« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

The Brutal NRCC ‘Every Day’ Ad Memorial Open Thread.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  January 25th, 2012 at 10:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is one of the NRCC‘s harsher web ads… if you define ‘harsh’ as ‘true.’  Something to remember, folks: if you think that campaigning on behalf of Republicans who may or may have not done enough is hard, imagine what it must be like for the netroots, who are all kind of glumly aware that they have to campaign on behalf of Democrats who have done quite too much already.

Text after the fold: open thread.

NARRATOR: What’s become of America since President Obama took full control of Washington?

A wrecked economy, with debt and waste beyond imagination.

Since then, our gas prices have gone up more than 82 percent.

Every single day more than one-thousand five hundred of our jobs have been lost.

Every day, another two-thousand seven hundred of us have realized it’s been six months since we last had a job.

Every day, more than six thousand of us have begun living below poverty, while thirteen thousand more have been put on food stamps and more than eight hundred have become uninsured.

Every day, President Obama has bet, and lost, four hundred and eighty eight thousand on Solyndra.

Every day, seven hundred and forty nine million of our tax dollars has been wasted on a failed stimulus.

And every single day we have been burdened with four point two billion more in debt.

This is the legacy President Obama and his democrats have left for us. If we give them more time, what else will they do to America?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • daveoconnor

    I really, really like it.

  • stumpy

    We can’t remind the middle squishies and intentionally ignorant enough of the damage Obama and his minions have caused.

  • snowshooze

    Hope they push it hard.

  • snowshooze

    Hope they push it hard.

  • aj_0000

    That if Romney wins the nomination, it will be 2008 all over again. As of now, it once again looks like he could win FL. Gingrich needs a good debate performance. But if Romney’s money buys him FL and the nomination, as it looks possible it could, the “establishment” is in for the shock of its life.

    Elections are not won by getting swing voters alone, and swing voters are not won by being a mushy moderate. Turnout matters as much, or more. If the base does not turn out in droves the way it did in 2010, winning the Senate is a pipe dream. The best outcome for the Republicans will be a narrow Romney loss without much change in Congress. The worst outcome will be Romney getting blown out by Obama, with losses in Congress.

    I don’t think they understand how conservatives feel about the way they’ve been treated, and having the most liberal candidate since Gerald Ford shoved down our throats. After what happened in 2006, 2008 and 2010, for Romney to be the nominee is an act of suicide by the Republican Party.

    There are new grumblings about Donald Trump running. Don’t be surprised if it happens. To be honest, I don’t think the “establishment” cares about winning the presidency. Limbaugh at least had this much right. They think they can win Congress, which is all that matters to them because the whole establishment gets the power and control of the money.

    But the Republican Party is very close to being consigned to permanent minority status. Without conservatives, they have nothing. Again, compare 2006, 2008 and 2010. Then tell us again how “electable” Romney is. I will not vote for him in November, and I know many other conservatives who won’t. If a third party candidate like Trump gets in, we will support them just to defeat Romney.

    So go on, keep attacking Obama, thinking that will be enough to get us to vote for Obama lite. It won’t. If Romney is the nominee, you’re screwed.

  • CarolT

    What has to be done to tell the GOP establishment to stop recycling losers from last time? McCain in 2008 was not inspriring or fighting for the win. The only thing that helped and/or hurt him a the same time was Sarah Palin. I know people that were stupid enough to vote for Obama because he picked Palin as VP. McCain is still around, and approximately as lifeless as he was in 2008. He endorsed Romney and said under “President Obama” referrring to Obama.
    I think he may have the beginnings of Alzheimer’s and my mother had it and I do not wish it on anyone. It is the worst disease one can have it affects the entire family. It sucked (so sorry Erick, but it’s the only word I can think of to describe how bad it is) and I Thank God that he took my Mother before she did not know me and my brother.

    We have to make some of the RINOs retire due to age and/or primary them.
    I live in MA and have not been happy with Scott Brown’s many votes with the Ds. Scott has to become a real R or he’ll lose his seat to Warren, the found of OWS. Brown was the only R to say that Obama’s recess appt was fine with him. It angered many of the few conservatives here.

  • creinstein

    Than to vote for Romney in the general election.

    Yes I would rather die in miserable pain than choose Obama (D) or Obama (R).

    To me the math is simple

    Anybody > Romney or Obama.

    I am a conservative, I am a candidate, I do not care if the establishment despises me.. I am not running for them.

    I am putting my money behind my words… and I won’t support Romney ever. He can be madea prophet of the LDS and the Pope of the Catholic Church and I still will not donate to him.

