2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

I think we can all agree that for now, and probably for most of the summer, the two will be tied as the public decides if they are willing to ditch Obama for Romney.

[Dark Sage]

I notice that the overall opinion of Palin is pretty low in these polls.

Heh... And to think some people keep insisting she helped McCain...

[Roy Karrde]

I notice that the overall opinion of Palin is pretty low in these polls.

Heh... And to think some people keep insisting she helped McCain...

Yeah because Palin approval now = her approval in 2008.

[Dark Sage]

Yeah because Palin approval now = her approval in 2008.

Your own words, Roy.

Apparently, her approval rating has always stunk.

[Roy Karrde]

Your own words, Roy.

Apparently, her approval rating has always stunk.

That.. was sarcasm?

Edit: Several days after her pick, Palin's approval rating was at 47% positive, 30% negative, a +17 total.

[Roy Karrde]

Okay you are some what putting subjective analysis onto them.

Joe Biden: Agreed he was a loser in Presidential politics, but Obama picked him for his experience

Sarah Palin: Highly Popular Alaska Governor, don't really consider that position a losing one.

Al Gore: You are right here in that he was a loser in that he had a failed Presidential bid.

Dan Quayle: Was a very popular and highly electable Indianan Senator.

But I will remind you that Obama was probably pretty close to picking Hillary Clinton, and might dump Biden this year for her. Obama however choose Biden instead of Hillary for his foreign policy experience and to boost his credentials, however after the economic crisis that became null.

[Dark Sage]

Sarah Palin: Highly Popular Alaska Governor, don't really consider that position a losing one.

1. She quit halfway through.

2. There are more people in Mr. Obama's former congressional district than there are in the entire state of Alaska.

3. She must not be TOO popular in Alaska, because a candidate that she recommended there was beaten by a write-in candidate!

[Roy Karrde]

1. She quit halfway through.

2. There are more people in Mr. Obama's former congressional district than there are in the entire state of Alaska.

3. She must not be TOO popular in Alaska, because a candidate that she recommended there was beaten by a write-in candidate!

1: Happened after her Vice Presidential run, again we are talking about before.

2: Does not really matter, because she was seen as some one that could bring Republican and Democrats together and was "Maverick" like in her willingness to attack the Republican party.

3: Again AFTER her Vice Presidential run.

[Roy Karrde]

Actually I would say Pelosi was the most annoying female politician ^_^

But I don't get where your hatred is for Palin, I mean I dislike Obama, but I acknowledge what he was able to do in 2008 in terms of getting his base boosted while getting the independents to have "white board" expectations for him.

Honestly the only politician I have ever hated was Ted Kennedy and that is only because he got away with really setting the bar for ugly political discourse, but he should have been locked up for engaging in treason with the USSR.

[Dark Sage]

I don't "hate" Palin, Roy.

But I do think that she's an annoying egotist who doesn't realize that her fifteen minutes of fame are over.

I mean really, blaming the President for what the Secret Service did? He had nothing to do with that. The agents involved in the scandal didn't even have any contact with the President. If anyone was to blame, it was the head of that department.

[Roy Karrde]

I don't "hate" Palin, Roy.

But I do think that she's an annoying egotist who doesn't realize that her fifteen minutes of fame are over.

Wouldn't that go for any politician really?

Edit: But here is a free bit of advice, if you really want Palin gone, stop engaging her, stop reporting on her, stop doing anything with her. She will sink back into the either fast enough. But the Democrats will continue to do so, want to know why? Because with out Bush around they need a villain.

[Dark Sage]

Maybe, Roy, but she's also contributed to the rise of the Tea Party, which has given us nothing but headaches. The Teapublicans look upon her as some sort of hero for their cause.

The Tea Party is something that I'm really not fond of. When a political movement names itself after an infamous act of vandalism, you know they're bad news.

[Roy Karrde]

Maybe, Roy, but she's also contributed to the rise of the Tea Party, which has given us nothing but headaches. The Teapublicans look upon her as some sort of hero for their cause.

The Tea Party is something that I'm really not fond of. When a political movement names itself after an infamous act of vandalism, you know they're bad news.

Yes, how dare they name themselves after a pivotal event in American history, those treasonous bastards! Why can't they be all like Occupy Wall Street! They have a non vandalism name, who cares if they shit on police cars and vandalize property, it is ALL IN THE NAME!

[kurai]

National Polling:

National Journal (Apr 22)

Obama 47 - Romney 39

Rasmussen (Apr 23)

Romney 48 - Obama 44

Gallup (Apr 24)

Obama 49 - Romney 43

FOX News (Apr 24)

Obama 46 - Romney 46

Rasmussen (Apr 26)

Obama 47 - Romney 46

Regional Polling:

Texas (PPP, Apr 24)

Gingrich 47 - Obama 45

Paul 47 - Obama 43

Romney 50 - Obama 43

(2008) McCain 55 - Obama 44

New Mexico (PPP, Apr 25)

Obama 54 - Gingrich 36

Obama 53 - Paul 37

Obama 54 - Romney 40

Obama 48 - Romney 35 - Johnson 15

Obama/Biden 53 - Romney/Martinez 42

(2008) Obama 57 - McCain 42

Media:

American Crossroads: "Cool"



Youth & The Obama Economy



One Chance.

