Reasons to Vote Republican

< Death Sentence Tarnished By Conflict of Interest | Obama to Raise Social Security Taxes On Earnings Over $250k >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Great video (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    TChris. I changed the embed code to 350 x 275 (it's in two places) so it fits on the front page. (That's all you need to change in the future so they fit.)

    Friends don't lef friends vote Republican. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:50:45 PM EST

    around here.... (4.00 / 4) (#22)
    by p lukasiak on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    my motto is 'friends don't let friends vote for Obama or McCain'.... that way, we don't have to blame ourselves --and each other -- for the disaster that the next four years will be regardless of which one wins....

    Friends let friends.... (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by kdog on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    vote their conscience.

    Though I urge my friends to no end to consider an option outside the crooked D and R box:)


    I was wondering... (none / 0) (#93)
    by rdandrea on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:32:09 PM EST
    ...how long it would take for the Obama bashing to start.  Three posts.

    Watch the video.  Think.  Where do you want this country to be on January 20?


    I don't know. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by mikeyleigh on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    It seems a bit too cartoonish for my taste.  I keep thinking about the way Republicans could portray Dems in the same ham-handed manner.

    Why don't the Dems and the Presumptive ever ... (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Ellie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:03:49 PM EST
    ... lavish praise on the constitution and protecting neutral rights so that everyone may choose regarding life decisions, party, counsel and temple without the threat of bigotry and extra-judicial persecution disgused as "culture"?

    This would seem an elegant solution to concerns about attracting new voters and keeping the old guard.

    Dems have put themselves on a path to perdition ever since they talked themselves into perpetually appeasing a fanatical minority that despises them regardless of effort, and how many Unity Ponies are "reaching across the aisle".

    When has the far right ever reached across the aisle, in good faith, to Unite or Heal the Devision or whatever the hooey is for compliance and compromise?

    When have they ever been asked to do so, by media, in every instance where invited to state a position on an issue?

    Dems don't have to play this game or accept these rules but they always do and it drives me crazy.  

    read up the thread (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    Go two comments above where you broke in.  Now stop and think.

    Now to encApsulate the discussion.  BOTH ford and obama are democrats.  But based on how I have seen ford be treated by some of obama's most enthusiastic supporters i am convinced this plea for unity we are now hearing is a joke.

    Please feel free to keep sucking on your formalities and continue to miss the main point.

    Bush dogs (none / 0) (#63)
    by laurie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:07:55 PM EST
    Have you seen this on Obama's attitude on getting out of the Party the so called "Bush Dogs"? (Conservative often Southern Democrats)



    all of those dems (none / 0) (#65)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:13:20 PM EST
    should switch to independent.

    Let the purge happen


    There's nothing in that article about Obama (none / 0) (#92)
    by r15 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:09:43 PM EST
    How about reasons to vote FOR Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Foxx on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:34:24 PM EST

    None, Nada, Nil, Zero, Zilch, (none / 0) (#98)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:48:36 PM EST
    Decisions, decisions (4.33 / 6) (#24)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    It's too bad the two choices are so tainted.  I was going to vote for Ron Paul, but he dropped out.  Nader is starting to look better every day.

    I'm not so concerned about McCain because he will have a Democratic Congress to rein him in.

    Maybe the supers will see the light and vote for Hillary at the convention. That is, if it's not cancelled since Obama and the DNC are trying to find a way to cancel it and have a quick coronation in Chicago instead.

    And, if they don't remove Hillary's name from the ballot as they're trying to do.  It worked for Obama in Chicago.

    It must really bother them that Hillary won the People's Votes.

    Because (3.66 / 3) (#15)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    (The Reverend) "I'm voting Republican because woman should not control their own bodies. Never, ever, ever."

    Of course, the Democratic nominee thinks all women should have to go talk to their pastors first before doing anything. And what's the difference again?

    If the Dems had a different nominee, some of us might be inclined to care.

    Your words do not reflect Obama's position (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:16:02 PM EST
    "...all women should have to go talk to their pastors first before doing anything."

    Obama's words (my emphasis):

    "I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy."

    And why (4.25 / 4) (#37)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:40:10 PM EST
    should anyone's clergy be involved in this decision -- ever? What does one's clergy have to do with one's body?

