Hooray For CHANGE!

Archive for the ‘Democrats’ Category

Obama’s reelection team sent the announcement to their supporters this morning via email, along with a snazzy campaign launch video titled, “It Begins With Us.”  The video features real people from political battleground states North Carolina, Nevada and Colorado as well as a few others from Michigan and New York providing interviews about the upcoming election and their support for Obama.  As a former member of the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC) and producer of campaign videos, I took great interest in this video and this is my critique.

At their core, campaign videos can take two different approaches, they can go positive about their candidate or they can go negative about their opponent.  When taking the positive approach one must think of the filmmakers as police officers trying to talk a suicidal person off the ledge… even in amidst tragedy, chaos and depression always use positive phrases and never use any negative words.  In other words, it’s okay to bring up depressing news, but it needs to be done in a careful and methodical way as to not conjure up anything negative in the viewer’s mind.

Unfortunately for Obama, his campaign launch video is fraught with negative sound bites.

Right out of the gate Ed from North Carolina reminds the viewer that “the last couple elections that we’ve had have been, um, almost turning point campaigns.”  That sound bite harkens the viewer to two specific elections… 2008 and 2010.  In 2008, Obama, riding a wave of Hope and Change, won the election with 52.9% of the vote.  But just two years into his presidency, the citizens of the United States went back to the ballot box and rejected Obama’s Hope and Change marking the greatest midterm landslide defeat for a President since 1938.  Without uttering the details, Ed from North Carolina reminded the viewer that Republicans gained 63 seats in the House of Representatives (recapturing the majority), six seats in the Senate, six governorships, as well as 680 seats in state legislative races.

The next interviewee is Gladys of Nevada who claims she is “nervous.”  Being nervous invokes an uneasiness or apprehension toward something.  It is the opposite of being confident and bold.  In past political arenas, nervousness about a campaign reminds one of Walter Mondale running against Ronald Reagan in 1984 or Bob Dole running against Bill Clinton in 1996.  It’s definitely not a word a campaign wants associated with their candidate.

Katherine of Colorado appears next talks about “the changes we’ve seen the last two and a half years.”  Which any informed person knows have not been positive changes.  Aside from the highly unpopular and unconstitutional Obamacare bill being passed vis-à-vis backroom shenanigans, sweetheart deals, middle of the night votes and other high jinks, or the unconstitutional attack on Libya, or all the broken promise that stretch from Gitmo to Iraq and back, what positive changes is Katherine talking about?  Troubling unemployment numbers?  The looming inflation?  The weakening dollar?  Soaring food, gasoline and energy prices?  One of the most depressed housing markets in history?  Or is she referring to the massive spending and skyrocketing deficits in our government?  While I give the filmmakers credit for using positive language, it does more harm in the end because the obvious contrast between the statement and the truth.

Next is Mike from New York, representing Obama’s base… the naïve first time voter.  He discusses the energy and hope for this country that Obama “had for this country” a few years ago and that he plans to help reelect him based on that platform now.  The fact that it is past tense, referring to an expired enthusiasm, isn’t going to help Obama next year.

Alice from Michigan is the next interviewee who starts off her sound bite with “Unfortunately…”  She’s only talking about Obama not being able to spend the time and energy to reelect himself so it is intended to be a call to action for those Obama supporters watching the video; however, I couldn’t get past the negative word “unfortunately” being so prominently exclaimed at the start of her segment.

From this point forward, the individuals are recycled.

Gladys mentions how American voters all have the same concerns, “we want jobs to be out there and we want people to have homes and we want people to have opportunity.”  Yet, these are the areas where Obama has failed the most.  Obama promised the American people that if the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was passed, unemployment would not exceed 8% and it has been over 8% ever since.   And wanting everyone to have homes?  With millions of Americans unemployed and banks tightening their regulations on loaning money, there are no loans available to the average American looking to have a home.  Housing prices see the biggest drop in over twenty-five years which CNBC described as “depression territory” in January 2011.  This would be like Jimmy Carter running his reelection campaign on gas prices and his handling of the Iran hostage crisis.

And we revisit Ed from North Carolina who delivers the best line of the whole video while shaking his head, “I don’t agree with Obama…”  Did they just not have any other sound bites available to use?  Of course he goes on to say that he doesn’t agree with Obama on everything and he respects and trusts him, but when he says “I don’t agree with Obama,” the damage is done.

At this point it doesn’t matter that they suggest more things need to be done or that politics is how we govern ourselves and that it really takes place at the grassroots level.  It doesn’t matter because the viewer is reminded of recent major Republican victories, negative changes the last two years, Obama’s shortcomings, and that he had enthusiasm years ago, but unfortunately, we don’t agree with Obama now.

Currently, the video, “It Begins With Us,” has 71,771 views on YouTube which include 1,470 likes and 1,022 dislikes.  That is in contrast of his “Barack Obama at the 2008 DNC” video two and half years ago which has 952,132 views with 3,267 likes and only 241 dislikes.  If “dislikes” on YouTube are future indicators of anything, I think the Obama campaign really has something to be nervous about in 2012.

