There were a number of comments in the original thread about specific groups that Romney dislikes. This one got selected because it also shows a lack of charity, but there are LOTS of groups that Romney dislikes and that respond by disliking Romney. I actually think this is fundamentally related to the Mormon thing of disliking non-Mormons except as targets for conversion. That's not really to single out the Mormons, since there are lots of religious groups who make strong distinctions between believers and outsiders--but I confess that I don't like any of them.
There were some explicit suggestions for ads about the limitations of Mormon charity and sort of an argument about whether the Jehovah's Witnesses were worse than the Mormons... There were also some comments by Blue Meany that I tend to shoehorn into this category, but more in the us versus them side. Tough to decide who is most "them" to the Romneys, but poor people are certainly contenders.
A suggested ad in this area was focusing on the Ryan budget came from WI DEM. (Unfortunately, that reminds me of Wi$con$in and California Proposition 29...)
Upon reflection, it seems to me that the main concern for poor people is just helping them vote in spite of the neo-GOP election fraud of the new voter ID laws and restrictions against voter registration, and the old mechanics of helping them get to the polls to cast their votes.
This category reflects an elephant in the room, the highly toxic residue of the last neo-GOP president, Dubya. The category may have high potential because so many of the establishment so-called Republicans advising, endorsing, and surrogating for Romney were prominent during the Dubya period. Such approaches may be strong with any voters who remember Dubya less than fondly.
I haven't seen any really good examples here, but there are two obvious angles for anti-Romney commercials here. One is direct quotes of Romney saying the same thing as Dubya, perhaps with Dubya speaking first to prime the pump, or perhaps with Romney speaking first to close with the sour taste of Dubya. The other angle is based on the advisers alone, perhaps again with the left-right split screens with the year on top. For example, "In 2006, he said..." plays on the left side, then cuts to the right side "In 2012, he said..." Since these are the same people speaking on the same topics, it should be easy to find close pairs, and of course the goal is to show how retrograde Romney is.
Easiest to explain this category with a typology. Dubya didn't know the truth and didn't care, whereas Reagan didn't know but did care, sort of. Nixon knew the truth--and HATED it. I'm convinced that Romney belongs in the box with Nixon. When Romney is lying you can often see that he knows full-well that he is lying.
As regards examples, I've already seen one pretty effective one, though it was just a short part of a commercial where Romney was morphed into Nixon.
This is my own favorite, but I'm a logical person and I hate liars. Therefore I think it's especially plausible that rational people will be offended by Romney's lies, and self-contradictions are the most basic lies. When Romney contradicts himself, he has to be lying on at least one side, though he sometimes manages both. It is NOT possible for both sides of the contradiction to be true.
My suggested example here would actually be a two-part commercial, but just focusing on the first part of contradictions, the commercial could use a left-right split to show Romney taking one side on the left, then freezing it with a keyword on top, followed by a video of Romney taking the opposite side on the right side of the screen, ending with the opposite keyword. On some issues, Romney has three or more positions that can be contrasted, or you could use dates to show how he flops back and forth.
This category was little discussed in the original thread, but I think it corresponds most closely to many of the actual ads that President Obama has been running, and also to most of the Romney ads that are coming directly under Romney's name. I fundamentally don't like this category because it could become a balanced "I said, he said" struggle, but Romney's money will be like a heavy thumb on the balance. Romney's ads never remember to say "This ad is a lie."
This is based on an earlier thread about anti-Romney ads. There are two postulates here: (1) Negative ads work. (2) We need negative ads that deliver more bang for the buck because the neo-GOP has more bucks. Some of these categories put Romney against good things, others link him to bad things.
Which category of ad would you put YOUR money behind?
1. Romney versus Obama
2. Romney versus Romney
3. Romney resembles Nixon
4. Dubya resembles Romney
5. Romney versus poor people
6. Romney versus the middle class
7. Romney resembles ultrarich people
8. Romney resembles neo-GOP extremists
9. Romney versus moderates
In the first set of replies to this post, I'm going to digest the results of the previous thread, along with examples. In your replies, I encourage you to say why you think that type of ad is especially effective and expensive to counter. Also, new examples of powerful ads would be especially nice. Not sure how to handle it if you want to create a new category. The list from 1 to 9 is certainly not exhaustive...
It would be a real poll, except that I am not a "Star Member" and I'm not rich like Romney and his neo-GOP friends. Though I have donated in the past, I'm feeling pretty bleak about the money side now, so... Let me invite anyone who has the power and the desire to create a poll version of this thread... If DU really wants my money, I think they need to offer something like "reverse auction charity shares".
I actually agree that corporations are legal fictions, but the problem is when they participate in contracts. I don't believe that they are human beings, but some slimy justice on the Supreme Court (I believe it was actually another slimy chief justice like Roberts), slipped the claim of corporate personhood into a ruling, and no one has been able to throw it out since then. Actually, it was slimier than that. He just claimed out of thin air that the status had already been created--and it didn't even matter for the ruling that was under consideration.
That's why I think this indirect approach would be an effective approach, though of course I'd like to see a better one. However, I think there are two reasons in favor of this approach. First, I think it would be difficult for any politician to stand up and claim that corporations should have superior or equal rights to corporations. That's not to deny that lots of them feel and act that way, but just that they can't say it. Second, that kind of Constitutional Amendment would basically force the Supreme Court to overturn themselves in the most convoluted and contorted way possible, which should be amusing. The masters of pretzel logic should be hoist by their own petards, so to speak.
Like the thread and the jokes were good. However, overall I feel like this is just ranting in the dark... Then again and partly as a response to this thread, I created a petition for something Congress could actually do to help fix the broken relationship between corporations and the rest of American society: Put human rights OVER corporate rights.
Just to clarify, the current situation is that most businesspeople are fine and upstanding folks. They are NOT the ones causing the problems. What we have now are the LEAST ethical and GREEDIEST businessman (legally) bribing the CHEAPEST professional politicians to write the WORST laws. The rules of the business game in America now require your company to grow like a malignant cancer just to survive. This is a sick game, and the cancer always kills its host. Dead with the most toys is still dead.
Let me clarify that I do respect President Obama--but I respect results even more, and I feel that he needs to be held accountable for the lack of results. It seems clear to me that the only real hope for America is if the neo-GOP Congress is crushed.
I shouldn't have suggested that Obama is a lesser evil, since I think he is fundamentally a wise and good person, and especially not in a context where he could be compared to Romney, who I definitely regard as an evil liar. You can't get that rich without being incredibly greedy and selfish, and I think Romney is also on the sociopathic side, at least as regards the gentiles. The lesser evil I was talking about was the lack of constructive change in a situation where we desperately need some changes to address the real and growing problems, and the greater evil is Romney's promise of making things much worse.
The funny part is that the neo-GOP is quite similar to Lenin's Bolsheviks, and for similar reasons. When you know that your foundations are rotten and that your supporters are really a small minority, you have to enforce extremely tight party discipline. In the case of the Bolsheviks, it got completely out of hand with Stalin.
I'm not saying that Romney is going to be another Stalin. He's much more similar to Nixon. Start from Dubya, who didn't know what the truth was and didn't care. Then you go to Reagan, who didn't know what the truth was, but cared a lot. Nixon is the exact opposite--Nixon knew the truth but didn't care, and of course you can see how that matches Romney.
Unfortunately the other cell is mostly full of one-term losers, and it looks like Obama is in the wrong place, at least in relative terms... I really hope I'm wrong, but I'm also hoping that Obama becomes a serious leader and goes on an all-out offensive against the neo-GOP Congress. A massive defeat of the neo-GOP Congress is the only hope for constructive change in America.