    What a stupid question (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by daryl herbert on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    religious people often look to clergy for guidance on all sorts of stuff.  The decision whether or not to have an abortion is the kind of weighty, life-altering decision that implicates big moral questions.  Religious people will of course often choose to involve clergy when making such decisions.

    Why such hostility towards religious women?


    No hostility..His statement should have (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:29:27 PM EST
    just left out that part. It makes it seem woman need guidance. No one would be saying to a man, before taking Viagra, consult your clergy!!

    I don't think that even the religious (none / 0) (#76)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:49:52 PM EST
    think there are any religious issues in taking Viagra.

    You miss my point which is (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:06:32 PM EST
    how would you like someone telling you what you could and could not do with your own body. It is nobody's business except perhaps the father of the child. Other than that, stay out of it, don't advised others, respect their privacy. We know what to do, we know where to go, we are human beings, free and grown-up.

    Oh yes, we hear you roar. (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:40:30 PM EST
    Please respect those of us, men and women both, who reach out to others for their advice when we are face with big decisions.

    Ya know, your sarcasm is not even (none / 0) (#88)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    worth answering. I do, however, respect your right to express your opinion!!!

    That's big of ya. (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:53:12 PM EST
    What? (none / 0) (#86)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:37:06 PM EST
    And miss a chance to pander to the evangelicals?
    C'mon... I find the incredulity at American politics sanctimonious from a readership of a left leaning blog.

    If he had left it at (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    "I trust women to make these decisions."  I'd be fine with it.

    But the second he implied that women should consult with others, he lost me.  I think women know if and when they would benefit from consulting others or if indeed, they are better off not telling anyone at all.


    wha?? (none / 0) (#55)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    don't you think in some cases women ought to consult with their doctors?

    In some cases (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:58:00 PM EST
    but the minute you get into abusive husbands, abusive boyfriends and abusive fathers, sometimes the best thing to do is to talk only to people who you can absolutely trust to keep their mouths shut.

    Sure, doctors ought to be in that group, but they may not be.  Also, a poor girl who can barely scrape together enough for an abortion on short notice isn't likely to be interested in more delay and more expense.  It's not like there are free, convenient medical clinics on every street corner.

    Statistically, professional abortions are ALWAYS safer than nine months of pregnancy and childbirth.  I'll be happy to recount my various problems if you like.  They weren't as common as the eclampsia that killed Trina Bachtel, but they make up for it in gore and graphic detail.  


    of course, but (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by A DC Wonk on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:21:24 PM EST
    this language is standard language.

    Bill Clinton, e.g., wrote in one of his books that "Let women decide with their doctor and their God"

    Puleeze, if Obama is to be criticized, let it be for something substantial, rather than using the language that almost all pro-choicers use.

    And, let us not forgot: it is a medical procedure -- having a doctor's advice seems obviously prudent.


    Oh, I think the doctor (none / 0) (#94)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 07:55:46 PM EST
    that performs the procedure is up to the task.

    Besides, with all the frikkin' hoops that they make clinics and women jump through, it's unlikely that women are making decisions in ignorance.  All I had to do to authorize the surgery that put me back together after my second pregnancy split me asunder was to sign one release and that surgery was way more invasive than an abortion.  

    (BTW - yeah, that's pretty much what happened   The things they don't tell you in those pregnancy books...  If you want to talk informed consent, perhaps we should tell women every potential risk and complication of child bearing.)


    clergy (none / 0) (#62)
    by laurie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:00:14 PM EST
    Obama is shifting ground. He's aiming at cross-over Religious Republicans who are unhappy with McCain.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#64)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:08:33 PM EST
    And what do you think "obliterate Iran" and "I grew up with guns" was? Completely candid, unrehearsed, from-the-heart self expression?

    They all pander, they all triangulate. It's what they think -- or are told -- they have to do to get elected.


    Actually, he's been saying this all (none / 0) (#71)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    along. People are reading "old" speeches from his "other" point of view!!

    Why do you care if someone consults ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by cymro on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:16:08 PM EST
    ... a fortune-teller? Isn't that what freedom of choice is all about?

