It’s just under a week before the first Presidential debate, and while the Obama camp has a slight breeze behind its back in the latest polls, it has chosen to air two-minute ad in key states: New Hampshire, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, and Colorado (odd that NC is not on that list).
Unlike the recent rough-and-tumble ads against Romney focusing on his flip-flopping and political ineptitude of truth (can you say the 47%?), this ad is the President reminding voters about the basket case he was handed, and the fact that what we do know about Romney’s economic plan that it will “double down on the same trickle down policies that led to the crisis in the first place.” A generous amount of time is spent with the President on camera articulating his four-point plan for economic recovery.
Obama for America (the transcript of the video is below the fold):
With just over a month until Election Day, Obama for America today released a new, two-minute television advertisement in which the President speaks directly to the American people and lays out his plan to keep America moving forward, get folks back to work and make the middle-class secure again. Focusing on manufacturing, energy, education, national security, and a balanced plan to reduce our deficit, President Obama sets real and achievable goals that will grow our economy beginning with a strong, thriving middle-class.
It’s easy to forget where we were when the President first took office: the country was losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month, and we were mired in Iraq. Today, we are moving forward again thanks to President Obama’s policies. But there is much more work to be done, and this election offers a clear choice for voters across the country: continue to move forward with the President’s plan for an economy built to last, from the middle out — or go back to the same trickle-down economic policies of the last decade that crashed our economy and punished the middle-class in the first place.
I guess this is about as compact an ad one can make of this nature; will voters actually pay attention? The reason I’m asking this is because the ad feels like one you would see during the week before early voting — a closing argument after the debates and after a campaign is pretty sure there are no surprises or shoes left to drop. I wouldn’t be that confident.
***
Over at camp Romney, the latest ad out is “Too Many Americans.” There’s absolutely nothing new here, which is surprising since it’s pretty apparent at this point that Mitt’s business prowess (Bain), and his tenure as governor of Massachusetts and the “savior” of the 2002 Olympics hasn’t been able to break through, mostly because of his inept, self-immolating campaign — and that infamous 47% video.
Too many Americans are struggling to find work or are living paycheck to paycheck. Mitt Romney will create 12 million new jobs over the next four years and help lift families out of poverty, while strengthening the middle class. We can’t afford another four years like the last.
Notably, he mentions that he does care about poor people. The fact that this late in the game he’s trying to climb over the insensitive plutocrat dung pile he’s built for himself is a problem. But the fact is this “the economy sucks so switch out that guy for me” isn’t resonating, yet Mittens and his charges aren’t bringing anything else to the table. Perhaps they don’t think they need to. After all, voter suppression efforts are in full swing, maybe for them it’s not about winning the sliver of undecided voters over, but counting on the machine to keep enough black and brown votes out of the process during early voting and on election day.
The transcript of the Obama vid:
During the last weeks of this campaign there will be debates, speeches and more ads. But if I could sit down with you in your living room or around the kitchen table here’s what I’d say:
When I took office we were losing nearly 800,000 jobs a month and were mired in Iraq. Today I believe that as a nation we are moving forward again. But we have much more to do to get folks back to work and make the middle class secure again.
Now, Governor Romney believes that with that even bigger tax cuts for the wealthy and fewer regulations on Wall Street all of us will prosper. In other words he’d double down on the same trickle down policies that led to the crisis in the first place. So what’s my plan?
First, we create a million new manufacturing jobs and help businesses double their exports. Give tax breaks to companies that invest in America, not that ship jobs overseas.
Second, we cut our oil imports in half and produce more American-made energy, oil, clean-coal, natural gas, and new resources like wind, solar and bio-fuels—all while doubling the fuel efficiencies of cars and trucks.
Third, we insure that we maintain the best workforce in the world by preparing 100,000 additional math and science teachers. Training 2 million Americans with the job skills they need at our community colleges. Cutting the growth of tuition in half and expanding student aid so more Americans can afford it.
Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we’ve already cut, I’d ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan let’s apply half the savings to pay down our debt and use the rest for some nation building right here at home.
It’s time for a new economic patriotism. Rooted in the belief that growing our economy begins with a strong, thriving middle class. Read my plan. Compare it to Governor Romney’s and decide for yourself. Thanks for listening.
