrifices now of a decade, and a new Greatest Generation, not only were we able to blunt the Taliban momentum, not only were we able to drive al Qaeda out of Afghanistan, but slowly and systematically we have been able to decimate the ranks of al Qaeda, and a year ago we were able to finally bring Osama bin Laden to justice.

TROOPS: Hooah! (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: That could have only happened because each and every one of you, in your own way, were doing your jobs. Each and every one of you -- without a lot of fanfare, without a lot of fuss -- you did your jobs. No matter how small or how big, you were faithful to the oath that you took to protect this nation. And your families did their job -- supporting you and loving you and remembering you and being there for you.

And so, together, you guys represent what is best in America. And you're part of a long line of those who have worn this uniform to make sure that we are free and secure, to make sure that those of us at home have the capacity to live our lives. And when you're missing a birthday or you're missing a soccer game or when you're missing an anniversary, and those of us back home are able to enjoy it, it's because of you.

And I'm here to tell you, everybody in America knows that. And everybody in America appreciates it. And everybody in America honors it. And when the final chapter of this war is written, historians will look back and say, not only was this the greatest fighting force in the history of the world, but all of you also represented the values of America in an exemplary way.

I could not be prouder of you. And I want you to understand, I know it's still tough. I know the battle is not yet over. Some of your buddies are going to get injured, and some of your buddies may get killed. And there’s going to be heartbreak and pain and difficulty ahead. But there’s a light on the horizon because of the sacrifices you’ve made. And that’s the reason why for Michelle and me nothing is more important than looking after your families while you’re here. And I want everybody here to know that when you get home, we are going to be there for you when you’re in uniform and we will stay there for you when you’re out of uniform. Because you’ve earned it; you earned a special place in our hearts. And I could not be prouder to be your Commander-in-Chief.

God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. Now I want to shake some hands. (Applause.)

all throughout, obama is associating himself with the troops (witness the frequency of "I" and "you"), thus sharing in their successes overseas - all for the good of "everybody in america"

consider the brilliance of this chain of events!

we start on the negative: the apr 27 release of "One Chance" leads into a full media cycle on the controversy over whether or not romney is actually as bad on 'defense' as he is portrayed.

shift to the positive: now we begin freshly, in a non-political forum, with a dramatic and public demonstration of how good on 'defense' obama is, using the anniversary of this "american victory" to prove the juxtaposition of victory and obama as incumbent commander-in-chief.

[Roy Karrde]

i think you are discounting the degree to which an "american victory", as you put it, is a very strong point on which the incumbent american leader can campaign.

the "One Chance" ad characterizes the negative side of the issue, telegraphed well in advance. no one needs to actually believe that romney would not have acted the same way; the evidence that he criticized the actor is sufficiently detrimental. that is how the ad works: because romney put forth one criticism, one can 'just ask questions' about his efficacy on the entire subject. it is the first of a thousand cuts.

I think you are discounting the degree to which the American public has gotten sick of politics, the petty infighting, the pointing back and forth. The fact that Obama is taking what is a American victory, and turning it into a campaign sparring point is not going to play well with a public already sick of politics.

this just opens the door. now that it is open we are able to observe - more or less in real time - the positive side of obama's messaging strategy on this issue.

Or the detrimental side of it, this was just recently put out by the group "Veterans for a Strong America"


It's no doubt a political group although I can't be sure, but the message resonates, saying that they are sick of the politics. Since it is a veterans group it resonates even further, and can even become the "Swiftboating" moment for Obama, in which he is attacked by Veterans groups.

it is not merely coincidence that today obama is in afghanistan providing a primetime address on the very same issue:

all throughout, obama is associating himself with the troops (witness the frequency of "I" and "you"), thus sharing in their successes overseas - all for the good of "everybody in america"

Yes notice the number of I's in the veterans group as well, notice the appearance of "Spiking the Football" again, as it shows in the Ad. These are things Obama needs to avoid, not encourage.

consider the brilliance of this chain of events!

we start on the negative: the apr 27 release of "One Chance" leads into a full media cycle on the controversy over whether or not romney is actually as bad on 'defense' as he is portrayed.

shift to the positive: now we begin freshly, in a non-political forum, with a dramatic and public demonstration of how good on 'defense' obama is, using the anniversary of this "american victory" to prove the juxtaposition of victory and obama as incumbent commander-in-chief.