    I'll tell you what, I'm telling you what you do (none / 0) (#70)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:26:41 PM EST
    with your own self is now out of bounds unless you consult your clergy or family. Women are not chattel anymore!!!

    Why (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:26:37 PM EST
    can't he ever just say something like "it's their decision to make" and leave it alone. He uses to many words all the time and it sounds waffly. He certainly makes it sound like they should talk to their minister.

    Who (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:27:39 PM EST
    "thinks they should HAVE to" is just a slight distortion, dont you think?

    But, who needs integrity of discourse when you're still in post-run-off snit mode?


    I love it (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:52:34 PM EST
    And of course the guy who's wholeheartedly behind a policy that results in thousands of Iraqi WOMEN and children being blown to bits, maimed, traumatized and permanantly uprooted gets a complete pass.

    Maybe I should've said the indivuals behind the policy. That's more clarifying vis a vis present attitudes.


    I liked it. (2.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Cheryl on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:56:36 PM EST
    Had a few bad lines, but several good ones.
    One of my favorites: "I want to go to Iran!"

    Will probably be more effective for Clinton Democrats thinking they'll vote for McCain. Republicans will laugh it off.

    (I'm still in the "Not Voting" mode, personally. According to the media pundits, that means I'm in the anger phase of my "grieving process.")

    I don't think it will be effective (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:11:47 PM EST
    This is a rallying ad for people who are voting for Obama and who want to mock people who aren't. I doubt that a single person who is planning on voting for McCain will be swayed - the arguments are to over the top. The 100 years of Iraq argument is probably the most ridiculous one they have. Anybody with an IQ over 50 can tell you that there is no way McCain will be in power in 100 years. Now, if they said "at least 4-8 more years in Iraq", then that might have more impact. But the 100 years just comes off as hyperbole.

    /applaud (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:15:37 PM EST
    "I'm voting Republican because I don't need good healthcare. If the big pharmaceutical companies bottom line is good, then I'm good."

    Friends don't let friends, upset over ugly politics, vote Republican. Why wasn't that addressed in the video? Does it predate the selection of Obama as the Dem Nominee? Perhaps there was a fear of salting wounds, and that's understandable.

    At any rate, it does illuminate a plethora of issues that are more important than protesting flawed processes.

    I've seen some ads "against" McCain that (none / 0) (#34)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    I find comical enough to enjoy. They are not using the same approach in the GE that they did in the primary.

    OK (1.00 / 1) (#46)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    And I mean this seriously, what exactly are you doing?
    You chose to respond to the one aspect in my original post that had to deal with the past.
    How should I term things for those Clinton supporters that are still suffering tremendously?
    I certainly don't want to alienate you nor do I want to pile on during an extremely painful time.
    But there is a fixation with the Clinton supporters on what we cannot and will not change before the GE.
    How would focusing on demanding a fair, honest nominative and election process serve us right now?
    We'd remain divided and before you know it that's exploited to a Republican presidential victory.
    review video at this point to highlight some of that cost
    And, for the love of Mike, think of the many Supreme Court nominations that will be made over the next few years. More of the ideals you stand up for will be trod upon.
    It's not, ""too often" give up a little in the short term for the "greater good"", it's always. That's like, the definition of politics.
    Stand up for your ideals concerning election and nomination reform. But do it after the GE. Hell, I'll help you. Just don't forget there are other ideals that the Republicans will urinate on if they win this election.

    After the election you will (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:13:25 PM EST
    have absolutely nothing to bargain with to get anything that the new Democratic Party doesn't want you to have until the next time we hold an election. It's now or accept that you will be "low hanging fruit". There is nothing you can say about the Republican Party that we do not already know. We are not "low information voters". It's not about issues; it's about respect.