Read the President’s plan: http://OFA.BO/SAzDgd




25 Comments


Yeah, let’s have some economic patriotism!
Romney, bring your excess money home! Invest in America.
We’ve seen evidence just in the last couple of weeks that Romney’s perfectly willing to double down on stupidity.
But Obama isn’t really the president that his 2008 campaign promised, either.
Meanwhile, letting Vanity Fair do a profile on the president was a stroke of genius. The journalist who profiled Obama had a great interview a couple of weeks ago on NPR.
My translation in BOLD.
Fourth, a balanced plan to reduce our deficit by four trillion dollars (REDUCE PRIVATE SECTOR BY THE SAME AMOUNT) over the next decade on top of the trillion in spending we’ve already cut(ON TOP OF PRIVATE WEALTH WE HAVE ALREADY CUT), I’d ask the wealthy to pay a little more. And as we end the war in Afghanistan let’s apply half the savings to pay down our debt (AND TAKE THE MONEY AWAY FROM THE ECONOMY AND GIVE IT TO A GOVT WHICH DOES NOT NEED IT, BEING MONETARILY SOVEREIGN) and use the rest for some nation building right here at home.
GOVT DEFICIT = PRIVATE NON_DEFICIT = PRIVATE SAVINGS.
I’m sure Romney was coached to “show more emotion!” but even his “emotional” delivery here feels phony and artificial. Obama on the other hand, as usual has a fluid and real delivery that you just can’t fake.
Im really not clear on Romney’s supposed business prowess. When you have the capital you are the boss and every plays kiss ass. In his type business, there is little chance of “failure”. And i really doubt Romeny was involved in any day to day in the companies he either saved or sold off. He probably did nothing more than look a spreadsheet every now and then and make a passing comment that underlings took as an action item. My experience with the corporate world is really the higher up the ladder the more incompetant and out of touch people are and the less they actually do. Most real work and thought is done by the underlings. No one questions or corrects the higher ups which lead to their bubble getting bigger and bigger.
Do any of the president’s ads talk about his program of assassinating Americans without a trial or any oversight?
In 2008 Obama campaigned on building the economy from the bottom up.
In 2012 he’s campaigning on building from the middle out.
By 2016 the D’s rhetoric on economic policy should be completely indistinguishable from the R’s. That is “top down” and no pretending otherwise.
Or the fact that his administration has designated Wikileaks and Julian Assange to be “enemies of the state,” thus putting them in the same category as Al Qaeda?
Big, brave president we have there, locking up and torturing those who expose government wrongdoing. And asserting the right to assassinate whomever he pleases. What a macho guy, huh?
Perhaps you noticed that Obama changed his slogan from “Hope and Change” to just “Hope”.
You are talking about the extra-judicial executions that even involved American citizens abroad as well a many foreign nationals that were merely “suspected terrorists” or happened to be standing within 100 feet of a “suspected terrorist” or were attending a wedding of a “suspected terrorist” or may have been suspected of being a “suspected terrorist????
I think they’re trying to keep a lid on that. And you had to dredge it up. /s
I disagree. Both parties are attempting to fortify the “middle class”. THe only problem, they define “middle class” as persons earning $200-250,000 a year.
of course if the people were even somewhat intelligent we wouldn’t have politicians like this but that will never change.
at least acknowledging the point that elections in this country are no longer honest is a huge step forward from the time these pieces were arguing that being such a close election “the jewish vote in florida” would make the difference in who won the state.
of course i pointed out the silliness of it then and nice to see the evolution in thinking after the polling no longer MAKES THAT ARGUMENT practical.
better late than never?
lol…dont make me laugh………………….
btw…..preventing election theft requires close polls to be accepted….thats why people should be concerned by fake polling like rasmussens.
Pam, when looking at all of TeamObama’s ads, including this one – The 47 Second Ad – I get the sense of a finely tuned campaign machine, which is winning the Hearts and Minds of Voters.
Rmoney on the other hand, is in a downward spiral and only voter suppression and tampering can make him win.
Willard mentions paychecks and take home-pay in his ad and campaign. Yet does Willard really know what a paycheck/take-home pay really is?
If u look at Willard’s recently released tax return he has no income reported under wages. All Willard’s income is from dividends and capital gains.