And inturn Obama has taken a event that was a positive for him, and pissed it away completely. Yes I agree it is brilliant because Romney and the Republicans could not ask for a more self destructive moment out of Obama. It opens Obama up to the charge of ugly politicization, which differs from the 2008 campaign in which he was portrayed as "Above the Fray". It opens Obama to attacks from Veterans groups as we have seen in the Ad and in the past few days. And it boost Romney as being above the fray, mature, and Presidential. While it shows Obama as being petty and pathetic.

It truly is a remarkable turn of events.

[kurai]

that is a pretty good move also

it seems apparent that romney's tweet earlier was ahead of the game, intended to disperse the effects of tonight's primetime address

now we have a pac dropping a professional-grade attack ad

this strategy is definitionally rovian, as above - romney praised obama, someone else criticized his strength.

but this requires that the president be less presidential than the challenger. it requires that the successes of the commander-in-chief be disassociated from him. it might be difficult for the 'self-destructive' characterization of obama through this strategy to work when obama can stand among troops in this role while giving speeches. a large amount of deference is received as a result of being CIC!

it remains to be seen if one can actually attack a successful president on his successful role as CIC. this is notably different from attacking the challenger on their lesser military experience, so upcoming polling ought to be interesting.

[Roy Karrde]

that is a pretty good move also

it seems apparent that romney's tweet earlier was ahead of the game, intended to disperse the effects of tonight's primetime address

now we have a pac dropping a professional-grade attack ad

this strategy is definitionally rovian, as above - romney praised obama, someone else criticized his strength.

Except Obama and Obama alone opened himself up to this attack. Obama took his own strength and twisted it into his own weakness by injecting politics into it.

but this requires that the president be less presidential than the challenger. it requires that the successes of the commander-in-chief be disassociated from him. it might be difficult for the 'self-destructive' characterization of obama through this strategy to work when obama can stand among troops in this role while giving speeches. a large amount of deference is received as a result of being CIC!

Problem is that if Obama is seen as acting as if he is using this event for political gains then he already is not acting Presidential than the challenger. He can stand infront of the troops all he wants, but that does not disperse the damage done by veterans coming out and attacking him for politicizing a American event.

it remains to be seen if one can actually attack a successful president on his successful role as CIC. this is notably different from attacking the challenger on their lesser military experience, so upcoming polling ought to be interesting.

Except they are not attacking the role during it, they are attacking the role AFTER it, the part where he takes it and makes it about himself, the part where he injects politics into it, etc etc etc.

[kurai]

yes, the CIC role gains a political aspect during an election year

that isn't a new concept

but he remains the CIC regardless of whether or not an event is happening right now

this might act as a protective barrier against this particular use of rovian strategy

we don't know yet, but it just might!

[Roy Karrde]

yes, the CIC role gains a political aspect during an election year

that isn't a new concept

but he remains the CIC regardless of whether or not an event is happening right now

this might act as a protective barrier against this particular use of rovian strategy

we don't know yet, but it just might!

Again there is a difference of acting as CiC, and turning a event political sparing match. Talking about the struggles in the Situation Room is alot different, than attacking your opponent for not doing the same thing. Both are political, but one is understandable and props up yourself, while the other injects a nastiness of the usual back and forth of politics in it. And that not only turns people against it, but it also belittles what those Seals actually did.

To sum it up, here is a collection of quotes displaying how this was a utter overreach for Obama and is exploding in his face.