    I disagree (none / 0) (#84)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:25:22 PM EST
    after the election is precisely when we work on election reform.
    If we can unify and invigorate the base. We can add election reform to the platform.
    This could be somehow tied to the roll call of Hillary's delegates.
    If we can unify we should also net gains in Congress. With power in both houses and in the oval office it is possible to enact long overdue, sweeping electoral changes.
    It's about "respect"? American politics is about respect?! Since when?
    Focusing on electoral change prior to the GE will be nothing but white noise to many.
    It's myopic, futile and counterproductive.
    Think of your daughter, or mine. How much "respect" is given to them by the right? How much respect will be given to them by McCain's SC nominees? Policies? Appointees? Vetoes?
    You're only low hanging fruit if that's where you resign yourself. Look to Obama as proof.
    Obama should not have even sniffed the nomination with Hillary in the race. Collusion from the DNC and (shock! horror!) dirty American politics notwithstanding, Hillary got whupped. I am truly sorry that is so hurtful for so many. But that's the truth.
    If you are not low information voters (your words), why is there such incredulity at the American political process? Is there some magical time in American politics that I'm missing?

    If Obama wins this election (none / 0) (#90)
    by samanthasmom on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:56:45 PM EST
    and we end up with bigger majorities in the house and senate, what possible motive would our new democratic party have for reforming the election process? The way this election has been run will be the way we run elections because it worked. I don't believe bullies should be rewarded.  Republicans are bullies, too, but I'm not a Republican.

    I guess you don't know (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by chopper on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:33:27 PM EST
    I guess you don't know about the fraud, theft, force, and threats that took place in the Democratic caucuses.  I won't say who sent the thugs in, but it wasn't Hillary.

    As bad as the Republicans are, I don't recall them actually using force.

    I don't believe bullies or thugs should be rewarded either.


    Honestly, (none / 0) (#103)
    by phatpay on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:34:05 PM EST
    I don't know. And I am trying to know.
    I know that it is talked about on a lot of blogs.
    I know that it is ignored by the MSM and that it is very hard to find an online, credible source to back up the impropriety.
    It is, however, stupidly easy to find claims of impropriety committed by both sides.
    For me personally, I certainly didn't experience anything fishy at the Washington Caucuses.
    Is there any video? Are there any pictures? Any state electoral officials that have filed complaints? Any lawsuits filed? Police reports?

    We (none / 0) (#95)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:16:51 PM EST
    would just have to work to get legislation introduced/passed.
    And by "we" I mean you and I and others that are fed up with antiquated electoral processes.
    Sound legislation is sound legislation. And I'm just positive that there is a member of Congress that is just as ticked off as some of you are here about this past primary.
    Obama is not going to win without a united Democratic party behind him.
    And, just to play devil's advocate, is everyone really so sure that HRC and her campaign are as pure and as innocent as the driven snow?

    urinate on (none / 0) (#68)
    by laurie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:14:48 PM EST
    Does that mean you're planning to screw the vote at the GE-You know the end justifies the means and all the rest of the blather????
     Voter fraud is OK????

    I think most of us (none / 0) (#97)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:47:48 PM EST
    that are participating in the discourse here are coming from a good place. I truly believe we all share more common viewpoints than different. I sincerely believe that without a united Dem party that Obama has no chance.

    I'm not sure why the SC stuff don't fly. Is it untrue? How many nominees in the next 4 years? Over the next 8? 6 of those justices are over 65 years old, iirc.
    We have had a fair amount of Dem lawmakers for awhile. Tho they need to do their jobs, they more than often don't. How many Dems bought every single piece of bs floated by dubya and the MSM '02-'06?
    As they did so, did "your" Democratic party retain your values? Well... being from HI "your" Dem party probably did. I know it seems like I'm picking on you, but I'm not. I just think you're letting one nasty little aspect of politics grab your focus.
    I wish I had the luxury of letting them earn my vote.
    LOL... Oh, man, that would be great.
    Truth is... I've got to give some fat cat rich person (and that aspect wouldn't change if Hill got the nomination) my vote and hope that they lead this nation in a relatively decent manner. And then I've got to work and get out votes to counter the astounding number of sheep that vote based on "family values" or "lapel pins" or whatever stupid tactic the right will trot out this time.


    Can't open the video from here, so I'll (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 12:54:17 PM EST
    be reading the comments with great curiousity.  Meanwhile, apparently Rahm Emanuel is in charge of making sure Dems. vote Dem.

    "I am voting Republican because (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by coigue on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:13:11 PM EST
    industry should not pay to clean up after themselves. snip... If people want clean water, buy it in a bottle"

    Well, the vid is OK, not great. (4.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:08:40 PM EST
    The acting was iffy, and the dialogue is a little on the nose. Each line the actors deliver could well have be lifted directly from some of the more one-dimensional comments here on TL.