Willard’s income involves no paychecks or take-home pay, just credits to his various accounts from his stock broker.
A paycheck/take-home pay to Willard is so 47%.
Clean coal? Really, Mr. President? How much is the mining industry into you to believe their fairy tales?
No mention of nuclear: he’s already checked that box with his $8,000,000,000 in loan guarantees.
George Will put it very well some tie ago. He said, “The major hurdle for Romney to clear is his “Romneyism”. I think that pretty much says it all. Although, running as a republican, is a big albatross around his nect too.
I love it when bad things happen to bad people.
Is that wrong??
rich….. wouldn’t it be nice if your “take-home” pay was the same as your salary/wages and that you only paid 13.7% income tax.
Harry Reid says Willard paid zero in taxes. I haven’t seen any tax returns to refute that.
Who do u believe, Harry or Mr. 47% aka Willard.
I think Harry’s info may be suspect. But, I’d bet he only paid his 13.6% tax on 50% of his income, that income he declared here, not income he derived from foreign investments in foreign banks. That’s why they call them “tax shelters”.
I’ll bet you that somebody, somewhere KNOWS and that information will likely “wiki-leak” eventually. His $100 million IRA alone is suspect even though it may not technically be “evasion”.
yes, he didn’t save businesses, he crushed them and started over anew, didn’t he?
“Crushed” is such a harsh term. Mitt likes to say “harvest.” Like taking your internal organs.
What info do u have that Harry’s info is suspect? Lets see it.
Better yet, lets see Mr 47%, aka Willard’s, returns to reveal the truth about what was paid and legality of filing info.
U keep repeating info/making assumptions like it was based on some sort of facts no one to date has been made privy to.
Kibbles for the lemmings.
Obama takes credit for no longer being “mired in Iraq,” but the truth is, if he had his way, we’d still be mired there. Proper credit for ending the war in Iraq belongs to the miscreant that started the war: George W. Bush. Bush negotiated the timeline for withdrawal that Iraq insisted Obama honor.
As for Romney’s promises, all that and more can be achieved if only we cut the top tax rate to 15%. That’s Romney’s plan anyway. It reminds me of the doughnut diet that worked so well for Homer Simpson.
As if Obanka hasn’t doubled and tripled down on “the policies that got us into this mess” already. Gee, you think keeping Bernanke, promoting Geithner, and assembling an economic team that Karl Rove was practically giddy about might have had something to do with that?
“Second, cut oil imports in half and [verb I forgot] on American energy: Oil [translation: DRILL, BABY, DRILL! Atlantic coast! Pacific Coast! Alaska! And let's not forget about how I helped BP, my #1 campaign contributor in 2008, cover-up the oil spill and let them off with a slap on the wrist…paid for out of future revenues!], clean coal [no such animal, suckers!], natural gas [F-R-A-C-K-I-N-G! FRACKING, FRACKING, everywhere! You peasants don't deserve clean water!]…”
He disgusts me every time I hear him speak.
Obviously, neither candidate deserves our vote and I urge everyone to vote for/write in Stewart Alexander and help move the debate and the electorate in a positive direction, for the first time in 40 years.
BUT, for those who are convinced that they have an obligation to vote for one of the two major candidates, Romney is clearly the better choice, for three simple reasons.
1) Obama has murdered American citizens. Without trial, anything that resembles due process or, for what we know, cause.
Romney isn’t a saint. But he hasn’t murdered anyone, that I know of.
(Really, that’s enough. How can it not be? But I promised you three…)
2) The no-doubt-familiar Obama is the more effective Evil/Romney will face resistance, if only for partisan political reasons argument that Glen Ford and others make so well.
And
3) a simple comparison
Romney articulates policies that will only benefit the wealthy. But he could be lying to secure his election.
Obama claims (sorta) to be fighting (kinda) for us (if you let him be vague enough about it.
But we KNOW he’s lying. He lied in 2008, he’s lying right now. Not a doubt in my mind, and I’d be honestly surprised if anyone here had a doubt about it.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, I’m the damned fool.”
Thank you, Dubya. I couldn’t have said it better.
Mitt’s a piece of shit. But not a lying, murdering piece of shit. If you’re a prisoner of the “lesser of two evils” paradigm, Mitt’s the evil you’re looking for.
(This should probably be a diary. Hold on a second…)