“The Obama campaign’s crass politicization of the killing of Osama bin Laden seems to have struck a nerve in just about everyone – from expected quarters (like the Wall Street Journal editorial page), to moderately conservative ones (like David Brooks of the New York Times), to liberal ones (like Dana Milbank of the Washington Post). But perhaps the most important criticisms are being made by Navy SEALs themselves, as Alana points out.

“This cannot be what the Obama campaign predicted; and the fact that they would take their most notable achievement and employ it in a way that would be potentially counterproductive is a sign that the mindset of all the president’s men is so aggressive, so hyper-partisan, so mean-spirited and so desperate that they are acting in ways that are amateurish and self-defeating. It might also be a sign that Obama has so few genuine accomplishment to his name that when he actually is able to identify one, he mishandles it. They don’t have enough practice to know what to do with a real achievement.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/20...cal-overreach/

“The preezy of the United Steezy is making me queasy.

“I’m not troubled by President Obama’s slow jam with Jimmy Fallon, who dubbed the commander in chief ‘preezy’ during Obama’s appearance on late-night TV. No, preezy is making me queasy because his nonstop campaigning is looking, well, sleazy — and his ad suggesting that Mitt Romney wouldn’t have killed Osama bin Laden is just the beginning of it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...bsT_story.html

“Last week, the Obama campaign ran a cheap-shot ad on the death of Osama bin Laden. Part of the ad was Bill Clinton effectively talking about the decision to kill the terrorist. But, in the middle, the Obama people threw in a low-minded attack on Romney. The slam made Clinton look small, it made Obama look small, it turned a moment of genuine accomplishment into a political ploy, but it did follow the rules of gangland: At every second, attack; at every opportunity, drive a shiv between the ribs…

“But it’s probably bad sociology and terrible psychology, given the general disgust with conventional politics. If I were in the campaigns, I’d want to detach from the current rules of engagement and change the nature of the campaign. If I were Obama, I’d play to his personal popularity and run an “American Idol” campaign — likability, balance, safety and talent.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

[Dark Sage]

How in the world can anyone say "American Idol" and "talent" in the same sentence and still keep a straight face?

Palin is the one who demeans herself by associating with rigged reality shows, not Mr. Obama.

[Roy Karrde]

How in the world can anyone say "American Idol" and "talent" in the same sentence and still keep a straight face?

Palin is the one who demeans herself by associating with rigged reality shows, not Mr. Obama.

Yes the Obama's in the White House would never appear on a reality show

[kurai]

yes, those are certainly a bunch of people who did not like the negative side to this messaging strategy?

we also know that it was a two-step process which only moved to the second stage last night

since obama has a vastly greater approval rating on this subject, it remains to be seen that this has actually "blown up in his face" - media coverage and op-eds do not directly translate to popular reception

the negative side ensured that people in general were thoroughly reminded of the fact that obama was in office during the assassination of obl - this is pretty important

the opposition will have to run a negative campaign based on this one ad alone for a full seven months for it to have the explosive effect you project (perhaps they will)

the positive side (which just occurred) now builds on such awareness beyond any address of the opposition's participation (or not) - and because this is such a beneficial subject for obama, any potential negatives could be mediated at this stage

so we find that the strategy as a whole brings us:

1) a reminder that obama oversaw the assassination of obl
2) a reminder that romney was critical of obama's foreign policy
3) the notion that obama is politicizing oversight of military operations
4) awareness of the (politicized) connection between successful operations and obama as CIC

the first and second items are just incontrovertible facts; beneficial to obama as he was the incumbent official who oversaw the success, and detrimental to romney as he distinctly was not

essentially, these two combine as "hey, there was this popular event that arose from foreign policy - obama was in charge of it, romney opposed obama." obama's foreign policy is a lot more popular than romney's - this isn't a bad place to start.