[Roy Karrde]

To put something a bit more relevant, here is a interesting break down on how this election could be decided in late October.

This may be as good as it gets. Sputter-speed growth of around 2% and a moribund labor market. As the above chart suggests, the recovery is losing momentum. Here’s Goldman economist Jan Hatzius:

Goldman Sachs is turning increasingly bearish on the U.S. economy, expecting the nation to have added only 125,000 new jobs in April, as the effects of a warm winter, which buoyed employment late last year, wear off.

The forecast is far lower than the Reuters estimate of 170,000, and the average 177,250 jobs created every month from December to March. According to a report by the bank’s Chief U.S. Economist Jan Hatzius, the jobs report will be a further sign of a weakening economy, where inventory accumulation has accelerated and final demand growth remains sluggish.

“Real income growth remains soft, partly because of higher energy prices, wealth effects are not yet particularly positive, consumer confidence remains modest, and again some of the recent strength in retail sales probably reflects weather effects,” Hatzius said.

And this from Goldman market strategist Abby Joseph Cohen is equally as gloomy:

She said she agrees with Goldman economist Jan Hatzius’s forecast of the second half being more “difficult” than the first. “We have seen some deceleration in economic activity” after a mild winter that might have “puffed up” seasonal growth in the first quarter, she said.

Wait, the second half will be “more difficult” than the first? We might be lucky to have 2% growth in the first half. The econ team at Citigroup seems equally as sober: “The 1Q GDP data, a month of rising jobless claims, and likely back-to-back moderate gains in non-farm employment should dampen remaining optimism that 2013 would be the year of decisive growth acceleration in the U.S. Why should any other quarter in 2012 be markedly better than 1Q?”

And given the reluctance of big banks to make U.S. recession calls, I have to think that plenty of these folks are worrying we might get a negative quarter at some point this year. Imagine the political shock wave if, say, the third quarter dipped even a smidgen. To use President Obama’s favorite analogy, the U.S. economy would be back in the ditch. And that report would be released by the Commerce Department on Oct. 26, just 11 days before the election.

http://blog.american.com/2012/04/why...er-26-830-a-m/

Meanwhile Obama is getting blowback on what was a absolutely stupid and disgusting ad by the... left?

“I don’t think there should be an ad about that,” Huffington said Monday on “CBS This Morning.” “I think it’s one thing to celebrate the fact that they did such a great job (with television specials). All that is perfectly legitimate. But to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.”

She added, “It’s the same thing Hillary Clinton did with the 3 a.m. call. ‘You’re not ready to be commander-in-chief.’ It’s also what makes politicians and political leaders act irrationally when it comes to matters of war because they’re so afraid to be called wimps, that they make decisions, which are incredible destructive for the country. I’m sure the president would not have escalated in Afghanistan if he was not as concerned, as Democrats are, that Republicans are going to use not escalating against him in a campaign.”

Obama engaging in despicable tactics? Knock me over with a feather.

[kurai]

let's point out that genesis 2:7 is reliant on a 2500 year old pun since it is kind of funny

it actually reads:

ז וַיִּיצֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָדָם, עָפָר מִן-הָאֲדָמָה, וַיִּפַּח בְּאַפָּיו, נִשְׁמַת חַיִּים; וַיְהִי הָאָדָם, לְנֶפֶשׁ חַיָּה.

translated: Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

so the funny part comes with the words אֲדָם and אֲדָמָה

blended: Then the LORD God formed אֲדָם of the dust of the אֲדָמָה

transliterated: Then the LORD God formed 'adam of the dust of the 'adamah

the pun hinges on the fact that in hebrew the word man is inside the word 'ground'

now we have probably seen this phrase for man (אֲדָם) a few other places in genesis

this is because 'adam is both the word for a universal signifier for mankind and the word for what is now a specific mythical character

taken in modern terms through english with an empiricist viewpoint, this is a much less interesting quote

[Dark Sage]

Oh, Roy?

One of your biggest hopes for Obama losing popularity was gas prices climbing.

Well, gas prices are actually going down. Last week, they went down, on average, five cents a gallon nationwide.

In my area, where gas is notoriously expensive (in this city, only rich people have cars), gas prices are now down to what they were last year at this time.

Like I said, it was a gamble and it might not turn out in the GOP's favor. Turn in next week to see what happens.

[Roy Karrde]

Oh, Roy?

One of your biggest hopes for Obama losing popularity was gas prices climbing.

Well, gas prices are actually going down. Last week, they went down, on average, five cents a gallon nationwide.

In my area, where gas is notoriously expensive (in this city, only rich people have cars), gas prices are now down to what they were last year at this time.

Like I said, it was a gamble and it might not turn out in the GOP's favor. Turn in next week to see what happens.

There are numerous things that can sink Obama's Presidency, from gas prices to the economy. All of them end up hurting people at home, which is why Obama is desperately trying to focus on anything but the economy or gas prices.

