New York Times: Obama Hits Bottom With Cancer Ad

Posted by on Aug 09, 2012 at 12:56 pm

Oh wait, did we say Obama’s odious ad hit rock bottom? Sorry, we meant to say some innocuous Romney ad hits rock bottom.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has hit new depths of truth-twisting with its accusation that President Obama plans to “gut welfare reform” by ending federal work requirements. The claim is blatantly false, but it says a great deal about Mr. Romney’s increasingly desperate desire to define the president as something he is not.

As to Obama’s disgusting ad, they barely can stifle the yawns.

The super PAC ad compresses time in a way that links the closing of the GST plant with Mrs. Soptic’s fatal illness.

They barely notice what in two days has become landmark as the most egregious ad of our time. A Romney ad nobody has seen has left them in spasms of outrage and indignation.

Tags: , , ,

4 Responses to “New York Times: Obama Hits Bottom With Cancer Ad”

  1. RK on 9/09/12 at 11:26 pm

    “As to Obama’s disgusting ad . . . The super PAC ad”

    Obama is not a super-PAC as these sentence fragments claim.

  2. SpideyTerry on 10/10/12 at 5:47 pm

    “Obama is not a super-PAC as these sentence fragments claim.”

    No, it’s just a group devoted to his re-election and curiously using someone that narrated one of his campaign’s official ads. Nothing suspicious there. By hey, way to try to steer things off-topic and ignore the actual issue.

    By the way, why is it that Obama doesn’t have to condemn a political ad meant to further his re-election bid, whereas Romney is expected – nay, required – to condemn anything Rush Limbaugh says on his radio show? Would you mind answering that question? Something tells me you would.

  3. RK on 10/10/12 at 7:25 pm

    This uses the phrase “Obama’s ad” two times; that’s off topic??? I guess I thought otherwise, IMO.

    Don’t you think that a super-PAC, after seeing a campaign event/ad/speech is clever enough to decide to pursue the same idea or subject and produce their own material w/o collaboration? Almost seems like an automatic decision, if the topic is thought powerful enough.

    As to Romney and Rush, don’t know what this situation you refer to is; but in general, I seem to recall that politicians have repudiated third party comments from time to time. One time, Palin even “refutiated” someones comments. Certainly Romney is not obligated to speak to anything Rush says, but his outrageous tirades (Sandra Fluke) should elicit a firm repudiation (he kinda wimped out on that last spring).

    I suppose it would depend on the specific statements, and whether or not Romney feels he had the courage to stand-up to Rush; few Repubs can pull that off without quickly reversing their comments.

    If by the real issue, you mean the story of Soptic (?) and his wife? I’ve not taken the time yet to look into the facts involved and come to my own conclusion, so I’m not avoiding it; just haven’t gotten there yet.

    Finally, as to the Romney ad; I hope you realize that the facts of this are not in dispute. Romney has lied again and hopes it won’t affect his campaign very much. He is likely counting on low-information voters to trust him and never look for what is really going on.