The Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

From that evil paper, the New York Times. Word is that the billionaire backer decided now not to go ahead with this, but it still is a nice insight into how American politics are evolving.

WASHINGTON — A group of high-profile Republican strategists is working with a conservative billionaire on a proposal to mount one of the most provocative campaigns of the “super PAC” era and attack President Obama in ways that Republicans have so far shied away from.

Timed to upend the Democratic National Convention in September, the plan would “do exactly what John McCain would not let us do,” the strategists wrote.
.....
The $10 million plan, one of several being studied by Mr. Ricketts, includes preparations for how to respond to the charges of race-baiting it envisions if it highlights Mr. Obama’s former ties to Mr. Wright, who espouses what is known as “black liberation theology.”

The group suggested hiring as a spokesman an “extremely literate conservative African-American” who can argue that Mr. Obama misled the nation by presenting himself as what the proposal calls a “metrosexual, black Abe Lincoln.
.....
The document makes clear that the effort is only in the planning stages and awaiting full approval from Mr. Ricketts. People involved in the planning said the publicity now certain to surround it could send the strategists back to the drawing board.

But it serves as a rare, detailed look at the birth of the sort of political sneak attack that has traditionally been hatched in the shadows and has become a staple of presidential politics.

It also shows how a single individual can create his own movement and spend unlimited sums to have major influence on a presidential election in a campaign finance environment in which groups operating independently of candidates are flourishing.
.....
The 54-page proposal was professionally bound and illustrated with color photographs, indicating that it is far beyond a mere discussion. The strategists have already contacted Larry Elder, a black conservative radio host in Los Angeles, about serving as a spokesman, and the plan calls for a group of black business leaders to endorse the effort. The strategists have also registered a domain name, Character Matters.

A copy of the Storyboard "Next" that was in the planning stages is here.

Response by Team Obama:

“This morning's story revealed the appalling lengths to which Republican operatives and SuperPacs apparently are willing to go to tear down the President and elect Mitt Romney. The blueprint for a hate-filled, divisive campaign of character assassination speaks for itself. It also reflects how far the party has drifted in four short years since John McCain rejected these very tactics. Once again, Governor Romney has fallen short of the standard that John McCain set, reacting tepidly in a moment that required moral leadership in standing up to the very extreme wing of his own party.”

Response by Team Romney:

"I repudiate the effort by that PAC to promote an ad strategy of the nature they've described. I would like to see this campaign focus on the economy, on getting people back to work, on seeing rising incomes and growing prosperity -- particularly for those in the middle class of America. And I think what we've seen so far from the Obama campaign is a campaign of character assassination. I hope that isn't the course of this campaign. So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they're thinking about ... It's interesting that we're talking about some Republican PAC that wants to go after the president [on Wright]; I hope people also are looking at what he's doing, and saying 'why is he running an attack campaign? Why isn't he talking about his record?'"

**juraigamer**

Election season?

*turns off the news*

Why can't they just say FOOK YOU back and fourth already?

**Frazzled**

Not seeing anything false about the campaign script actually...

**biccat**

Republicans figuring out how to respond to being called racist isn't news. It's smart politics.

The DNC is going to call the Republicans racist no matter what. The president himself has already suggested it.

New York Times spins a non-story into a story to try to embarass Republicans. Big surprise.

**Ahtman**

biccat wrote:Republicans figuring out how to respond to being called racist isn't news. It's smart politics.

Using racism as a political strategy is news, but sadly it is old news. It is also not smart, but dirty, which is also old news. McCain didn't want this for a reason, and Romney doesn't either. Some people want to win by uniting people and giving them a cuase, and then there are these guys who don't care if they tear the country apart to win, as long as they win, even if what is left is tainted and shattered.

**dogma**

That this is public knowledge is laughable.

It often amazes me how badly most people suck at politics.

**mattyrm**

I love American politics..

While me and the missus are safely over here, the wackier it gets, the more fun we have.

I only hope we don't have to move when the Euro collapses and Britain has less money than a Greek tramp. :(

**ShumaGorath**

mattyrm wrote:I love American politics..

I don't. I really don't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

New York Times spins a non-story into a story to try to embarass Republicans. Big surprise.

Republicans did something embarrassingly unethical and used campaign finance holes to try and set up some nationwide underhanded attack ads while pulling in an "influential billionaire with effectively unlimited funds" to get the ball rolling. Big surprise.