the third item is the point on which you emphasize the damage, but it is probably important that wartime incumbents run on their record of military oversight when those operations are popular and successful. we just have to look at 2004 for a blatantly obvious example - may 1 is not only the anniversary of obl's death, but also of bush's mission accomplished airdrop. doing this sort of thing does not actually make you "petty and pathetic", it is the status quo for an incumbent president - these qualities are only rising from the characterization that is being produced through the modern use of the rovian technique.

consider also 1992, in which bush1 began by relying on his military record in the gulf war (for which he received a massive approval benefit) from a year prior to the election. at the same time, we find an economic recession punishing the incumbent, with unemployment peaking in june of the election year.

yet there was a substantial difference in the campaign strategy employed:

Bush stuck to the classic "Rose Garden" strategy, tending to official business and trying to appear "presidential." The Rose Garden strategy kept Bush in the White House for most of the campaign, with his ethos tied to the presige of the office and his day-to-day decisions as President. Unfortunately for Bush, the strategy failed. With his approval rating plummeting to only 32 percent in mid-July, the White House finally abandoned the Rose Garden strategy. Looking presidential only exacerbated suspicions that Bush was not acting presidential.

in september, following the rapid transition towards actively campaigning on his own record, he delivered a speech at penn state:

Perhaps Bush hoped that reminding voters of his foreign policy credentials would distract them from their economic woes. Drawing a contrast he made throughout the speech, he spoke of himself as the optimistic, forward-looking leader who had helped Ronald Reagan win the Cold War. Indeed, Bush imitated Reagan throughout the speech, portraying himself as the confident and patriotic alternative to defeatist Democrats like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Like Carter, Bush implied, Clinton was too pessimistic, too quick to concede the decline of American power and prestige. According to Bush, Clinton was the "wrong" choice for America if you wanted "to move this country forward". America needed strong, confident leadership, not a president who believed that America's best days were part of the nation's past.

Taking shots at his opponent, Bush talked like the underdog, not the confident incumbent. Speaking in "gunfight" metaphors, he compared criticizing Clinton's record to "going after an unarmed man." Clinton "should have armed himelf," Bush taunted; he should have "packed more than promises" when he took on George H.W. Bush.

consider the difference in which obama's bold and critical action has gotten ahead of the threat of "suspicions [of] not acting presidential"; he gains the early ability to exploit his well-admired foreign policy credentials. thus we arrive at item four of our assessment of this campaign strategy.

it remains to be seen whether or not this strategy will be successful, but it does avoid one of the obvious problems - inaction with respect to one's strengths - that we can find in another recent incumbent president. if you fail to get your strengths out there, potential economic issues might end up dominating the debate (and these can not be controlled). given the recent blog article posted predicting a potential fall downturn, this is probably a wise move.

[Roy Karrde]

You seem to be coming at it from the wrong angle Kurai. This may not bring down Obama's rating on foreign policy, but it may bring down his overall approval rating. The problem here isn't the action against OBL of which everyone is aware of to the point of oversatuation. The problem is injecting partisan politics into it, something the public has already shown themselves sick of. So the public very well could not see this as a negative against his foreign policy, but a negative against the person and the Presidency.

So far you act as if the public is not aware that Obama killed OBL, I believe that we are both aware that they are. But when you take that event and tarnish it with partisan politics, you degrade it, and as the articles put it "it made Obama look small, it turned a moment of genuine accomplishment into a political ploy".

You say he can exploit his foreign policy, however that is a tight rope to walk, if he does so in a partisan political fashion, it ends up damaging his Presidency as this Ad seems to have done.

[Dark Sage]

The Biggest Loser?

Dear God, that one's even worse than American Idol...

Okay, I apologize, Roy, I did not know about that...

But my point still stands... "Reality show" and "talent" are contradictory terms. The true point of a reality show is to entertain by making people humiliate themselves. Plain and simple.