Edit: Obama again is taking the Osama Bin Laden death today to hit Romney. I do find this a curious if not disgusting strategy. As it is taking his only plus in his Presidency, and using it to hammer his opponent. It would be like George W Bush using 9/11 to attack John Kerry and saying he wouldn't have acted properly during it. I have a feeling the public will not be too kind to Obama on this, and as such he is pissing away his one political advantage.

[Dark Sage]

Roy, Bush could have taken Osama bin Laden out at any time. He didn't because he didn't have the guts that our President did, and wanted to keep what little support he had for the unpopular wars he started.

That is why Obama will always be the better President in my eyes. He had the gumption to eliminate bin Laden that no Republican would have.

[Roy Karrde]

Roy, Bush could have taken Osama bin Laden out at any time. He didn't because he didn't have the guts that our President did, and wanted to keep what little support he had for the unpopular wars he started.

That is why Obama will always be the better President in my eyes. He had the gumption to eliminate bin Laden that no Republican would have.

You realize the only chance that Bush had to take out Bin Laden was Tora Bora. Before that it was largely Clinton that had the chances to get Bin Laden. To say that Bush could take out Bin Laden at any time is not only borderline conspiracy theorish, but it begs the question. Why did Obama not do it before last year? And why didn't Obama tell the public that Bin Laden could have been taken out at any time?

Edit: And as Romney said today, even Carter would have called in the Bin Laden strike, it was a no brainer.

Edit Again: The U.S. Navy Seals are now slamming Obama for his despicable act.

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice - it was a broader team effort.’

Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

....

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

....

Mr Kyle added: ‘He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-campaign.html

[Gavin Luper]

Abortion is such a weird issue. I could never justify forcing someone to bring up a foetus they did not wish to conceive (e.g. by rape), and therefore support the right to abortion in essence and in law, but the idea of killing an unborn child is nonetheless abhorrent. It sucks. Also, do men have any rights in regards to their unborn children? It seems not. It's an interesting topic.

I.e. If I hypothetically get my girlfriend pregnant, she has the last word on what happens to my unborn child and I have approximately zero say in the matter.

And this strikes me as doubly problematic because, if my hypothetical girlfriend keeps the baby, I am then, as a male, liable for eighteen years of child support payments. And yet I have no say. Something is fucked up here but I'm not sure what the solution is.

[Oslo]

Abortion is such a weird issue. I could never justify forcing someone to bring up a foetus they did not wish to conceive (e.g. by rape), and therefore support the right to abortion in essence and in law, but the idea of killing an unborn child is nonetheless abhorrent. It sucks. Also, do men have any rights in regards to their unborn children? It seems not. It's an interesting topic.

I.e. If I hypothetically get my girlfriend pregnant, she has the last word on what happens to my unborn child and I have approximately zero say in the matter.

And this strikes me as doubly problematic because, if my hypothetical girlfriend keeps the baby, I am then, as a male, liable for eighteen years of child support payments. And yet I have no say. Something is fucked up here but I'm not sure what the solution is.

You're right that the male is shut out from the decision, but I can't imagine there's any feasible way to strike a compromise here. If the father wants to abort the pregnancy but the mother does not, it's not like either side could "give a little" on the issue. The father may not want to pay child support (just as he may not want to shoulder the various psychological/emotional/social burdens that often attend fatherhood), but a woman's right to exercise agency over her own body without fear of criminal punishment should take precedence. There should be no state management of female bodies. Since only one side can really have say, it should be the woman's right to choose regardless of whether the pregnancy resulted from rape.

(Lol @ digression.)

[Dark Sage]

You notice that the same people who oppose abortion also tend to oppose sex education in public schools?

Kinda ironic, isn't it?

[kurai]

why would that be ironic

the goal is to generate as many children of god as possible and both ends point towards it

anyway

ads are ramping up!

Obama Campaign:

"Forward."

watch this video if you want to see the entire next year of obama's campaign compressed into seven minutes


"Mitt Romney: Extreme on Women's Issues"



"Swiss Bank Account"

this is the first actual tv ad for the campaign season!


Romney Campaign:

"Broken Promises: Spending"



also something strange happened a few hours ago:

@MittRomney "I commend those who planned and conducted the bin Laden raid a year ago, and I applaud President Obama for approving the mission."

perhaps a cue to stop talking about it? or an attempt for GOP to take some credit on the issue

either way the public presentation of "I applaud President Obama" is strange at this stage

[Roy Karrde]

Kind of disappointed in the Forward slogan. All jokes aside about them stealing it from MSNBC, or "Reply to All" already being taken. The group that came up with the genius "Hope and Change" kind of crapped out it seems on this one.

perhaps a cue to stop talking about it? or an attempt for GOP to take some credit on the issue

either way the public presentation of "I applaud President Obama" is strange at this stage

The GOP to my knowledge has always supported Obama on this issue, by not taking the bait and turning it into a political issue, it makes Obama even more petty and pathetic.

[kurai]

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

[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.