News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.
This is a campaign ad from the Republican party. It is not a joke–the audio you hear is actually real. I have no problem with having fun and being lighthearted, but this is a presidential campaign that will decide the future of America and American small business. The bottom line here is, “How much freedom do you want as an American citizen?”
Yesterday the Palm Beach Post reported that the NAACP has stated that a campaign ad showing Representative Allen West punching a while woman is not racially offensive.
The article reports:
NAACP Washington Bureau Director Hilary O. Shelton, the organization’s chief federal lobbyist, said he watched the ad three or four times.
“It is a typical campaign ad,” said Shelton. “I don’t see it playing on stereotypes.”
American Sunrise got $250,000 of its initial $350,050 budget from Coastal Construction CEO Thomas Murphy Jr., who is Patrick Murphy’s father. The PAC, which says it aims to “reduce the hostile environment of governing in today’s Congress,” lists Patrick Murphy as the only candidate it supports.
Would the ad be racially offensive if the Representative were punching a black woman? Just a thought.
It really isn’t about racial sensitivity–it’s about Democrat party politics. Any campaign showing anyone being punched should be disallowed.
UPDATE: The group responsible for the West advertisement has disabled all comments and ratings on their video page. The immense distaste for the ad may have pressured this move. As Blaze reporter Jason Howerton noted: The video on YouTube currently has more than 12,000 views, with 252 “dislikes” and just 16 “likes.” The move is ironic since the group responsible for the ad claims to work for “thoughtful”, “more open”, “brighter future” in politics.
What is the problem with the ad? It shows a caricature of Allen West wearing boxing gloves punching an old woman, a young lady and seemingly a family with children. He is then shown taking money from the family and laughing like a gremlin.
The only way to stop this sort of foolishness is to render it ineffective. If you live in Florida, please vote for Allen West.
Three years ago his administration invested more than $100 billion in taxpayer money to bail out General Motors. On Tuesday, the entire company, not just what the government owns, was worth less than $34 billion. By anyone’s definition, that investment is a glaring failure. Yet over the last few days the Obama campaign, in a $25 million marketing blitz, has flooded the airwaves with ads in battleground states, claiming the bailout should be counted a rousing success.
The contrast between the facts and the campaign ads is amazing.
The only real winners from the GM bailout were unions, which were protected from pay cuts, from losing their right to overtime pay after less than 40 hours a week, and from cuts to their extremely generous benefits. They faced only minor tweaks in their inefficient union work rules.
As for “hundreds of thousands of new workers,” the truth is closer to a tenth of that.
Having just $34 billion to show after a $100 billion-plus investment would get a chief executive of any private company fired. Unfortunately, Obama does not seem to understand how this money has been wasted.
Would you let these people administer your 401K account?
Yesterday Investors.com posted an article about a campaign ad the Obama campaign has created. The ad is total fiction, and the article explains why.
One of the claims in the ad is that the Obama Administration has decreased America’s dependence on foreign oil. The ad fails to mention that during a recession American oil consumption decreases and thus the amount of oil we import decreases. The article also fails to mention that gasoline consumption is down because the price of a gallon of gas has almost doubled under President Obama. The article includes a chart:
The article also deals with some of the other claims in the ad. President Obama claims that according to the Brookings Institution his administration has created 2.7 million clean energy jobs and is expanding rapidly. Again, that doesn’t line up with the facts. The article reports:
“Overall, today’s clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010, expanding at an annual rate of 3.4 %” — a half-million over eight years being a tiny gain. And that “this performance lagged the growth in the national economy, which grew by 4.2% annually over the period.”
We need to remember that Spain ended its government sponsored green energy program because for every job they created, two jobs were lost. We need to learn from the Spanish experience.
Overall the ad is a very nice-sounding group of lies. I am sure it is the first of many such ads. As voters, we need to learn to fact check all political ads from all candidates. Statistics can be twisted to say anything the person citing them wants them to say. Polls can be skewed according to who is polled. As voters, we really need to pay attention to what is said during the campaign and how much of what is said is actually true.
We all know that the news is not always correct and that campaign ads sometimes say things that are exaggerated or leave out facts. That is part of a system that requires Americans to do their own research and draw their own conclusions. That is why I am very upset about a new website paid for by Obama for America. The website asks people to report ‘attacks’ on President Obama so that they can counter those attacks with facts. I hate to admit that I am something of a cynic, but somehow I am not sure the attacks will be met with facts. What the website is asking is for Americans to ‘tell’ on other Americans who are saying negative things about President Obama. This smacks of asking children to report their parents as enemies of the state.