And you know what we forgot…
…amidst the brouhaha about whether Obama called the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” in his Rose Garden speech, and whether Candy Crowley overstepped, and all that jazz?
We forgot that Obama never answered that guy’s question.
We forgot—but the makers of this ad didn’t:
[Hat tip: Ace.]
Nah, my husband & I noticed the non-answer, it’s just that we never expected he would. I was just thrilled to have the question included so that we’d have his evasions recorded for ads like this.
And you know why right? As Barry Rubin points out the answer probably has to do with the purpose of the ambassador’s visit to Benghazi on Sept 11. The reason for the visit may also be the reason they could not forcefully respond. He may have been there to recover certain weapons (eg, stinger type, thousands of them) that got into the hands of rebels (ie, Al Qaeda) during the US-gov’t led overthrow of Ghadafi.
Sorry, the reason for denying extra security is another question. The reason for not responding to the attack may be the above.
Fog of war indeed..fog of words,is more like it.What utter contempt this crowd has for the American people.
Only one side controls the message, and so such an ad will not get traction.
All one has to do is open up the Daily News to see the new focus, and hatchet job and angle.
its an incredibly blatant set of political advertising masquerading as some form of informative article, with literally every trick in the book they can come up with sprinkled througout the whole.
oh. and they also make sure that you know what the new focus is. from the two page spread, to the new Gilligan (Gillibrand) commercial out this morning, to even selecting a political cartoon that reflects it as well!!!
On page 30 is the article covering the 2nd incident of police beating up Jewish people. this time a Hasidic man. (the other was a Jewish man in a Jewish center sleeping on a couch)
The main headline is the terrorist attacks that were foiled… from the home depot pipe bomb in heampstead, to the attempted bombing of the federal reserve bank.
you can guarantee that the article draws no links to the martyrdom of Bin Laden, the attacks on benghazzi, and the lone actor script will be in full play. 6 full pages to tell you.
page 12 brings in two full pages to point out that wealthy people can afford to pay 1700 a night for a room at lennox hill hospital, and the poor who dont work, have no money, and such, cant have that kind of room too. its complete with class rhetoric reminiscent of Pravda “in the old days”.
but its page 16, 17, “the race for the whitehouse” that tells you what the new focus will be
the WAR FOR WOMEN…
the list of whats important to men starts with jobs, the economy, budget, etc
the list of whats important to women starts with abortion and 39%
this is the coalition of morons, that Obama refers to as the “Majority Coalition”. ie a patchwork quilt of the gullible, incompetent, enslaved, lazy, and so on…
they are also focusing on Romney weird debate remark, and ignoring EVERYTHING else.
Romney has taken the bait, so he may now lose the whole deal by letting Obama lead the talk.
The other big issue for women, as Gilligan brings up, is equal pay for equal work.
ie. all the people in a department earn the same low salary as the women who its been shown earn less because of their choices NOT discrimination.
but as i said, you dont remove disparate impact as a false argument, then your going to have communism. but why would women give up the gun that gets the state to beat up their mates, buy their birth control, exterminates their children for free, and so on? they would have to put up with no one calling them genius in exchange for all that.
the news this morning hammered its a war for women… more affirmative action, equal pay for equal work (ie. the state sets all salaries as in soviet russia).
on page 25 is the political cartoon..
which would backfire if it wasnt for the spravka efforst…
mit romney is driving a train bearing down on a sweet blonde white woman on the tracks…
been more interesting if they put a line of minority women, white women and threw in Elton john.
except that would not focus on the people that feminism is all about… not black women, not Chinese women, not sunni muslim women in burkas, but white women and their rights to work hard, be taxed to death, have their kids taken by the state and if not, exterminate them (and now working on after birth abortions – rather than call it eugenics and infanticide). [note that they dont represent smart independent women that have no need for them… but to the politicians they do, so those women don’t actually exist on the playing field (they don’t vote monolithically like the others but vote more like the men, along less monolithic lines. ie. noise that self cancels) – despite their thinking they do]
and there is Obama, riding like Sheriff Bart, to rescue the white woman tied to the tracks.
Obama the patriarchal protector and provider of all women in his harem, will rescue women.
[edited for length by n-n]
That was nothing!
I particularly liked Obama’s Cartman like appeal to authority:
You must respect my authori-tay!
In all the uproar over Benghazi the attack on our embassy in Cairo has been ignored. Is it possible that it was part of a joint effort? Morsi is certainly in bed with the radical Islamists.
This issue ain’t goin’ away. Can’t wait to see the Monday debate on foreign affairs.
s graham wrote “Fog of war indeed..fog of words,is more like it.What utter contempt this crowd has for the American people.”
A quite justified contempt we might add. Obama and company have been getting away with all sorts of nonsense from day one and have not only never suffered because of it but prospered. I doubt the Libyan scandal will cost him a vote. In fact the only thing that has impacted his campaign is how he presents himself on TV. What a great metaphor for the American electorate, only to comprehend two dimensionally, i.e. no depth.
the above should read “only ABLE to comprehend two dimensionally”
texexec – the issue has already left the building…
That ad is effective. Not with the 37% who will vote for Obama come hell or high water. Nor is it needed for the 45.6% (2008 election) who will never vote for Obama. It is effective with the undecideds, the independents who will determine the election.
After the debate, both the Luntz panel and MSNBC’s (!) panel of undecideds went for Romney. I suspect that the main reason they did so is because they were already leaning toward the view that Obama is ‘above his pay grade’.
This ad just makes the point more forcefully, especially among those independents who are disappointed in Obama. Yes, there are many who are looking for a reason to vote for Obama both because they voted for him in 2008 and because no one likes to admit they made a mistake but the greater reality is that they have yet to see a reason to believe he’s up to the job.
Those folks are going to overwhelmingly vote for a viable alternative to Obama, which Romney has effectively provided during these debates, which have been decisive.
Once again, the election was decided when during the second debate, Romney responded to Obama’s intrusion into Romney’s time by telling Obama that “he’d get his chance” and Obama’s reaction was to shut up and sit down.
He yielded to the ‘alpha male’ and in the public’s subconscious, that equates to handing over the reins of power. Man may be ‘the rational animal’ but biology still counts.
Speaking of ads about this topic, a conservative group called the American Future Fund did a great remake of Hillary Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call ad which can be viewed on youtube. I have no idea if it is being aired anywhere, but I hope it sees some airtime, too.
Geoffrey Britain observed: He yielded to the ‘alpha male’ and in the public’s subconscious, that equates to handing over the reins of power. Man may be ‘the rational animal’ but biology still counts.
I hope that people haven’t let themselves be conditioned out of recognizing basic biological cues of that sort, though as Ann Althouse has noted in another post today, a “dance critic” at the Washington Post is trying to spin–or perhaps I should say pirouette–Obama’s inability to maintain eye-contact with Romney in confrontational moments into a positive thing.
Kurt,
Yes, liberal commentators easily accept that Bush I looking at his watch in the 1992 debate was an impactive moment but then hypocritically deny Obama’s body language during both debates and yielding to Romney as the alpha male.
My first thought when Obama walked on stage in this second debate was that his demeanor was ‘cocky’ and a bit arrogant… Obama’s version of the occasional ‘frat boy’ demeanor that libs hated in Bush II…
Friends, there are GREAT poll statistics at Ace’s place tonight. Go there and feast your eyes.
I hope all of you who can, will send some $$ to the Republicans, whether R&R or the local Senate and House races. Let’s make this thing a blowout.
I’m going to do a phone bank gig here in Manhattan.
Good hunting to us all!