    (The Reverend) "I'm voting Republican because woman should not control their own bodies. Never, ever, ever."

    (Gay person #1) "I"m voting Republican because I want to be told who I can love." (Gay person #2) "Honey, I tell you who to love." (#1) "No, I want the Government to tell me."



    It's a missed opportunity (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:00:56 PM EST
    to be a good response to this racist ad against Harold Ford.

    Personally, I think it needs better editing--it isn't snappy enough.

    Wayy too long (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:15:01 PM EST
    also, to tell you the truth, it has that "air "about it.  It makes the people who vote Republican feel stupid, what is the point of that?  It's insulting and not educational.  

    Yes, they are but, I am so sick of calling people stupid all the time.  What does it get you?  I think it plays good to the choir but will not convert.  It's that oh so clever so hip we will get them to see they are stupid that annoys me. Frankly, it has a bit of that they cling to their you know what's tone.  


    Exactly (4.25 / 4) (#21)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:52:13 PM EST
    I get tired of being around Dems/libs who cast everyone as stupid.  I am first tired of that word, cause it implies that being smart is a virtue.  

    Let's review..We're gonna "change" (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    the tone in washington (GWB said so too). Thought it couldn't get any worse, it has!!! I have never heard or read such disrespectful comments. If I'm for and you're against, I'm obviously an idiot. It used to be we agreed to disagree. Again, people, please don't disrespect my views, tell me why you have your views!!! (Hi Stellaaa)

    No one's being called stupid (4.00 / 1) (#25)
    by neoliberal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:01:10 PM EST
    The clip is showing, using sarcasm, what supporting and voting for the GOP means: The weakening of the FDA, no universal health care, more blacks in prison, the end of any chances for same sex marriage, 100 years in Iraq, etc. A perfectly formed voter can decide they want these things, and vote accordingly. The assumption is, however, that the vast majority of Americans don't want these things.

    Not quite (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:08:26 PM EST
    This is charicaturing what Republicans believe. Some of the points are valid, and this could have been a hard hitting ad if it had focused on those. But suggesting that Republicans don't want to cure breast cancer? Come on. That's just ridiculous, and that and other nasty little jabs undermine the entire ad.

    Um, isn't the point that people who vote (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:22:59 PM EST
    Republican don't always realize that their candidates will enact policies that are contrary to their actual values?  Heck, they enact policies that are contrary to their stated platform ("reduce government spending").

    Do you actually believe... (none / 0) (#49)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:05:27 PM EST
    ...that there are politicians in the Republican Party who don't want to cure breast cancer? I know that we are at different ends of a lot of spectrums from Republicans, but don't you think it's insulting to suggest that they don't want their mother's and daughter's and wives to die of breast cancer? They aren't monsters, they are human beings with a different perspective on most issues than I have. I disagree with many (if not most) of their policies. But I don't think that they are evil incarnate.

    Do you think... (none / 0) (#43)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    ...the drug companies and the health care industry who have invested billions in treatment really has a vested interest in curing breast cancer or any other similar disease?

    I sure don't, it would cut into their sales/bottom line.  They would rather sell you pills and use their equipment.  


    I think tha the people working for them do (none / 0) (#50)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    Drug companies are not thinking entities. They are composed of human beings who have thoughts and feelings. and those human beings have family members who have died of cancer. They don't need cancer to make a profit. Heck, they're much better off if they can cure somebody of cancer so that the person goes on to live a long life and use lots of cholesterol and blood pressure lowering drugs.

    Most that... (none / 0) (#91)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 06:08:45 PM EST
    ...are really searching for a cure work for non-profits/public institutions.  

    The patients on most of the popular cholesterol/HTN meds have expired and Big Pharm doesn't have a good profit margin on them (think generics).  Cancer drugs, on the other hand = $$$$$.


    I think you meant (none / 0) (#99)
    by lizzie on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 09:55:12 PM EST
    most PATENTS not patients.
    Because the profit margin one the patient has expired is very low.