By contrast, in 1984 America was emerging from a recession as President Ronald Reagan began his reelection campaign bid.  One of the great political commercials ever created, “Morning In America,” (formerly titled “Prouder, Stronger, Better”) aired in support of Reagan.  There was not one negative connation in the entire commercial.  In fact, it contained statements like:

• “Today more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country’s history.”
• “With interest rates at about half the record highs of 1980, nearly 2,000 families today will buy new homes, more than at any time in the past four years.”
• “This afternoon 6,500 young men and women will be married, and with inflation at less than half of what it was just four years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future.”
• “…our country is prouder and stronger and better.”

There are stark differences between Reagan and Obama and those differences are manifested in their own promotional media during their midterm elections.  Reagan gave America a reason for optimism.  Obama just gave vacant hope and quite a bit of frustrating change.

So, if you find yourself on a ledge thinking you might want to jump, I sincerely hope that the filmmakers of “Morning in America” come to your rescue.

Cross-posted at HollywoodRepublican

“We estimate, and I believe these are very conservative estimates, that H.R. 1, the Republican bill, would lead to 70,000 kids dying. Of that 70,000, 30,000 would come from malaria control programs that would have to be scaled back specifically. The other 40,000 is broken out as 24,000 would die because of a lack of support for immunizations and other investments and 16,000 would be because of a lack of skilled attendants at birth,” USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah testified before the House Appropriations State and Foreign Ops subcommittee.  Shah previously worked as a health care policy advisor on the Gore 2000 presidential campaign, was an active supporter of the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, and served as a member of Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell’s health transition committee.

This has to be the lowest of the low scare tactics… using children as political pawns.  Hooray for CHANGE!

Foreign Policy

What happens when America appoints a community organizer as Commander in Chief? Thanks to the election of Barack Obama, we now know.  First, he breaks his campaign promise to bring Iraq troops home within a year.  Next, he breaks his campaign promise to close Gitmo within a year.  Then he isn’t even a month in office when he is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, which he would later win in spite of having accomplished nothing with the exception of going on a grand American Apology Tour.  His next move as Commander in Chief was to send just a little over half the number of troops to Afghanistan that were requested by the Generals on the ground to help push back a rise in the insurgency.  If all this wasn’t enough, Obama signed an arms limitation deal with an extremely untrustworthy Russia (a country that completes military exercises with China and Venezuela).  The mission in Afghanistan is now looking like it might fail with no exit strategy.  And if all this wasn’t enough, Obama is now working with al-Qaeda in an effort to topple Libya for “humanitarian” reasons without prior approval from Congress despite four or five other neighboring Mideast governments who have behaved no different than the Libyan government.

Obama’s debacle with Libya begins with a strong cry for democracy by civilian protesters throughout the Mideast that began earlier this year.  The first big protest was against the Mubarak government in Egypt and ended with dissolution of the current government one month later.  During this time, Obama took no sides and maintained that Egypt’s future would be “determined by its People.”  During this time Human Rights Watch estimated over 300 deaths including 135 protesters.  Obama championed the will of the people and ushering in a day of democracy.

The next successful revolution was Tunisia.  During the protests, which became violent, Obama stated, “I urge all parties to maintain calm and avoid violence, and call on the Tunisian government to respect human rights, and to hold free and fair elections in the near future that reflect the true will and aspirations of the Tunisian people.” The BBC reported that at least 219 people died during the struggle to topple the government.

Clearly, the trend was not in favor of the governments in the first few months of the revolutions taking place in the Mideast, specifically in the North African countries.

Major protests have continued in Algeria (8 deaths), Bahrain (22 deaths), Djibouti (2 deaths), Jordan (2 deaths), Oman (6 deaths), Syria (100 deaths) and Yemen (122 deaths).  And the governments have pushed back. Other protests, considered minor, have occurred in Iran (3 deaths, 1,500 arrested), Morocco (6 deaths), Saudi Arabia (2 deaths and 100 arrested), Sudan (1 death) and Western Sahara (1 death).

While Jordan, Oman and Yemen have adopted new changes to their governments to help quell the protests, other countries such as Algeria, Syria, and Saudi Arabia continue to have ongoing protests.

Then there is Libya.

The estimates of the total number of deaths are unreliable, but is said to be in the thousands.  Even though it is reported that there are three anti-Gaddafi rebels killed for every Libyan soldier, the rebels outnumber the combined total of Libyan armed forces including their hired mercenaries by approximately 5,000.  That is before including the assistance from the U.N. and NATO which intervened on March 17, 2011.

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning Commander in Chief, unprovoked by a country that was not an imminent threat, bypassed the Constitution and authorized a military strike into Libya.  ABC reported that 122 American Tomahawk cruise missiles blew up some twenty Libyan air and ground defense systems.  CBS News reported that three B-2 stealth bombers dropped forty bombs on a Libyan airfields and US fighter jets searching for Libyan ground forces to attack.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda works with Libyan rebels on the ground against Gaddafi and the Libyan government.  So, in essence, the United States is now working with al-Qaeda.