**frgsinwntr**

ShumaGorath wrote:
mattyrm wrote:I love American politics..

I don't. I really don't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

New York Times spins a non-story into a story to try to embarass Republicans. Big surprise.

Republicans did something embarrassingly unethical and used campaign finance holes to try and set up some nationwide underhanded attack ads while pulling in an "influential billionaire with effectively unlimited funds" to get the ball rolling. Big surprise.

^^ in agreement with shuma

I hope this billionare reads the article... feels used... they don't like him, they like his money.... and doesn't finance things...

Can we get back to govt for the people by the people please? K thx

**Easy E**

Rev Wright? Still going back to that watering hole? Weaksauce.

I guess the Repub strategists have got nothin' then?

**Frazzled**

Easy E wrote:Rev Wright? Still going back to that watering hole? Weaksauce.

I guess the Repub strategists have got nothin' then?

Cough ***current economy *** cough
but agreed, thats more appropriate when he was intiially running - too bad no one vetted him then. its almost as bad as going back 50 years and ginning up a high school prank as just just this side of inventing Zyklon B and cackling while you shove people into ovens.

**ShumaGorath**

Frazzled wrote:
Easy E wrote:Rev Wright? Still going back to that watering hole? Weaksauce.

I guess the Repub strategists have got nothin' then?

Cough ***current economy *** cough
but agreed, thats more appropriate when he was intiially running - too bad no one vetted him then. its almost as bad as going back 50 years and ginning up a high school prank as just just this side of inventing Zyklon B and cackling while you shove people into ovens.

The effort at scale is what worries me here, the shots themselves were kinda generic. The creation of a web of funding, freelance and consultation hires, and different media companies and outlets is frightening. It's a large scale and expensive effort at pure yellow journalism without any of the issues of culpability since it's being done through rather villainous campaign law loopholes. It would be unprecedented if fox news didn't already exist doing the exact same thing (except at least they wear name tags.)

It's disturbing that these things could already be happening (and probably are).

**biccat**

Easy E wrote:Rev Wright? Still going back to that watering hole? Weaksauce.

There was the recent news that the Obama administration offered him $150,000 to shut up during the campaign.

Probably not relevant.

Easy E wrote:I guess the Repub strategists have got nothin' then?

We can always talk about the economy.

**LoneLictor**

biccat wrote:
Easy E wrote:Rev Wright? Still going back to that watering hole? Weaksauce.

There was the recent news that the Obama administration offered him $150,000 to shut up during the campaign.

Probably not relevant.

Woaaaaaah, really? Could I have a linky? Normally I hear and read about this articles before everyone else (cuz I'm a hipster in that way).

**Frazzled**

Here's one link. I can't vouch for veracity and frankly I don't care.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/church-was-not-their-thing-new-audio-from-rev-wrights-shocking-interview-with-obama-book-author-ed-klein/

**biccat**

LoneLictor wrote:
biccat wrote:
Easy E wrote:Rev Wright? Still going back to that watering hole? Weaksauce.

There was the recent news that the Obama administration offered him $150,000 to shut up during the campaign.

Probably not relevant.

Woaaaaaah, really? Could I have a linky? Normally I hear and read about this articles before everyone else (cuz I'm a hipster in that way).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/book-obama-team-tried-to-pay-rev-wright-150k-to-keep-quiet-until-after-2008-election/

**LoneLictor**

biccat wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:
biccat wrote:
Easy E wrote:Rev Wright? Still going back to that watering hole? Weaksauce.

There was the recent news that the Obama administration offered him $150,000 to shut up during the campaign.

Probably not relevant.

Woaaaaaah, really? Could I have a linky? Normally I hear and read about this articles before everyone else (cuz I'm a hipster in that way).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/book-obama-team-tried-to-pay-rev-wright-150k-to-keep-quiet-until-after-2008-election/

Oh, its that's unlicensed book. Clinton went on TV and said that the book was bs and and he didn't say any of the stuff it said he said. Since Clinton is pretty much my god, I'm not sure if I trust that book.

**biccat**

LoneLictor wrote:Oh, its that's unlicensed book. Clinton went on TV and said that the book was bs and and he didn't say any of the stuff it said he said. Since Clinton is pretty much my god, I'm not sure if I trust that book.

