Obama switches from defense to offense. Here's a newly released video by the League of Conservation Voters.
President Obama has fought to take control of our energy future from Big Oil and other dirty energy interests who have put polluter profits ahead of our environment. The president’s first-term accomplishments include:
*Proposing the first-ever national standards to limit the harmful industrial carbon pollution from power plants that contribute to global warming.
*Fighting to eliminate Big Oil’s special tax breaks and invest the savings in clean, renewable energy sources that create jobs.
*Implementing the first-ever national standards to limit mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants, which will save lives and reduce
asthma attacks.
*Proposing new national standards to increase fuel efficiency standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025 – dramatically cutting our dangerous dependence on oil.
*Doubling the country’s use of wind and solar power, while also making huge investments in energy efficiency.
Make no mistake: This year’s presidential election offers a stark choice. Mitt Romney, who refuses to acknowledge the scientific consensus on climate change, has fully adopted Big Oil’s agenda – even appointing a billionaire oil executive as his top energy advisor. So it’s not surprising that Romney has pledged to defend Big Oil’s special tax breaks, while also attacking vital clean energy policies.
It’s also not surprising that Big Oil is coming to Romney's defense – in a big way. Oil and gas interests have given Romney more than $1 million in campaign cash, while the Koch brothers have pledged to spend $200 million in this year’s election. In fact, groups backed by the Koch brothers have already spent nearly $10 million this year attacking President Obama’s clean energy record. At the same time, Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS has dropped millions on false and misleading TV ads.
Thanks to Curt I know understand what's going on here.
All of these things from Jazz's last post that Obama is now saying are just mere campaign language. Nothing he is saying he will do are things he may actually do or even bother trying to do if he is reelected. He's just saying them because they sound good and people might want them done. What he says he'll do or not do and what he ends up doing or not doing are not necessarily the same thing nor should we expect them to be. He's just saying them to get votes. I get that now. All we can really expect of a candidate based on what they say they'll do or want to do is that we can't really expect anything of the candidate based on what they say they'll do or want to do.
I finally got it, Curt. Thanks for the clarification.
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Think of it this way - Obama's words are the
> anesthesia Curt needs to numb himself enough to
> pull the D lever.
>
>
>
> PS: Yes Mulva - thanks for the correction.
This is why Foghorn will win. O attracted many who were willing to hope in 08. Now, even the base needs anesthesia to vote for him.
Yes, Foghorn - but the Rs need an even heavier dose to vote for old Milt. I suspect many will be so heavily sedated they will forget to vote altogether and your worst nightmare will come true - four more years of O.
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, Foghorn - but the Rs need an even heavier
> dose to vote for old Milt. I suspect many will be
> so heavily sedated they will forget to vote
> altogether and your worst nightmare will come true
> - four more years of O.
That's not what I'm pickin' up from my sporadic monitoring of RW talk radio.
I know that's what you want to be true, but I don't see it. The GOPs mudslinging is only recently over and O is already underwater in the polls. By the time Milt choses his VEEP he will have a beyond-the-margin-of-error lead and he will win in a cake walk.
Neither of the 2 Obama hating right wingers I'm in contact with have ever sent me anything complimentary about Mitt. In fact they never discuss him. They just might hate Obama enough to drag themselves to the polls in November and pull the lever for Mitt, but their decision certainly won't be based on their love for Mitt. As a side note, neither of them liked McCain, either.
Over the weekend I found out my life long Repub dad didn't vote for McCain. He didn't vote for prez last time. He doesn't like Milt, but sez he's voting "against Obama" this time.
Ya, wait til the turd sitting in the Whitehouse has to start running on his record rather than letting his lapdogs attack the wife of his opponent. The fact Obama supporters are so stupid as to fall for this speaks VOLUMES to their lack of an education.
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks to Curt I know understand what's going on
> here.
>
> All of these things from Jazz's last post that
> Obama is now saying are just mere campaign
> language. Nothing he is saying he will do are
> things he may actually do or even bother trying to
> do if he is reelected. He's just saying them
> because they sound good and people might want them
> done. What he says he'll do or not do and what he
> ends up doing or not doing are not necessarily the
> same thing nor should we expect them to be. He's
> just saying them to get votes. I get that now. All
> we can really expect of a candidate based on what
> they say they'll do or want to do is that we can't
> really expect anything of the candidate based on
> what they say they'll do or want to do.
>
> I finally got it, Curt. Thanks for the
> clarification.
Actually, you don't seem to get it. Some advertising slogans "Just do it", "Breakfast of Champions", "You're in good hands with Allstate". etc. are not promises. They might imply that you'll be more athletic or safer, but they are not explicit promises. "Change you can believe in" is an advertising slogan in the same vein. If you want to judge Obama on his promises, go to a site like this one: [www.politifact.com]
So campaign promises are just advertising slogans. Okie-dokie. Got it.
Thanks again!
I should have realized that a something like running on "Change You Can Believe In" was nothing more than a meaningless logo, a come-on indicative of absolutely nothing that might be expected from a candidate repeating such a thing over and over and over again.
Although... he was our first black president. That is certainly "Change" alright. I can believe that.
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So campaign promises are just advertising slogans.
> Okie-dokie. Got it.
