A Republican can defeat Obama in 2012 by appearing sane and using Mitt Romney's deadly message

Watch Your Back, Barack
By Bill Boyarsky
June 15, 2011

All a Republican has to do to win is to appear sane, maybe even reasonable, and to campaign with the deadly message that Romney had in Monday’s debate:

“

These are dangerous words for Obama because there is some truth in them. .... he was elected by the recession. And if the recession continues at the present pace, he could be defeated by it.

That is why Romney’s most telling words were “the president has failed.” This line resonates with unemployed and frightened 2008 Obama voters.

Read the full article at:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/watch_your_back_barack_20110615/

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

by channeling Mitt Romney's bullshit.

Love,

the Anti-Obama campaign.

...:eyes:

Romney Gives Obama A Failing Grade, But Massachusetts Ranked 47th In Job Growth While He Was Governor

Feel free to use it to counter RW/Republican spin.

I copy and save so many of the links you provide. When the GOP (finally) picks a candidate, I'll be ready for the real battle, thanks to you. It's not that I'm lazy (maybe a little), but I can't do searches at work and you save me hours of searching when I get home.

Thank you so much!

:applause:

P.S. I have the feeling this link will be one of the most valuable.

How is that "anti-Obama?"

"A Republican can defeat Obama in 2012 by appearing sane and using Mitt Romney's deadly message"

...this is for Obama's own good. After all, Republicans are good at appearing sane and Romney's message is likely to resonate. Americans are easily fooled. Oh well. President Obama or President Romney, what difference does it make as long as the "deadly message" wins the day?

Don't people have to buy into the message and believe Romney or any other Republican can do a better job for the message to be "deadly"?

Is the OP trying to convince them they should believe it or warn them that the message is BS. not to be believed coming from a Republican?

look at Carter when he lost to Reagan. Carter had lead by 3% in the weekend before election. People went to the polls
and overwhelmingly decided at that moment they didn't want Carter running the economy anymore.

" People went to the pollsand overwhelmingly decided at that moment they didn't want Carter running the economy anymore."

Obama is not Carter, and if people are that stupid, then they can have one of the seven mental cases on the GOP side.

It was more about the hostages. He looked hapless having Americans held hostage by a shithole for over a year.

Many Americans are reactionary and gullible. And the GOP will have the corporate nooze media assisting them in getting out their BS message.

And for the record, I'm not saying I think people will buy into the BS message, only that's it's a possibility that should be taken seriously rather than ridiculed.

"Why are you so confident people won't buy into a BS message?"

...said anything about being confident? You chanacterize the message as "BS," but the OP referred to it as "deadly."

You also said, "Don't people have to buy into the message and believe Romney or any other Republican can do a better job for the message to be "deadly"?" indicating that you don't believe people will buy into the message Romney/GOP will be selling.

Did I misread your intention? Are you, or are you not confident that the public will dismiss the message the GOP will be selling in 2012?

If you argue that Obama is better than any GOP candidate, that is a WEAK argument.

But ... if you argue that a Republican simply needs to appear to be SANE ... THAT is a compelling argument!!!!

:rofl:

They have set thing up so that leading up to the election everything is going to go to shit and people are going to be pissed. I think this election will be a real close one, and if we lose I hope God has mercy on us. I place the blame for that on Obama and a lot of our elected democrats.

Especially, since the Republican controlled House and the filibustering Republicans in the Senate have been so helpful.

Whether it should take 4 years or 40 years, many voters don't care. All they know is they're not seeing results.

It's not like President Obama is showing much leadership on any front. Voters don't see him fighting for hope and change like he promised them. They have less and less reason to vote for him.

Could it be that we have a Corporate Media who is obsessed with shoving Republican bullshit propaganda down our throats? Could it be that they want Americans to stay dumb and uninformed so that they'll vote against their best interest? Could it be that the ONLY media outlet that even airs all the town halls and speeches that Obama has made over the last few years has been C-SPAN?!?!?!

Just because YOU didn't see it on t.v. doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. It just means that it is NOT being covered!!!

The worse thing Dems can do is stay home because they've become disillusioned. That is what's going to kill us in 2012. The Independents tend to latch on to talking points and be moved by easy-to-understand sound bites. Many--NOT ALL--so-called Independents are misinformed; they tend to make up their minds at the last minute. The good news is that it's TOO EARLY to put nails in Obama's coffin.

And I love how the Corporate Media keeps trying to shove Romney down our throats; yes, the former MA governor who shipped jobs overseas, laying off hundreds and thousands of workers--and getting wealthy off of the backs of the unemployed.

Neverthless, something has to happen and soon.

The Republicans told us in clear, certain language that they wanted to destroy Obama. They are *DELIBERATELY* laying off public workers at the state level so that the unemployment numbers go up. They are *DELIBERATELY* blocking jobs bills in Congress. That's why it burns me up to hear Robert Reich and Paul Krugmann blame Obama. They are very smart about politics. They should know how things are done in government; they know that the Republicans are doing these things on purpose.

