Good stuff from MoveOn:
Heads in the Sand actually opens with a discussion of Friedman Units and the "endless war in little chunks" approach to the world that our elite consensus has saddled us with.
« McCain for Boycott | Main | The Good Guys »
Six Months At a Time
10 Apr 2008 02:43 pm
Comments (24)
funny
I got the book yesterday and the Preface is the best summary of the Friedman Unit that I've seen. I'll read more when classes finish.
The ad is devastating. It should be a lesson to Dems not to be afraid of the GOP. Sure, they're going to come at Obama with guns a blazing. But McCain and the GOP has provided more than enough ammunition to fight back. A gaffe-prone war monger with no clue about the economy is not exactly a winning formula. (But wait, the other guys is black - and so is his preacher!)
Shear brilliance!
Killer ad. Nothing like using McCain's own words against him. No other ammo is required.
Here are two more videos that show the same type of "straight talk", this one about Iraq and this one about several subjects.
Obama doesn't need to beat on McCain yet. Just let him keep piling up dumb statements and flip flops without consequence, and then "unleash hell".
Oh, yeah. When recently asked about how he'd manage deficits, McCain cited Reagan. I guess he doesn't know that deficits skyrocketed under Reagan. There's one worth saving for closer to November.
Wow. I saw this post from work, but the network firewall blocks youtube videos (for good reason), so I hesitated on posting about this. I have been averse to MoveOn and anything they do since their ridiculous and tact-less "General Betray Us" ad. I have to say, I wanted to blast MoveOn from work, without having seen the ad, just because of the MoveOn name. They really ruined their "brand" with the Betray Us thing, by the way...
But I do have to say, this is probably the best political ad I've seen this cycle. I didn't notice the money count at the bottom of the ad until 2/3rds of the way through, but that's probably because the flipping calendar was such an effective tool.
This does a great job of illustrating the ever-elusive carrot in front of the donkey (get it?).
Also, YouTube's logo is sitting right on top of the US Lives count, which makes me think wasn't designed just for Youtube... I wonder when/where we'll see this ad on TV.
Air it! AIR IT NOW!!!
That is the kind of ad that will win the election. Just the facts, piled up for everyone to see. It illustrates the "dead-ender" label for everybody in the middle to clearly see which side of the divide McCain falls on.
I'm also happy they didn't have the "MoveOn.org is responsible for the content". No. Just let the facts hang out there and McCain is toast.
Let's air the ad with Rev. Wright's racist remarks.
The killer ad will be Obama's lies about Rezko and only performing 5 hours of legal work. Rezko is broke. I wonder how he was able to give $250,000 to Obama's campaign. Obama couldn't buy his house without purchasing the lot next door at the same time. Mrs. Rezko stepped in and bought the lot for $600,000 which enabled Obama to complete the purchase of his home.
Rezko is broke. I wonder how he was able to give $250,000 to Obama's campaign.
Are you an idiot? You are aware that the donation limit for everyone is $2300 for the primary and $2300 for the general election, correct? I guarantee that not only did Rezko not donate $250,000 to Obama's campaign, but no one donated $250,000 to anyone's campaign.
Here is the FEC page on contribution limits if you want to educate yourself. Stop posting your ignorant droolings here.
I don't think the ad, or your book, is being honest. Firstly, as many have pointed out already, it's pretty clear that "100 years" doesn't mean 100 years. It means, "as much as it takes," and there's nothing unreasonable about believing in that if you don't think it will take 100 years to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
And this bit about the next 6 months always being most important is pretty clearly a generic human tendency. I'm sure Bush, McCain, and especially Cheney would say this mentality is an honorable one necessary to succeed in prolonged tasks (in the most vague sense, I agree):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Little_Engine_That_Could
There are certainly serious things wrong with imitating TLETC in your foreign policy. In fact I think it's an apt analogy for a lot of Bush's problems. Still, I don't think this angle with "gotcha" video clips and quotes cuts that deeply. It just plays well with those already on your side.
Are you an idiot? You are aware that the donation limit for everyone is $2300 for the primary and $2300 for the general election, correct? I guarantee that not only did Rezko not donate $250,000 to Obama's campaign, but no one donated $250,000 to anyone's campaign.
Here is the FEC page on contribution limits if you want to educate yourself. Stop posting your ignorant droolings here.
He's talking about (in effect) donating illegally via paying for part of Obama's house. Same question back at you.
You're the idiot, Mike.
1) How is paying for part of someone's house a "campaign contribution"? And that wasn't even done - Rezko's wife paid for one lot, Obama paid for the other, then later paid for another strip of the Rezko lot. If you mean it was a bribe, say so. But it's not a "campaign contribution". Especially given that all of this happened back when Obama first became a Senator - and AFTER he became a Senator, not during his campaign to do so.
And where did you get $250,000? No such sum was involved. Obama paid $1.3 million for his lot, Rezko's wife paid $625,000 for her lot. Then he paid her a bit over $100,000 for another strip.