    It would have been better shorter (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by dianem on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:05:51 PM EST
    They could have even released it as a series of 30 second ads. I only made it halfway through, because I got bored. It's the same arguments, nothing witty or new. Some of them are good arguments, other's are cliches. I know a lot of Republicans who are environmentalists, and one of the best wetland protection acts of the last 20 years was when George HW Bush instituted the "No Net Loss" policy. Does anybody believe that Republicans don't care about AIDS or breast cancer? Or that they don't want local shops to exist? This ad simply demonizes Republicans without being particularly witty or intellectually stimulating.

    That ad against Harold Ford is despicable (none / 0) (#14)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:16:49 PM EST
    but it's sure hard to defend Mr. "I like football and I like girls, an' I have no problem with that."

    I'm guessing the Reasons to Vote Repub sarcasm would be a little less effective if they threw Ford into the mix.


    The way harold ford (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:32:18 PM EST
    Was treated by obamablogs is one of the reasons why I think talking about unity now is a complete joke.

    Wasn't that Harold Ford (none / 0) (#35)
    by Newt on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:36:17 PM EST
    who was lavishing praise on John McCain for his speech on the last night of the primary?

    What was that, some kind of redirection?  Is he still a Democrat?


    wasnt that obama (3.66 / 3) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    lavishing praise on Reagan?

    Is he a democrat?


    What specific (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:50:00 PM EST
    policies of Reagan did Obama "lavish praise" upon?

    what specific (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:56:09 PM EST
    policies of mccains did ford lavish praise on?

    as i recall obama heaped praise on (none / 0) (#57)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:34:12 PM EST
    republicans like reagan and others.

    Specifics please (none / 0) (#58)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:42:08 PM EST

    I dont see why that should be too much to ask.


    actually it is too much! (none / 0) (#67)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:14:25 PM EST
    look it up yourself. i highly recommend you hussle on back to when he was talking about reagan during the primaries and dissed for it.

    That dog won't hunt (none / 0) (#5)
    by Prabhata on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:05:38 PM EST

    Cute, but it doesn't say... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Fabian on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:13:02 PM EST
    what Democrats will do for you.

    It's just a Rally The Troops ad, GOTV kinda thing.  If it was any good, it would have a subscript naming names.  Which Republicans did all those heinous acts?  Of course, the point isn't to name names, just paint with as broad a brush as possible.

    On a scale of one to ten, I give it a four.  One of those points is for decent production values.  For content - a three.


    Great point (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:51:44 PM EST
    "We're not as bad as they are" is seldom a winning strategy. I had a laugh or two over a couple of the points about which congressional Dems don't have such a hot record, either.

    Seems that is all this candidate can offer (4.66 / 6) (#33)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:25:52 PM EST
    "vote for me because I'm not them" -

    It rings of the same sound as the day the news showed Clinton's speech (I think it was in NC) where she's addressing the issues, and immediately followed with Obama's stump speech "while my opponent is busy talking about me, and not addressing the issues".

    One thing we have learned is to pay close attention to what the Obama campaign is pointing to with regard to the competition. Chances are it's to deflect those same faults in himself.


    I got into trouble (4.40 / 5) (#38)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:41:54 PM EST
    by pointing it out to some of my Democratic friends. They only they can offer is "John McCain is bad because..." rather than "Obama is good because..."

    Pretty sad times when you can't even promote your own candidate on policies or issues other than "Hope" "Change" and "Good Judgement" (and we know how well that last one is working out)


    Gah! So the anti-Obama sentiment is so (none / 0) (#59)
    by phatpay on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 03:50:20 PM EST
    fierce that you truly believe he is just rhetoric?
    Just a cursory research of his Senate record reveals that he has worked for immigration reform, expanding nuclear nonproliferation to conventional weapons, full disclosure of all entities or organizations receiving federal funds, Congo relief, lobbyist reform, exposing and prosecuting voter intimidation,  climate change reduction, Iraq War de-escalation, and in defense of vets with PTSD.
    While I'll agree that he is a flowery speaker, I don't believe that's the sum total of his political expertise.
    And how about: Obama is good because his ideals and policies are much more in line with Senator Clinton's than with Senator McCain's.
    Forced to hype the obvious.

