Watched a baggers head explode today when I told him this story about Romney
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/04/inside_the_mitt_laden_smackdown_1.phpInside the Mitt Laden Smackdown
Josh Marshall- April 30, 2012, 11:49 AM
As you know, on the eve of the anniversary of the targeted killing of arch-terrorist Osama bin Laden, the Obama reelection campaign launched a frontal attack on Mitt Romney. They not only celebrated Obama’s decision but freely suggested that Romney wouldn’t have had the focus or the guts to make the call.
As it happens, of course, Romney has provided plenty of evidence to back up this attack. In line with the late Bush administration policy and messaging on OBL, Romney repeatedly said that the US shouldn’t focus on hunting him down. The point wasn’t that OBL was off the hook but that we shouldn’t be focusing on this one guy. Romney followed by attacking Obama in 2008 for suggesting that he would unilaterally send American troops into Pakistan to kill bin Laden. In both cases, Romney was doing little more than repeating the strategic or political orthodoxy of the GOP leader of the moment, in the first case George W. Bush in 2007 and then John McCain in 2008.
Romney might argue — maybe even accurately? — that he never really meant any of that stuff and that he would have done just what Obama did. But that would be an awkward and challenging argument to make.
Let’s start with the premise that absolutely any sitting President who made a high stakes choice to order a commando raid that killed one of the most notorious enemies of the United States in American history would make that decision a center point in his or her campaign for a second term. To pretend otherwise is not only ludicrous; this is actually what a president should do. So much of what goes into a presidential campaign are indiciators - some bogus, others acute - about what a president would do in impossible to foresee, high stakes moments. Obama made a high stakes call. He was proved right. And he’ll bring that before the electorate to make his argument to keep him as president.
That’s the box the Obama camp has set for their opponent.
-------------------------------------------------------
Bagger just couldn't believe this was true. I told him he would see the ads proving this is true soon enough and left it at that.
Don
= new reply since forum marked as read
Way to go!
do the same thing with my religion. which technically is Lutheran... but I've often found the dont push it method works far better. One makes their case for their religion leaves it wherever it is.. and let the other person decide.
Course now with that absurd fictional ad Crossroads plays over and over again about 12 million jobs lost and the debt going up 5 billion a day under obama yada whatever...., makes the case that if Republicans refuse to seek forgiveness for their sin of lying. they kinda kill their argument that homosexuals don't ask for forgiveness for that supposed sin. and about 5 other commandments they tend to break. course this is all from the old book. The new book is where one is supposed to look and use the red letters. Already had one Rev on tv say with Red Letter Christians (never heard the term) that no where in red letters does Jesus say anything about homosexuals. But again nothing forced. ie religions can accept them into their midst but not forced. Usually works. You make a valid point, with room for doubt and let it sprout 