UPDATE: Here is the spot Obama attacks in his campaign ad:
———–
Barack Obama's latest campaign ad is full of excuses. It's not the most ideal way to begin a re-election campaign as an unpopular President. In an ad now playing on Colorado televisions, Obama's campaign tries to blame high gas prices on…Mitt Romney.
We're sure all of the Coloradans paying over $4 a gallon in parts of the state are glad Obama has found someone else to blame.
See the ad here:
We know David Axelrod, Obama's message guru, is dying to go negative against Romney, but an ad blaming an opponent who hasn't even been selected yet seems desperate, at best.
As Bill Clinton's political guru once said, "if you 'splaining, you losin'."
What's worse is we don't think the Obama campaign is the least bit prepared to fight a battle over energy prices.
After all, it is President Obama's Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, who said he wants gas prices to be at European levels, which are currently over $8/gallon.
The President himself said his energy policy would cause "electricity rates [to] necessarily skyrocket."
A campaign of excuses isn't very effective.
Just ask the voters.
The Washington Post and ABC News did ask them recently, and 2/3 of Americans blame Obama for high gas prices. That's actually in a poll.
You don't have to trust a political blog or the President on that stat.
The numbers don't lie, and no Presidential campaign ad is going to do much to change that.
Well, Aristotle, though your comments are juvenile and misinformed, I have to commend you, a hard-core leftist, for actually reading information that doesn't conform to your worldview. You're much farther along than your confreres at CO Pols; at least you acknowledge that there's two sides to the political debate.
Now, here's your goal: try to understand us. Just try. We're not as transparent as the posters at your site, and far more nuanced, but really, Aristotle, you'll get us if you keep trying.
Write a comment in response to the one above that SHOWS (as opposed to TELLS) me how I’m misinformed. (I’ll let “juvenile” slide – I think I’m expressing contempt, not being juvenile, but I completely understand why one would take it that way.)
Now, I know Pols has kind of devolved into an echo chamber over the years. Back in the day, it really was a spirited place where LOTS of cons could be found. But 2006 happened (not just the fall election, but the immigration special session that summer, which really took the air out of that argument at that time). It’s been kind of a long, slow decline as far as right wing participation is concerned since that time.
But… I DO actually understand the conservative viewpoint, as much as someone with my convictions can. I have conservative friends, family members, and neighbors. I know you’re not all a bunch of greedy, warmongering reactionaries. Most of you actually DO want what you think is best for America as a whole.
So do I. We just disagree on what will get us there.
That said, my main beef here isn’t with any particular registered user, but Peak itself. This isn’t a place that even conservatives seem to like, judging from the severe lack of participation from mainline righties. Why? Because this site is clearly performing the duty of spreading approved spin. I wasn’t sure, but the way the Bradford case was handled here (where the first diary came more than a week after the case broke, and only after she threatened to leave the party and possibly caucus with the Dems). That made it clear that this is an establishment GOP organ.
Well, I have a hard time just letting stuff like that go unchallenged, particularly when I know some people out there are the types who believe what they last read, regardless of how they profess their politics.
Pols is certainly left wing in outlook, but despite accusations, it’s apparent that they’re independent and acting on their own accord. You may not like what they have to say, but they say it freely, and not on the orders of some party entity like Peak.
Generally I enjoy reading what you have to say (although we disagree 95% of the time). However your comment is, frankly, stupid.
How do you define “participation”? By number of comments? Or number of random incoherent blog posts that aren’t front-paged? What is your metric for “participation”? I know plenty of folks who read CPP on a frequent basis who aren’t actively involved in politics (i.e. they’re not activists, employees, interns, etc), but they decide not to post because they have better things to do with their time. Albeit they generally are conservatives.
You may have noticed that my “participation” (i.e. comments) fluctuates, but I try to read CPP frequently–as I assume many other readers/commenters do. Simply put, I do not have the time everyday to respond to every comment on a blog all day long. Although I envy those who have that luxury, if most people did that they would quickly be out of a job.
Lastly, why are you criticizing CPP for not covering the Bradford case? Has Pols covered the DA candidate who was busted for beating his wife? After Pols’ oh-so-eloquent pieces about the “War on Women”? So will they cover that a week too late? Really, you want to play that game?
PS–When was the last time Pols was linked to by a major national website like the Drudge Report? Feel free to reply to my comment while you’re busy “consulting” or “working from home” tomorrow Ari.
Red,
CO Peak is a daily must-read, though I rarely comment. Frankly, I come here for information, to see how other Rs are parsing the latest politics, not to enter a conversation. We don't need cheer-leading. This isn't a Rah Rah blog, with silly, self-affirming and shallow comments … thankfully.
Drudge is as biased as they come.
As far as participation goes, I think comment count is fair. Probably not directly – conservatives seem to be more reticent on political blogs, for some reason. (OTOH, look at how many people comment at redstate.) But if this site were really prompting a lot of thought, they’d prompt discussion to go with it. (They could settle the matter and release the number of unique visitors, like Pols does.)
