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.
That's why I think President Obama should turn his back on Romney and attack Congress, focusing on the worst lunatics like Allan West in Florida. The only hope for America is for the neo-GOP to be CRUSHED. I actually think that Romney's handlers are stupid enough that they would take the bait and send Romney to the defense of the indefensible lunatics. These clowns are such lunatics that they should be black holes that can't be fixed by all of Romney's horses, all of his men, or even all of his money...
Obama should duck the local issues and just focus on supporting a Constitutional Amendment to define human rights above corporate rights. That would fix Citizens United.
For more details, look at the thread titled "What would be the most effective ad against Romney?" that I started a while ago.
Not sure if it was mentioned in this thread, but I definitely read the idea of running a set of comparative ads with a Bush video followed by a Romney video saying the same thing. On one hand, I want to say that Dubya has no credibility, but on the other hand, that's almost exactly the point--neither does Romney.
I still think my idea of Romney versus Romney ads followed by the pastiche video of "Vote for me so that government of the corporations, by the lawyers, for the richest 0.1% of Americans, shall rule the earth" is a better idea for some pro-Obama but uncoordinated SuperPACs.
However, we have to remember that everything has to be about the leverage. If Romney only has to spend the same amount of money to negate an ad's effect, then we know that is a losing strategy. We need ads with high multipliers, that can't be effectively negated even if Romney spends 10 times as much money. At this point it is crystal clear that the neo-GOP side will have MUCH more money to sell their insane losers. That's why I think President Obama needs to go on the offensive against the weakest and craziest neo-GOP Teabagging fanatics. Those would be ads that would just be black holes for the other side, but once they got suckered into fighting on that indefensible turf, they would look like losers when they give up.