They complain about no jobs, but do not offer any strategies for getting anything through the House. It's frustrating to no end.

bigger when we did have the House.

And three Republican Senators were permitted to write the final bill which pretty much guaranteed it's failure to jump start the economy.

They argued that there needed to be more tax cuts, going along with Republicans. Had little to do with Obama. Why? Because ALL TAX AND REVENUE BILLS BEGIN IN THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES!!!!!

Why is this so difficult for people to understand???? *banging head against the wall*

I agree,
and it doesn't help when the White House, the DNC, the DCCC, and DSCC support those very same "Democrats" for re-election.

See: Arkansas Primary, 2010

in Blanche Lincoln's reelection!!

"They complain about no jobs, but do not offer any strategies for getting anything through the House."

Well, the first step would be for the head of the Democratic Party, President Obama, to present a bold public works and infrastructure bill to "put America back to work".

But, he won't do that.

President Obama doesn't believe the government should promote WPA type jobs programs. He mainly believes in the "free market" capitalism.

We saw that demonstrated with President Obama's weak "stimulus" programs that primarily stressed tax cuts and his refusal to support federal job creation programs proposed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and many liberal/progressive economic and political groups.

He often will ask a member of Congress to bring forth a bill. And there have been several jobs bills that were introduced last session. All made it through the House, killed in the Senate!

There is a current jobs bill in the Senate that the president doesn't think will make it through the House.

Please understand how a bill becomes law. Legislation begins in the Congress, not the Executive Branch.

Public Works proposals *STILL* have to be approved by the Congress, and specifically through the House. Why? Because the Constitution gives the House, specifically, the "power of the purse," and the authority to raise revenues.

Tell me this: If the House of Representatives is controlled by the Republican Party who told you that they want to see to it that the president fails, do you think that Speaker Boehner, who by his authority controls the agenda would even allow a jobs bill by Democrats to be discussed? The answer is no! The commitees are now headed by Republicans. Do you think that these committee chairs would allow a jobs bill to even be considered in the subcommittee? Full committee?

If you can explain to me how these bills will get through a House controlled by Teabagging Republicans and a Senate that has filibustered every single piece of legislation that has anything to do with jobs, I promise to listen.

But, no one has yet explained how these proposals get through Congress where they MUST go!!

And this President has followed that tradition in presenting via his Congressional leaders legislation and resolutions for adoption and possible amendment.

So you don't think Reagan, Clinton and Bush presented legislative proposals?

Yikes!

If a President doesn't advocate and present legislative goals, objectives and clear proposals, what purpose do they serve .... do they merely implement whatever Congress passes with little or no input? That's not how politics works in Washington.

Are you claiming President Obama had nothing to do with the 2009 stimulus bill and last Decembers tax cut bill?

While Obama obviously did not sit down at his oval office desk and write every word of those and other bills everyone knows they are in fact what the President wanted and signed off on!

If not, he could have rejected those bills.

Instead, he defended the work of his bi-partisan congressional partners.

to introduce legislation. And that's exactly what happened. Still, those proposals have to get through BOTH chambers and that didn't happened. The Senate Rethugs filibustered everything that the Dems tried to get done.

They can be stopped at anytime the Senate leadership decides to.

This has been covered many times on DU.

For example: Reid could have ended (and still can) his "two-track" debate procedure at anytime he wishes which would have stopped any Senate discussions and votes on other matters.

So you're wrong. Reid cannot just HALT anything when he wants to. Although I do agree that Reid is a whimp!!

Including the "rule" that says they can't.

And the Senate leader can refuse to recognize a "off the Senate floor" procedural filibuster and require Republicans to filibuster on the Senate floor.

This has been covered in great detail on DU in the recent past.

And Senator Reid's "two track" Senate debate procedure can be withdrawn whenever he pleases. Are you familiar with that procedure?

Now I've read all of the unsupported arguments in defense of Republican phantom filibusters and the Senate leaders alleged inability to stop them.

According to the numerous lame excuses in defense of Democratic inaction and weakness, the Republicans run the Senate when they are in the majority and the Republicans continue to run the Senate when they are in a minority.

If you'd like to start a new post concerning this matter that would be in order.

controlled by Democrats!

And, during Clinton's tenure, there were some reasonable Republicans who were willing to reach across the aisle like Dick Lugar and Bob Dole. Those moderate, reasonable Republicans no longer exist. And remember, the Republicans voted in lockstep to block Clinton's budget bill/stimulus package in 1994. And you remember what happened next? The Republicans diverted attention to Hillary's health care reform proposal and ran on that. They used it as a platform to defeat the Democrats and that's exactly what happened.

Here’s what he said: He has “commitments by the private sector, colleges, and the National Association of Manufacturers that will make it possible for 500,000 community college students to get a manufacturing credential that has the industry’s stamp of approval.”