[kurai]

oversaturation? well, the event fell out of public awareness and coverage in the year since its passing; it returned at this anniversary, and was exploited for its potential benefit. incumbent campaigns always seek to renew awareness of their record by revisiting events for which they received support but which are no longer immediately in the public eye.

it remains to be seen how the actual strategy used will be handled by the public. the essential thing is that his approval rating on foreign policy directly relates to his overall approval rating. of course, the degree to which it is prominent over other factors is reliant on how important people think it is.

this is why they have to renew the media and public focus on the issue. if it is truly a beneficial factor for the overall rating, and they can convince people it is a vitally important factor (perhaps this last week has accomplished this), they are set to gain overall.

if they had not actively renewed focus on this particular issue, its potential benefit would have a lessened effect on the overall rating. perhaps the effect will be negative, if as you say, the strategy is only received as degradation, and this effect will be greater as a consequence of the renewed prominence in the public focus. however, it seems reasonable enough that concluding this cycle on a positive note, as performed last night, ought to preclude any negative effect for obama.

but the notion that people are sick of partisan politics is only a talking point. it always comes out during election years - midterm discourse has been pointing towards bipartisanship for 30 years. yet everything is partisan during a modern presidential campaign. perhaps this will be the year that americans actually get sick of it and stop voting for partisan politicians? probably not; for some reason they prefer to pick an ingroup/outgroup division reliant on the selection of a bold leader with unwavering self-assurance. making something partisan during an election year is not negative; it ensures people will pick sides, without which the electoral system will not operate.

[kurai]

instead of talking about reality tv, here is an information dump:

National Polling -

PPP (Apr 29)

Obama 49 - Romney 44

Gallup (Apr 30)

Obama 46 - Romney 46

Rasmussen (May 1)

Obama 47 - Romney 44

Regional Polling -

Virginia (PPP, May 1)

Obama 51 - Romney 43

electoral-vote.com projection (Apr 28)



Media -

since we've been talking a lot about karl rove, here is a series of recent regional ads:

"Crossroads GPS: "Similarities" VA"



"Crossroads GPS: "Quote Leadership" MO"



"Crossroads GPS: "Remember" MT"



"Crossroads GPS: "Hole" NV"



newt is officially done in about an hour, thus:

"Newt Gingrich: Frankly, not Mitt Romney's biggest supporter."



romney also dropped a video today:

"Broken Promises: Jobs and the Economy"



restore our future (romneypac) is spending $4 million to air two ads in "Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia"

they also wiped their youtube page of everything other than these two videos:

"Saved"



"Now You See the Problem (Restore Our Future)"

[Dark Sage]

Here's something else to think about...

Obama's approval rating stands now at 47%.

That doesn't seem all-too good at first... But... It is better than it should be.

Take a look here:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-he-should-be/

[Roy Karrde]

Here's something else to think about...

Obama's approval rating stands now at 47%.

That doesn't seem all-too good at first... But... It is better than the approval ratings of his last three predecessors at the same point in their terms.

O.o?

Bush's Approval Rating in April - May 2004 was around 52-46
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/pr...orge-bush.aspx

Clinton's Approval Rating in April - May 1996 was around 56 - 53
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/pr...l-clinton.aspx

HW Bush's Approval Rating in April - May 1992 was around 43 - 39
http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu...9#.T6F-WcWS9I4

So Obama has same or worse numbers than George W Bush, worse numbers than Clinton, and better numbers than HW Bush.

[Dark Sage]

I know, I corrected my mistake.

And I included a source now.

[Roy Karrde]

I know, I corrected my mistake.

And I included a source now.

Oh I agree it is better than it should be, Obama's numbers have always floated a bit above where they should be. However that also leads the possibility of a "Crash" such as the economy falling back into recession, or gas prices rising from a Middle East conflict.

Thus there are three things to watch.

A: Israel is calling up 22 battalions to meet threats at the Syrian/Egypt border, and of course the possibility of war with Iran

B: Factory Orders declined massively in March

C:Only 119,000 jobs were added, below the needed just to meet natural population growth

[Dark Sage]

Maybe the economy will fall back into a recession...