Clinton certainly wouldn't lie.

The whole perjury conviction, impeachment, and disbarrment was nothing, really.

**Chowderhead**

biccat wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:Oh, its that's unlicensed book. Clinton went on TV and said that the book was bs and and he didn't say any of the stuff it said he said. Since Clinton is pretty much my god, I'm not sure if I trust that book.

Clinton certainly wouldn't lie.

The whole perjury conviction, impeachment, and disbarrment was nothing, really.

He also left office with the highest end of term approval rating, and I guess you don't care that he was acquitted from the charges and finished his term.

But you know, picking and choosing the facts is fun. So go ahead and do that.

**d-usa**

For being able to talk about the economy, there sure is not a lot of talking about the economy here.

**dogma**

biccat wrote:
There was the recent news that the Obama administration offered him $150,000 to shut up during the campaign.

Probably not relevant.

Oh noes! Money in politics?!? That's immoral!

**LoneLictor**

d-usa wrote:For being able to talk about the economy, there sure is not a lot of talking about the economy here.

See, that's cause the economy has been bad under both Obama (a dirty dem) and Bush (a rascal rep).

**gregor_xenos**

LoneLictor wrote: blah blah blah.....Since Clinton is pretty much my god, I'm not sure if I trust that book.

Hey dude.... I like kinda homely fat girls too.... but god?

You obviously didnt serve in the military under this cretin..... Or the current one.

**InquisitorVaron**

Im sorry but unless you personally could do a better job, you can't complain. Discounting hindsight.
Anyway isn't whoever has the richest backer gets in?

Putting petals on a turd doesn't make it anything better than a turd. The people at fault are the people who allowed it to get this way.

**LoneLictor**

gregor_xenos wrote:
LoneLictor wrote: blah blah blah.....Since Clinton is pretty much my god, I'm not sure if I trust that book.

Hey dude.... I like kinda homely fat girls too.... but god?

You obviously didnt serve in the military under this cretin..... Or the current one.

Bill Clinton is my god. Hillary is pretty smart, but she ain't no god.

**d-usa**

LoneLictor wrote:
gregor_xenos wrote:
LoneLictor wrote: blah blah blah.....Since Clinton is pretty much my god, I'm not sure if I trust that book.

Hey dude.... I like kinda homely fat girls too.... but god?

You obviously didnt serve in the military under this cretin..... Or the current one.

Bill Clinton is my god. Hillary is pretty smart, but she ain't no god.

Heck, he went into the locker room to congratulate the Mens National Team during the 2010 World Cup, and they told him that nobody ever hangs out with them. So he had a little mini-party and downed some beer with the guys.

Gotta love a guy that knows how to party. I know Bill and W. are pretty far apart politically, but I think those two together at a party would be a blast.

**Ouze**

I don't get why they'd try to go with this. It wasn't effective in 2008, and now that he's actually been president for 4 years, it's pretty clear he's not some radical Black Panther type. I think they should probably try to focus on the things he's actually said and done rather than things some other dude (who isn't running for president) said. It's not so much that it's underhanded so much as it's proven to not have worked.

**purplefood**

mattyrm wrote:I love American politics..

While me and the missus are safely over here, the wackier it gets, the more fun we have.

I only hope we don't have to move when the Euro collapses and Britain has less money than a Greek tramp. :(

Basically my thoughts...
Though without the whole moving thing...

**Hazardous Harry**

I don't get why they'd try to go with this. It wasn't effective in 2008, and now that he's actually been president for 4 years, it's pretty clear he's not some radical Black Panther type. I think they should probably try to focus on the things he's actually said and done rather than things some other dude (who isn't running for president) said. It's not so much that it's underhanded so much as it's proven to not have worked.

So it's underhanded and dumb?

**LoneLictor**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
I don't get why they'd try to go with this. It wasn't effective in 2008, and now that he's actually been president for 4 years, it's pretty clear he's not some radical Black Panther type. I think they should probably try to focus on the things he's actually said and done rather than things some other dude (who isn't running for president) said. It's not so much that it's underhanded so much as it's proven to not have worked.

So it's underhanded and dumb?

It's like when a conman tells you, "Uhh.... I'm a wallet inspector.... heh, heh.... gimme yer wallet. Yeah. Heh."