That makes no sense. The private sector is not hiring, The National Association of Manufacturers, a group long sympathetic to the Republicans, opposes Obama’s major policy initiatives, including health reform. And in regard to the community colleges, their budgets are being slashed around the country, with their students unable to find classes they need to graduate. This Obama plan is locked in unreality, conceived by policy wonks unfamiliar with the real world.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/watch_your_back_barack_20110615/

Do President Obama and his advisors really think this will create any new jobs and convince people he's working hard to create jobs for all? Once again President Obama is simply reinforcing his hard headed position that government shouldn't be involved in job creation programs and that people should trust corporate America and Wall Street to end the unemployment crisis. BBI

has not improved in any way. SS at a standstill, medical insurance non-affordable. I'm wide open to someone that can improve my life and those of others, the unemployed, the military... Stop these stupid wars, they're good for nothing.

People swore after 4 years of Bush there was NO WAY IN HELL he'd get reelected...but guess what, he did. The United States is a big place and if Obama cannot GOTV, we're screwed because if the economy isn't better and if people are still unemployed and still losing their homes come November 2012, that's all they'll be thinking about. And if a Repub can convince people who have no strong party affiliation that they can do better, they will vote for that person, whether it's good for this country or not.

That is not being anti-Obama, that is being realistic and it hurts our party to think we've got this thing in the bag.

one thing. Claiming the conditions in the OP (Republican sanity and Romney's message) are the things that could lead to his defeat is bogus. Bloggers and left organizations have been ripping appart that message.

"The United States is a big place and if Obama cannot GOTV, we're screwed because if the economy isn't better and if people are still unemployed and still losing their homes come November 2012."

Yes, that's the primary reason for all of this, and what Republicans hope will lead to a Democratic loss: depressing the vote.

There seems to be an industry dedicated to doing that.

"So what leadership is Obama showing on that issue? Since you know so much do you know?"

...you're asking this to contrast the President against Republicans?

Really?

Maybe the message is "deadly/"

What the hell are you talking about?

Is he showing any leadership on combating this effort which has the potential to really hurt his party and his reelection at the polls.

Big difference.

Edited to add:

Depressing the vote means getting people to believe that Obama hasn't a shot in hell so wishy-washy voters stay home 'cause "their vote won't matter anyway."

Though I have to say, the Dem side is pretty good about trying to depress the vote as well. It's harder for us though because we don't REALLY have the MSM on our side.

to think otherwise is foolish. Its not all election theft, there ARE many angry stupid voters out there. I can't guarantee the upper midwest or the eastern swing states this time around.

- an issue the Democrats have ignored since 2000.

He is dealing with an opposition party that is actively working to destroy the country and its economy in order to turn him out of office next year. They don't care about anything else. As far as I can recall, this is a first for any president.

I suspect that some close to him have tried to warn him, but he thinks that such people are exaggerating. What it would take to convince him, I don't know. It isn't as if Republicans have made this a big secret.

It's hard to end up with a much more deranged and destructive opposition than that.

and rolling over and playing dead, a piece of grass could beat Obama in 2012.

That Democrats have double standards--get Weiner to resign but not holding Republicans accountable for anything--is a sure fire way to keep the base home in 2012.

Claiming that Obama would be way better than ANYONE from the GOP ... that is a WEAK argument.

But ...

We should seriously think that any Republican who "appears sane" has a good chance of winning.

Anyone else notice how ridiculous that is?

They write articles no one sees, and the fourteen people that read their blogs all agree with them that Obama is a failure, but IRL the Democrats I talk to can't wait to vote for Mr. Obama again.

I used to come to DU to see which locations had Democrats who needed help. How Dems were fighting specific GOP attacks.

Starting more than a year ago, the mood here changed. Obama was declared evil before the first year was up.

Since then, I don't find much on DU that would help Dems get elected.

I do still come to see what the daily outrage is.

This week ... its is that Obama (a) forced weiner to resign, and (b) Obama forced the AARP to support massive cuts in Social Security.

Neither is true ... but why should that matter. Outrage is outrage.

People are not grasping the rules of the Constitution and responsibilities of each branch of government. They seem to believe that Obama is a dictator who sits and writes legislation, bypassing Congress with no checks and balances. They also seem to think he controls the Corporate Media and decides what stories receive airtime. He is deliberately sabotaging his chances at reelection by demanding that the Corporate Media NOT show any of his town hall speeches or visits that he's been giving all over the country during the last weeks, months, and few years.

Indeed outrage is outrage.


(People really believe that Obama controls AARP? WOW! Really?)

If the mass unemployment, cuts in social services and decline in living standards doesn't let up by November 2012 the Republicans might ask voters:

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?"

Didn't you just describe a very large chunk of the American electorate?

If you doubt me, take a look at his jobs plan.

You know, Obama versus Romney?

You have those?