    All Newt needs to do to get my donation is swear on his eternal soul to study the truth about the global warmong scam and fight it if in his soul he knows they are scamming us.

  • Adjoran

    He was for an individual mandate since 1993 until Obama passed one, he supported RomneyCare, cooperated with Gore’s PAC on trying to influence Congress to pass cap-’n'-tax, has fallen for every “green” scam to spend taxpayer money on envrionmental boondoggles, was a persistent critic of Reagan and his legacy, and always bragged that he was changing the movement.

    Give him credit for helping craft the “Contract with America” agenda in 1994 and getting most items to the promised vote quickly after becoming Speaker. After that, however, he was scatterbrained and unfocused and often thwarted and frustrated conservatives. When we finally booted him out as Speaker, it was because of his poor leadership, not ethics.

    To claim Gingrich is NOT the “establishment candidate” is to turn the concept on its head. He went to Washington in the 1970s and never left. Every dime he’s made in the last 35+ has been either from the federal government or books and fees paid because of his service in it. When he quit Congress, he did not go home to Georgia, he stayed and became a “consultant.”

    Now, you can believe people paid him to tell them history stories at bedtime if you want to.

    But Gingrich IS the Washington insider candidate. To believe he is anything else is to believe the tick got fat without the dog.

  • creinstein

    http://barracudabrigade.blogspot.com/2012/01/nancy-reagan-ronnie-passed-his-torch-to.html

    The site is one of my favorites, I was a Run Sara Run man til she said no :(

    Here is a show of evidence that the Gipper, and others, all saw Newt as strongly supporting Reagan’s ideals and plans, as well as a sort of torch handoff…

    Romney however is not much liked on that site, be warned Mittants.

    I support and endorse officially now Newt for President.

  • aj_0000

    I’m not being fooled. The only thing Romney and his supporters can do is try to destroy his opponents. He has nothing to sell himself to voters with. An unlikeable rich guy who buys elections by spamming a mountain of lies at his opponents may be able to make it inside the Republican Party, but once it gets to the general Mitt is going to be roadkill.

    I won’t feel bad when it happens, because I tried to stop him. And I will not, under any circumstances, vote for him in November. You and the rest of the RINOs can go die on your own hill. You’ve done nothing but spit in the face of conservatives, so you have no one to blame but yourselves when it happens.

    1980, 1984, 1994, 2010. What do they all have in common? Conservatives led the charge to massive victories. The best RINOs have been able to do is win narrowly and then fail to govern, or lose narrowly with little more than a whimper.

    You’ve taken what Reagan, Newt and the Tea Party handed you, acted like you did it yourself, and flushed it down the toilet. Repeatedly. But the “establishment” doesn’t learn. It just sits around waiting for its next chance to feed at the trough.

  • renl57

    “Elections are not won by getting swing voters alone, and swing voters are not won by being a mushy moderate. Turnout matters as much, or more.”

    WRONG.
    That’s only true in a very close election like 2000–one that ended up depending on the fall of a recount in FL.

    Party activists always claim that the election hinges on THEIR turnout–and they always ignore the facts.

    The exit polls of 2004 and 2008 tell the tale. The biggest single difference in who won was the Independent vote.

    In 2004, they split fairly evenly between Bush and Kerry: 49% Kerry, 48% Bush.

    In 2008, the Independent vote went 52% for Obama, 44% for McCain. That’s a landslide for Obama, right there. No turnout by Republicans could have compensated for that.

    Independent voters now represent a voting bloc comparable in size (if not larger than) the membership of either party. Who wins the Independent vote, wins the election.

    To replicate the victory of 2004, the GOP candidate this year has to at least split the Independent vote evenly with Obama.

  • tnguy

    ….of my lifetime won by landslides. A concise conservative message works. Reagan proved that. His optimism, love of country, and understandable message on the evils of big governent can’t be trumped by any pandering to those in the middle. They’d be drawn to such a message if republicans and their leaders would champion it instead of watering it down with a half-hearted conservatism.

    Unfortunately, we don’t have a candidate like that remaining.

  • renny

    McCain was ahead of the o going into the ec. collapse of 2008, when Bush decided to listen to Paulson and begin the bailouts and stimuli that o would quadruple down on.

    McCain suspended his campaign to stay in DC for two weeks to address the ec, disaster, while o breezed through and continued his run for pres. McCain gave a bad statement on how he really didn’t understand economics (and o does?), and he never recovered in the polls.