It’s not the number of comments YOU make, or paintitred, or Hermy, or any of the other regulars. It’s the number of registered users. I believe Peak is somewhere in the 300s. Over at Pols, discounting some inflation that’s occurred since the spambots discovered it, they still have thousands, maybe tens of thousands of registered users. Yeah, they’ve been around a lot longer, but they were getting about 1,000 new accounts every year before the spambots arrived.
Regarding Bradford, that was a big, BIG story, one that got major press coverage. The DPD even had their crazy “it’s our fault” press conference during that week. The leaders of the House were VERY quick to announce their ethics investigation. It was huge, and Peak’s silence – until she threatened to hurt the party – spoke volumes.
The DA candidate is not big news, primarily because he’s not an elected official. Nor is he (or the police) invoking some obscure immunity clause. It’s something Peak is amplifying because one of the GOP’s primary tactics is to find ANY scandal, no matter how small, to support the “Dems do it too” defense.
Pols doesn’t ignore Dem scandals, not when they’re big enough. True, they don’t go out of their way to find them, and the guy in Breckenridge probably merited a diary. But I read about Sal Pace’s arrests there long before Peak was even talking about them.
But I’m not criticizing Peak for being partisan. I’m criticizing them for being an apparent press agency of the GOP disguised as an independent blog, trying to influence conservative voters into toeing the party line. The way they handled the Bradford affair (complete with perfunctory dismissal of her decision not to run, and immediate fawning of the apparent insider nominated to replace her), to me, is convincing proof.
I’m glad you like reading my comments. Just so you know, I’m a stay at home dad – so, yeah, I work from home. BUT… I know a number of busy, hardworking people who find the time to be successful AND post a lot on their favorite blogs. Some are even business owners who are doing well. Consequently, “work” isn’t an automatic hindrance to … well, doing anything on the internet. We all make our choices, and if you don’t feel like you have the time for blogs, more power to you. But I accomplish what I must, and stand beyond anyone’s judgment there.
obviously is biased. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t drive tens of thousands of page views, particularly when the link involves presidential candidates (i.e. Romney glitter bomber).
I don’t know how much the Bradford story really warranted coverage on blogs. It was all over mainstream news.
Some people can respond to comments on a blog while at work, others can’t. I read Pols most days too, but I don’t have an user account there. It’s pretty reckless to say that a blog has low traffic based on comment numbers alone.
I spend far more time in lefty blogs than righty ones, mainly because I'm eager to know the latest spin coming from Democrats like you.
With my limited, but active participation in the party, as far as I know, there's no collusion between the party and this blog. The commonalities between the two are simply the result of a shared worldview and, at times, common information. We're in this together — the party and the people — to defeat the most incompetent president in my lifetime.
You're on the other side, and from your perspective, all Republican think alike. If the context was race, not politics, I'd accuse you of being a bigot — all Republicans look alike? — but since its ideology that divides us, the fact that you think this blog is an organ of the party reveals your tonedeafness to the nuances and ideas of the right.
Stay here, Aristotle. Maybe, after a while, we all won't sound the same to you!
Hermy
I think that, when you say I think you all sound the same, you’re projecting. Your comment ignored what I said about knowing conservatives. Your talk about what happens “on my side” shows that you think WE all think alike. (Which is hilarious – the divided opinions on the left should be well known if you really do lurk at liberal blogs, like you say.)
Also, you’re making another unfounded assumption: When did I ever say I was a Democrat?
I should have checked back sooner. thanks for responding.
First, I totally agree with you that the left is splintered … and the right is not quite splintered, but surely contentious and factional. Have you noted the absense of true centrists? I've played a bit with polling data, and when divided into many equally sized cohorts, not just a few, an obvious dumbbell-shaped curve emerges: two poles, no middle.
So, second, though the left and the right are factional, each side has far more in common with others on their end of the dumbbell. Yes, I assumed you were a Democrat, too. You're on that side … the left side. You could be a socialist. Greenie. Whatever. But you're surely on “that” side.
And frankly, I'm on the other side. I recognize you by your comments just as you peg the Peak.
Having said that, I'm pleasantly surprised to hear you're staying at home with your wee ones. Good for you, Aristotle; better for your kids. Carry on.
FWIW, I’d be a Democrat if I felt they had the courage to not support secret wiretaps. I can’t just join a group that doesn’t have the backbone to stand up to that…
Are you desperate or are you desperate?
Obama is well aware what people believe, and this ad is a direct attack on that ignorance. Since the GOP depends on ignorance to win elections, they’re (er, you’re) scared shitless that this will work.
Sorry, guys. There IS this thing called the free market – you might remember championing it, or at least using it as a flag. It controls prices much more than government, something that’s apparent when American petroleum production is at a level not seen in decades.
I’m sure the usual suckers will swallow the GOP spin, but that doesn’t mean it will work on everyone.