Fluff
Yeah, the ad is an attack ad. I don’t know that the point is to give his position.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
September 26th, 2011 at 10:32 am
The thing about the ad that is important to me is the “Movie Trailer” feel it has. This was a very talented production company that made this piece.
In the past, outfits like that would have been very unlikely to do that kind of work for a Republican, either because of their political beliefs or their fear of being blackballed. That is thy type of production that I would have expected to be made exclusively for a democrat.
I haven’t vetted this or tried to learn anything about the production company, but at this time, I view this as possibly more of a bellweather for the artsy-fartsy types who would usually run away from a replublican as fast as they can.
September 26th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Let’s see. http://www.rickperry.org, click on the issues block, read his plans, okay, a little vague compared to the Anointed One’s “Change.Gov” Agenda tab and his 60+page Manifesto, but it’s still a little early, don’tcha think to trash him? Or are we supposed to vote ONLY for those who are “One Note Wonders” and their Sound Bites (like Cain, whose 9-9-9 plan sounds good to me, BTW)?
Sorry, but if I wanted to see every excruciating detail of a Candidate’s Political History and their Voting Records, I’d read the Federal Register, and/or do an Archive search of the Texas Legislature, the Massachusetts Legislature, the records from the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate…..
This doesn’t mean I’m voting for Perry, but go back and take a look at the Gippers Ads. Not a lot of Beef available, was there?
September 26th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Don’t you think it’s possible to have some emotion and some actual meaning, both at the same time, or is that too much to expect from someone who wants what is arguably the most powerful position in the world?
That people have won elections based on fluff in the past is not an argument.
Maybe the candidates can just tell us to look up their records on our own and not ask stupid questions like “what do they actually stand for?” or “Why do they want this office, exactly?”
On the other hand, maybe they could get serious, saying what they mean, and meaning what they say, following the truth where ever it leads, rather than play silly games.
September 26th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
It should be possible. But keep in mind, that any definites you use to appeal to conservatives in a primary will be used by your opponents to turn independants against you in the general election. Its even worse than that though. If you REALLY try to appeal to the conservatives during the primary, you risk motivating Liberals–who otherwise may not turn out if they aren’t excited by their candidate–to vote against you.
So you have to win the primary in such a way as to not lose the independants, and have negative turnout on the other side. McCain screwed it up in that he won the independants, but didn’t motivate the conservatives to show up for him in the Gerneral elections. I wonder how many people voted McCain in the primary, then turned and voted for Obama in the general?
That is why candidates rarely speak in specifics. That is also why Ron Paul won’t ever be President, or Ralph Nader for that matter.