    But he was always hindered in attacking o directly as the threat of “racism” howls hung over the entire election. That cry may be heard this election but with much less potency since we’ve had the first black prez, 1st black AG, a Hispanic on the Sup. Ct., and decision by the Sup, Ct. that districts should not be distributed only by race considerations alone (and not by other courts).

    And the o had the media 100% (save FOX) on his campaign committee, but today, that same media is not as influential and has fewer viewers/readers every year. The NYSlimes is selling more assets, as it is terrible financial shape and has been for years. Even WaPo has started a whole series on o’s failures, altho’ sometimes they are whines on his failure to be left enough, it has broken a big effort not to criticize the boy at all.

    The argument that Mitt is McCain and would take the same loss flies in the face of the situation in 2008 and denies the actual facts of 2008. I do not care much for Mitt, or anyone really now running, but we do not do the cons, movement a service by distorting history.

  • thosjefferson

    This is a fantastic ad. Now we ought to make one using Ann Coulter’s brutally true column: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49068

  • gbenton

    If Reagan won in a landslide and he got so called ‘Reagan Democrats’, I think it’s fair to ask who independents are in their political views.

    Perhaps ‘the base’ is not the deciding factor, as you believe, as much as the indies – but you seem to imply that indies are somehow opposed to conservative Republican candidates.

    I think the Tea Party is evidence for an entirely different interpretation, and the 2010 results should be sobering for those who wish Republicans would be more ‘moderate’, like Romney.

    I am an independent who votes for Republicans (and NEVER Democrats or third parties) because I know from experience that the establishment big government GOP does not represent me very well. Mostly, they disappoint and cave, or do strategically stupid things and get rolled by Democrats.

    But I hate Democrats and leftists for what they are doing to America.

    I would suggest to you that if the GOP actually fielded a credible conservative (not a synthetic android gussied up to appear conservative for elections, like Romney), then he/she would win in a landslide.

    Think of independents like customers and the GOP is a business trying to attract votes/sales.

    Reagan + Tea Party Republicans are FAR more successful products than Nixon, Ford, Bush 41, Dole, Bush 43, or McCain and the man who lost to him… Romney.

    Rino’s lose.

    Reagan is revered and loved. The rest are mocked and loathed.

    Rinos are the ones perpetuating the myth that they must be moderate to appeal to independents – and the reality is that the GOP would get more base turn out AND independents if they fielded a genuine conservative like Reagan.

    RINO’s vote with Democrats when the chips are down – that’s why people like me don’t trust the GOP. If you didn’t learn your lesson with McCain, I don’t know what to tell you… and P.S. Romney LOST to McCain, who LOST to Obama.

  • gbenton

    McCain ran an inept campaign.

    He refused to call out Obama on socialism, his past, etc… even went so far in one town hall video I saw to essentially praise Obama.

    Taking two weeks off was idiotic – and he did nothing of substance while he was in DC for the ‘time out’ from the campaign.

    Worse, Obama bait and switched McCain by saying he’d limit campaign spending and instead raised 6 ro 7 hundred million.

    I’m not sure what your point is… McCain LOST because he was afraid to attack Obama on substance – and if you think the fear of being labeled a racist isn’t going to hamper Romney (Obama is just over his head, nice guy, etc.) then you are not going to like what happens if he is the nominee.

    I can at least imagine Newt turning around any racism charge and making mince meat out of anyone foolish enough to take that line of attack.

    I was for Perry – so that’s where I stand. But of the two choices, Newt at least is capable of saying the right things and has outperformed expectation in this campaign.

    Romney has under-performed expectations and has been running since McCain lost. That really should tell you something, don’t you think?

  • YnotNOW

    Because even Romney, should he get the nomination, would be a huge step toward the “right” (in both senses of the word) from the current administration.

    Our country and our constitution cannot afford 4 more years of trampling.

  • jakeofalltrades

    No conservative worthy of the name would support Barack Obama in that way. Stop lying about who you are.

  • creinstein

    Romney == Obama
    I would vote a homeless man before either.

    They both talk a talk, woo you in… but their records show what sort of monster they are.

    I stand for Conservative ideals above all else. I am not a Constitutionalist, I am not a Libertarian, I am not a Compassionate Conservative.

    I was a Conservative in 7th grade it is so tied into me.

    Look at Mitts record and you see Obama, look at Obamas record and you see Mitt.

    Liberal (D) versus Liberal (R) is the death of Conservatism.

  • jakeofalltrades

    Since you are a shill for Obama.