>
Nope. "It’s morning again in America", "Yes We Can!", "In your heart you know he’s right", "Government of, by, and for the people...not the monied interests", "Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow" are all campaign slogans. People read into them what they want. Only the most naive and unsophisticated would think they are promises, as they really are not saying anything. But of course, a candidate can do quite well appealing to the "naive and unsophisticated"
Campaign promises are explicit, and you can rightfully hold that politician accountable, including Obama. See [www.politifact.com] But as a non-naive and sophisticated voter, you should know the difference between slogans and promises.
"Nope. "It’s morning again in America", "Yes We Can!", "In your heart you know he’s right", "Government of, by, and for the people...not the monied interests", "Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow" are all campaign slogans." -Curt
And Change We Can Believe In.
Such things are meaningless malarkey indicative of nothing in the real world. I GOT that, Curt. You don't have to keep driving it into the dirt! Sheesh!
Whatsy said: " . . . let his lapdogs attack the wife of his opponent"
He can't be referring to that lady on TV who said: "Ann Romney has never worked a day in her life . . " Surely he knows that this lady is not one of Obama's "lapdogs." He knows that she is only a CNN political pundit and has absolutely no connection whatsoever to the President or his campaign. Actually, she is CNN's "lapdog." I'm sure someone who is as astute as our whatsy would have to know that.
Not only that, I'm also sure that whatsy doesn't consider those poorly chosen, albeit, innocuous words to be an "attack." Calling President Obama and his wife Michelle a criminal as was done by garbage rocker Ted Nugent - now THAT is an "attack."
Maybe we can get whatsy to explain exactly what he meant.
Plus, Jazz, she was also merely stating fact. Her only misstep may have been in not including the words "outside of the home" when she said Mrs. Romney has never worked a day in her life. The statement was intended to illustrate how out of touch Mrs. Romney is when it comes to the real world for average American women. And it did just that, which is why the Romney supporters have to obfuscate it and distract everyone with this claptrap about that CNN corespondent attacking her motherhood.
Mulva,
Thanks for posting that. So, Obama broke just 12% of the promises made before he was elected. I am going to assume that's pretty good among people generally and excellent among politicians. And most ordinary people don't have Republicans whose only goal is sabotaging their efforts. Also, as you other link points makes clear, there are reasons why promises get broken:
Quote:
When an audience member at a March 25, 2010, speech in Iowa City, Iowa, asked why the public option wasn't included, Obama responded, "Because we couldn"t get it through Congress, that"s why."
"It’s morning again in America", "Yes We Can!", "In your heart you know he’s right", "Government of, by, and for the people...not the monied interests", "Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow" are all campaign slogans. People read into them what they want. Only the most naive and unsophisticated would think they are promises, as they really are not saying anything. But of course, a candidate can do quite well appealing to the "naive and unsophisticated." _ Curt "Strawman" Anderson
No one here said that campaign slogans are promises.
Mulva Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, Obama broke just 12% of the promises made
> before he was elected.
>
> Or you could say that Obama has only kept about a
> third of his promises.
!?!?!
I stand corrected. Maybe you didn't study math.
Promise Kept: 177 (35%)
Compromise: 55 (11%)
Promise Broken: 63 (12%)
Stalled: 67 (13%)
In the Works: 144 (28%)
Not yet rated: 2 (0%)
The only other honest way to look it is thus: If you exclude "stalled", "In the Works" and "Not yet rated", Obama kept 60% of his promises.
It's very clear that Ponderer isn't trying to make the case that advertising slogans like "Yes we can!" or "Change we can believe in" are campaign promises.
Mulva Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's very clear that Ponderer isn't trying to make
> the case that advertising slogans like "Yes we
> can!" or "Change we can believe in" are campaign
> promises.
Are you two not talking?
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The actual "change" that
> Obama campaigned on and everyone who voted for him
> counted on simply never materialized.
Ponderer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The actual "change" that
> Obama campaigned on and everyone who voted for him
> counted on simply never materialized.
I highlighted the word "promise" in there for you Curt.
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another thing Curt conveniently leaves out is
> Politi"fact" is often misinformed as I clearly
> proved yesterday.
Indy,
You are contending that you are a more credible source than Politifact, a Pulitzer Prize winner. [www.politifact.com] That contention of yours in itself isn't credible.
Curt Anderson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Indy,
> You are contending that you are a more credible
> source than Politifact, a Pulitzer Prize winner.
Umm... no - I never said anything of the sort. What I said was Politifact was misinformed. Which I proved beyond any doubt on the medical marijuana issue in this thread right here...
Pulitzer prize winning college professor admits he lied to his students about military experience:
[www.nytimes.com]
Pulitzer prize winning geography scholar sued for fabrications and defamation
[masalai.wordpress.com]
Need more? Just say the word...
That
> contention of yours in itself isn't credible.
Well - again - you made that contention, not me. I merely stated your Obama medical marijuana assertion was wrong - and proved it. Then gave you information which discredited Politifact's position on Obama and torture.
Indy! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Curt Anderson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Indy,
> > You are contending that you are a more credible
> > source than Politifact, a Pulitzer Prize
> winner.
>
> Umm... no - I never said anything of the sort.
OK, so you are less credible than (or as credible as) a source you say "sucks" and is "misinformed". Even though you said it, I believe it.