2) "it's pretty clear that "100 years" doesn't mean 100 years. It means, "as much as it takes,"
Look, stupid, let me explain this to you in words of one syllable. Any one who thinks a US soldier can stay in Iraq and not get killed at ANY TIME in the next couple of Iraqi generations is a complete moron. And that means McCain is a complete moron. And that means YOU are a complete moron.
Get a fucking clue.
EWard said... Mrs. Rezko stepped in and bought the lot for $600,000 which enabled Obama to complete the purchase of his home.
First, it was reported that the property owner themselves said that the lot purchase was not a requirement, and also that Obama gave them the best offer. I guess they're in on the big conspiracy, right?
And while I don't remember the amount, it was reported that Rezko made a profit on the sale of that lot. Ooooooh, the scandal! They bought a piece of property next to Obama's house, sold it, and made a profit! The horror!
You really should look further afield for information than Faux News and Rush "The Drughead" Limgbaugh.
LFC
The real estate agent that listed both the lot and home stated that both properties had to be sold together. It was reported on NBC Nightly News by Lisa Myers. If the seller is telling a different story someone is lying.
Let's show the ad with Obama vacationing in Hawaii while the Illinois legislature was voting on a major gun control bill.
Tyro,
I stand corrected. Since Obama launched his political career back in 1990s, Rezko has made a total of $250,000 in campaign donations. However, Rezko is broke and his wife earns a middle class salary. How were they able to contribute money for the last 10+ years to Obama's campaign and buy the lot?
Sigh, I knew I shouldn't have reloaded this thread.
1) If Obama meant to buy all of that property in the first place, and this was all a pre-arranged deal to mask a transfer of money, then yes, it's effectively the same as a campaign contribution (or it could be a bribe, sure). I could easily imagine a politician arranging such a thing.
I don't think it was all pre-arranged, but I'm not entirely convinced it wasn't some sort of bribe. I'll have to look closer. If you like, I'm just supportive of scrutinizing politicians' finances on principle.
2) I don't believe in staying in Iraq for generations, and I don't follow the logic from McCain being a moron to me being a moron.
I feel about this "100 years" line like I did the "Bush lied because he said there were WMDs and there weren't" line from 2004. It has that unfortunate combination of being very catchy and appealing to some liberals, but nonetheless rather stupid-sounding to a lot of people that need to be swayed. I don't want it to become the centerpiece of discussions about the war, because I think it's a loser of a point.
RSH: I'd say up to four syllables is acceptable, thank you very much. Very few people consider themselves morons, myself included. I'd say it's much smarter to try to effect change than to insult, and drive away people who agree with you.
Hee! Myself unincluded. I'll eat that one.
For example, I don't see this kind of exchange paying dividends (whatever Josh Marshall think):
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188271.php
For example, I don't see this kind of exchange paying dividends (whatever Josh Marshall thinks):
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188271.php
In other words, Mike wants to skip everything he said and fall back on generalities.
If you can't comprehend what people mean when they say Bush lied about WMDs - your concept that "just because there wasn't any doesn't mean he lied" is just breathtakingly naive - I don't know what to tell you. The evidence is abundant and has been published in probably twenty books by now.
And THAT'S why I call you a moron.
I think you keep on ascribing views I don't hold to me, when I'm mostly talking about how to argue. Of course, I do honestly think McCain is being taken (mildly) out of context, and I think it's a dangerous direction to go because of the ease of counter-argument.
It is not my concept that "just because there wasn't any doesn't mean he didn't lie". It was, however, the concept of a lot of people in the last election. Too many. Made possible by the fact that too many liberals were actually making the argument that Bush said there were WMDs and there weren't, so he was lying. And that became "what the Democrats think", and it was easy to make convincing-sounding counter-arguments, even though, as you say, the underlying point was essentially correct. It's true that Republicans did a lot to make it seem like that was the argument, but I think it was a losing direction to go from the start. Too open to perversions. Better to go in some other direction.
So I don't think this 100 years thing is as solid as Matt and others seem to think because it's too much based on ignoring part of what McCain says. As you are obviously aware, he's arguing (something like) "if we stay long enough, the violence will go away, and we can expect to maintain a presence there for an extended period". You're saying (something like) it's obvious that his supposition is false, and I agree. So the point is, why keep repeating "100 years"? Just say what you mean. When you boil your argument down to a sound bite with multiple interpretations, you leave it up to the listener to make their own. It would be best to concentrate on making more important points. e.g. (something like) As long as American troops are there, fighting will not stop.
I'll admit I could be wrong, and Democrats might be able to pin this on him. It's a quasi-gaffe, and a gift of a quote, but I'm hoping it fades, and we move onto other things.
Comments closed April 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Great video.
I'm glad to see McCain's 100 years comment is getting some traction.
Posted by ChrisWWW | April 10, 2008 3:05 PM