But, seeing as the DJIA just closed at its highest level since 2007, I tend to doubt it.

Maybe gas prices will indeed skyrocket...

But at the moment, they're actually going down.

Maybe, maybe... Or maybe not...

[Roy Karrde]

Maybe the economy will fall back into a recession...

But, seeing as the DJIA just closed at its highest level since 2007, I tend to doubt it.

The Dow by and large is running on the wave of good news from the winter. However as the article notes, these numbers look like they are setting us up for what happened these last two years. The economy starts strong, and then peters out from the spring onward. Such a thing happening for a third straight year would not be good news for the Obama Reelection campaign.

Maybe gas prices will indeed skyrocket...

But at the moment, they're actually going down.

Which means nothing if there is a flair up in the Middle East?

[Dark Sage]

Let me get this straight, Roy, you're actually counting on a war in the Middle East so that gas prices will rise and Obama will be blamed for it?

You're starting to remind me of Donald Trump. He boldly stated that Obama would start a war with Iran in order to gain votes.

Obama is doing everyting he can to prevent this from happening, in case you didn't know.

[Roy Karrde]

Let me get this straight, Roy, you're actually counting on a war in the Middle East so that gas prices will rise and Obama will be blamed for it?

You're starting to remind me of Donald Trump. He boldly stated that Obama would start a war with Iran in order to gain votes.

Obama is doing everyting he can to prevent this from happening, in case you didn't know.

I am not counting or hoping on anything, I am looking at the possible pitfalls that could happen in the next few months that could influence the election.

[Dark Sage]

You're forgetting one thing Roy... Just as pitfalls could hit the President, a lot of pitfalls could strike Romney and the rest of the GOP too, which could be bad for Romney.

If the outcome of any of those situations you mentioned turned out differnently than what you expect, the President might actually benefit.

[Roy Karrde]

You're forgetting one thing Roy... Just as pitfalls could hit the President, a lot of pitfalls could strike Romney and the rest of the GOP too, which could be bad for Romney.

If the outcome of any of those situations you mentioned turned out differnently than what you expect, the President might actually benefit.

Of course the economy could rebound and Obama could sign a Iran/Egypt/Israel peace treaty. But I am looking at how things are going right now, not how they might be if a complete 180 happened.

[Dark Sage]

I doubt that there will be an Iran/Egypt/Israel peace treaty, but at the same time, I doubt that there will be a major conflict either.

You see Roy, as much as countries like Iran and North Korea want to be nuclear powers, they are NOT nuclear powers. And they are years away from that point, if they are even capable of approaching it. All the threats they make against their neighbors are bluffs, and smart people know it.

North Korea thought that they were scaring everyone with those missiles that they displayed at their big parade. Turns out they were fakes, and now they look like fools.

[Roy Karrde]

I doubt that there will be an Iran/Egypt/Israel peace treaty, but at the same time, I doubt that there will be a major conflict either.

You see Roy, as much as countries like Iran and North Korea want to be nuclear powers, they are NOT nuclear powers. And they are years away from that point, if they are even capable of approaching it. All the threats they make against their neighbors are bluffs, and smart people know it.

North Korea thought that they were scaring everyone with those missiles that they displayed at their big parade. Turns out they were fakes, and now they look like fools.

Except Israel has been waiting years, and probably will not wait too much longer due to the fact that the longer the wait, the less of a chance they will get in stopping the program.

[Blademaster]

rubuke

*rebuke

a Iran/Egypt/Israel peace treaty

*an Iran/Egypt/Israel peace treaty

[Dark Sage]

I know that the Huffington Post is looked down on here, but I thought that this story detailing an endorsement by someone who seems to have become the ultimate hypocrite might be an eye-opener.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1474376.html


Before you say that she had no choice but to endorse Romney, keep in mind that Santorum has not done so yet. There's nothing that says that a politician has to endorse anyone.