The only way a President can bypass Congress to authorize a military action is when the United States is in imminent danger by another country.  No such danger existed from Libya.  And Obama did not get Congressional approval prior to the attacks.  In fact, it’s been over a week and there is still no Congressional approval.  Obama is no stranger to attacking above his Constitutional authority and with the worst Attorney General, Eric Holder, leading our Justice Department there appear to be little-to-no consequence for this and other similar actions taken by the President.

Yet, there are consequences.

First, there is a major outcry from the public as well as outspoken leaders of other countries for Obama to give back the Nobel Peace Prize… something he says he will not do.  Second, the far left wing of the Democrat Party, led by Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and followed by Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), and Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), are now talking about impeachment.  Lastly, Obama’s approval ratings have sharply dropped from 51% on 3/20 (CNN) to 45% on 3/26 (Gallup).  This is not something Obama’s re-election committee wants to pile on the list of hurdles to overcome for his 2012 re-election bid.

So, how does a community organizer turned Commander in Chief try to salvage his military blunders?

First, Obama attempts to change the language to soften the tone.  The Nobel Peace prize winner and community organizer doesn’t want people to think he “attacked” anyone or that he sent our Troops into “War.” No, his administration attempted to soften the tone by calling it a “Kinetic Military Action.”  Changing the language might work in some neighborhoods around the country, but this attempt was about as successful as his earlier attempt of trying to change “Terrorism” into “Man-Made Disasters.”  Obama lacks integrity.

Next, Obama claims moral authority by saying that our attack on the Libyan government was a “humanitarian” mission, because they were brutalizing their own people.  Aside from the fact that Obama’s rhetoric all along was about the People of these countries determining their own future (presumably without foreign interference), Obama fails to realize two major points:  One, the rebels fighting the Libyan government are greater in numbers and the brutalizing goes both ways.  Two, if we are the World’s Police now saving protesters from brutal governments, why haven’t we gone into Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran or all the other Mideast countries where the citizens are dying in the course of the riots and protests?  Obama lacks consistency.

And now Obama is attempting to sell Americans tonight in a prime-time address to the nation a new reason why his actions of unilaterally attacking Libyan forces were justified.  Presumably he will suggest three things: One, we have a moral obligation to assist innocent men, women and children in a humanitarian crisis from being brutally murdered.  Two, we have an ethical obligation to work within the constructs of the U.N. and to help our coalition allies.  Three, and more importantly for a President who is hearing rumblings of impeachment from his own political party, we have a legal obligation because it is in the national interest of the United States to do so.  Obama lacks authority.

At the end of the day, Obama will not win over his critics and his approval ratings will continue to sink.  And as the 2012 election approaches, the winds of change may have turned against Obama for good… and not even the best community organizer will be able to offer the kind of hope he would need to see a second term.

So, let me get this straight.  Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner, is helping the Libyan rebels fight the Libyan government by firing hundreds of missiles at the government on their soil… and these same Libyan rebels are also getting ground assistance from al-Qaeda.  So, in effect, Obama and al-Qaeda are working together to usurp a sitting government of a country that provoked no nations outside their borders.  Okay, so al-Qaeda fights the ground war while Obama fights the air war.  I think I have it now.

By the way, all that high moral ground Democrats used to claim about Reagan secretly supporting the Mujahadeen’s fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan over 20 years ago that led to the rise of al-Qaeda… yeah, that no longer exists.

Telegraph

At least 20 killed near Daraa, Syria as anti-government protesters defy security crackdown.  Just curious, is Obama — Nobel Peace Prize winner and President of an unprovoked country — going to do to Syria what he did to Libya?  Fire missiles into their country because the humanitarian crisis of the government brutalizing its citizens?  Or, is he going to let the future of the country be determined by its own people?  No war strategy.  No exit plan.   No strong coalition.  No approval from Congress.  No end to the humanitarian Crisis.  No confidence.  No reelection.

ALJAZEERA

After a long hard fought campaign filled with HOPE and CHANGE rhetoric, Obama accepted the Democrat Party’s nomination for President at the DNC convention in Denver on August 29, 2008.  In that speech Obama said, “As commander in chief, I will never hesitate to defend this nation, but I will only send troops into harm’s way with a clear mission…”  Fast forward to 2011, where Obama dithered too long before making a decision on Libya, and then when he did he went in too quickly.  Moreover, he violated the Constitution by failing to get Congress approval since America was not in imminent danger.  Now the coalition seems to be falling apart as Germany pulls from the mission, NATO can’t agree on who is leading the attacks and the U.S. is stuck without a clear mission or even an exit strategy.  It’s a recipe for an international disaster that, if Obama is somehow re-elected in 2012, we can surely expect another “America Is Terrible And I Apologize” tour in 2013.

CNN