    I'd like to see (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:31:05 PM EST
    citations of all those things he supposedly did. So far, I've seen nothing but vague claims of things he's done, most of them in the IL State Legislature which were not his, but Emil Jones stuck O's name on them to pad his resume.

    Oh, wait, he did work on an ethics bill which now requires people to stand up during lunch.

    Other than that, he pretty much voted along with everyone else and has done nothing to distinguish himself in the past 4 years of his senate term (two of which he's spent just campaigning).

    He's a boring, long-winded speaker who repeats the same platitudes over and over again. I've yet to hear anything of substance from him. Speaking only for myself, of course.


    Hrmm... (none / 0) (#102)
    by phatpay on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 02:20:15 PM EST
    It doesn't sound like you've "seen" all that much to me. It appears, to me, that your parroting things that others have said.
    I understand that your angry, for many reasons, and justifiably so. But if I can find the "citations" in seconds so can you.
    When I posted that just a "cursory" research would reveal that he has been working, I meant it. And working on legislation that embraces the ideals of the political American left, which just might include a lot of us here. "Cursory" starts here and here. I know it's just easier to reply with blind anger, but for the sake of political discourse, do the research.

    all the more reason (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:12:53 PM EST
    for obama to fess up to the divisiveness of his blogging supporters.  There's too much at stake for him to take my vote for granted.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kredwyn on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 01:34:57 PM EST

    One more Reason (none / 0) (#36)
    by CST on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    Anyone see John McCain's response to yesterday's SCOTUS case?  It's aweful.  Here is one of the highlights:

    "The United States Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country,"


    I think you mean (none / 0) (#39)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:42:49 PM EST

    "aweful" means full of awe.


    Oops (none / 0) (#41)
    by CST on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    Yea... I am bad at English... I can do math though!

    my spelling is awful <- got it right there though, thanks :)


    "Unity" (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by jondee on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:41:39 PM EST
    dosnt have to mean anti-septic, Orwellian uniformity with absolutley no room for messy differences of opinion or style.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#73)
    by standingup on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 04:33:47 PM EST
    I'll try showing this to all of my friends who farm and see if the depiction of "Arnold Jones - Farmer" and "Trudy Jones - Farmer's Wife" sways any of them to vote for the Dems this year.  

    Why is it the Democrats are so out of touch with the rural voter?  Is it that difficult to avoid the condescension that they obviously have for so many of us?  

    thank so much but i don't need your help (none / 0) (#79)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:09:59 PM EST
    or spin. now you have a nice weekend!

    The sheer level of vitriol (none / 0) (#82)
    by shoulin4 on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 05:17:04 PM EST
    on this comment page would be funnier than the cute video if it weren't also so sad.

    I don't think it will have it's desired effect... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Leisa on Fri Jun 13, 2008 at 11:49:20 PM EST
    To me, it is stereotypical and condescending.  I think that any Clinton supporter that is saying they are for McCain will definitely stiffen their resolve to NEVER vote for any Democrat.  I am now hearing grumbling in that direction...

    I can already see a response add:

    I'm voting Democrat because I like to think that I am superior to those trashy Wal-Mart shoppers that live pay check to pay check...

    This video has brought up several talking points that can be used against Democrats, the tone alone almost guarantees a response.  There were several points here that Democrats in Congress are guilty of as well...  

    What do Democrats believe in now?  It's hard to tell, just look at our congress...  Now we have two more Senators getting scrutiny for the perks they got from Countrywide Financial...  

    Never ever ever (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by jondee on Sat Jun 14, 2008 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    Good God! Forget about actual history or the potential consequences of continuing the same policies into the future; that mind-set they criticized in that ad reminded me of my Uncle Fred! And lets not forget how they had the unmitigated gall to try to make Hillary look bad in the run-off!

    There are times when I think we're being inundated with Ann C disciples posing as indignant ex-Dems. The oblivious, no-skin-off-my-nose attitude in regard to anything that's occured in the last 8 years fits the m.o pretty exactly also.


    Are you saying I am (none / 0) (#105)
    by Leisa on Thu Jun 19, 2008 at 08:44:10 PM EST
    a Republican?

    Hmm, how creative...