I don't care if he goes on TV shows. Good for him. Makes him more a man of the people. The thing is, it isn't about him going on the TV shows as it is him saying things like "I'm going to focus on jobs like a laser beam" and then going on a really ritzy/gaudy vacation the next day. The message is that while he's saying one thing, he's really living it up while things aren't so great. Not so much a man of the people. And it will resonante with independents and younger voters, who were a big part of his constituency in 2008.
I think a better question/message would be about what Mitt WILL do, not what Obama "didn't" do (or did, depending on your pov). It's one of the things that is sapping a lot of political interest in people. Instead of telling me over and over what your opponent did wrong, tell me what you'd do. (this doesn't necessarily only apply to this ad, I mean in general). My biggest pet peeve of politics is politicians basically spewing the same old cliches over and over. If you say something that sounds scarey about your opponent, you don't have to actually say what you'd do (esp when it comes to Presidents, who constantly make hollow promises, and promises they have absolutely no chance in hell in realistically following through with).
I get you there, but it's not like they can't focus on stuff while on vacation. As much as Bush got railed on for being the "Vacation President", its not like he couldn't (or didn't) do stuff while on vacation. I think it's because of how when the average person goes on vacation, their job doesn't go with them. For the President, it doesn't stay home. It won't resonate with them. Maybe independents, but not younger voters. They're a totally different breed of voters than most people understand. Younger voters don't see issues the same way that older voters do. Personally, I don't care if a president does what you're talking about. They have little to do with whether or not my life is better now than it was prior to their running for President. Especially when a lot of stuff gets stalled in our pathetic congress.
Bush went home to his house a lot. He didn't go to NYC and go out to the fanciest restaurants, etc. And this election is about Obama's record or it isn't. Obama doesn't want it to be, so I expect nothing but smear ads against Romney. When the facts aren't on your side, pound your fist on the table, after all. Romney does want it to be about Obama's record, and it rightly should be. 4 more years of the same? Or 4 years of at least a chance to be different. And different is likely to be better.
A nice article from Obama's home town paper. Seems to echo my analysis. http://www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/12147900-452/dems-cant-hide-obamas-failings.html Dems can’t hide Obama’s failings The no-holds-barred Democratic machine is laboring overtime to come up with reasons voters should re-elect President Barack Obama. He’s more likeable than Mitt Romney. The presumptive GOP nominee is a right-wing extremist. The cool, hip Obama has the women and youth vote locked up. In short, the White House strategy is to talk about anything but the economy. Democrats gleefully cite polls showing Americans like Obama more than Romney. That harkens back to the 2004 race when President George W. Bush was seen as the guy you have a beer with rather than losing Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. But the economy was in good shape then, so it was easy to vote for the affable frat boy Bush over the dour Kerry. With unemployment above 8 percent for the longest time since the Depression and the economic recovery limping along at the most anemic pace in modern history, voters might reject the more popular guy in favor of the sober, get-the-job-done executive who has economic home runs like Staples and the Sports Authority on his resume. To try to further paint Romney as less likeable, the Democratic propaganda apparatus intends to use the long, divisive GOP primary to label the former Massachusetts governor as a right-wing extremist. That ploy might run into trouble with all that videotape of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum condemning Romney as “a Massachusetts moderate.” On another front, the administration tried to build on the Democrats’ favorable gender gap with women by dragging the Catholic Church into a controversy over insurance coverage for contraceptives. That blew up when a Democratic strategist and frequent White House visitor alienated stay-at-home moms by saying Anne Romney “never worked a day in her life.” Romney used that to talk about how women are attuned to economic reality through daily household buying. Making matters worse for Democrats was an analysis of White House pay by the conservative Washington Free Beacon showing pay for women employees to be 18 percent below that for men. That recalled a former top female official saying that when she worked at the White House, “It actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.’’ Obama then did a college tour touting his proposal to keep interest rates on student loans low. It turned out that Romney backs that too. Making matters worse for Democrats was an analysis by the Associated Press showing that the labor market in the Obama economy is so weak that half of 2012 college graduates were unemployed or working in jobs below their skill levels. Will young people vote for cool and hip, or for a better chance to get a job so they can pay off those loans? The line of reasoning that voters might prefer competence to likability got a boost from, of all people, former White House chief-of-staff Bill Daley, though he obviously didn’t mean to. In a Chicago speech, Daley said, “The president has a very difficult time with the business community. Most people in business and most people who are successful are Republican. That’s just a fact of life.” Considering that fact of life, who would you rather have in the White House, a charisma-deprived guy from the party of success or the likeable guy from the party of, well, not success?
the guy having a car elevator installed in his mansion is? Obama wasn't born into a rich political family with every advantage like Mitt was, he was raised in a single parent household... do you have a clue what man of the people means? Geez, how many years has it been since Mitt held a job? How many times has he run for office in the spare time when he wasn't vacationing in France? I'm aware of the billions lined up for carpet bombing Obama with negative attack ads like he ran on Ron Paul and the rest of the Right, but he's got all of Al Gore's charisma, a silver foot in his mouth, is thought of as having no core values by Americans across the voting spectrum, alienates a large section of the Republican base with his religion, and he's surrounded himself with Karl Rove and much of team Worst President ever Do you really think it's going to be close? The general trend I've noticed in political races, is that the better public speaker wins. I'm sure the networks want it to be thought of as close so that they'll have people tuning in, but I'm not seeing it that way STOMP
Well, I've yet to see a politician (recently, that is) who isn't a 'politics as usual' person. So while I feel Obama has been a bust, I have no thoughts Mitt can do any better.
I don't know if Obama is a man of the people . . . but he is more a man of the people than Romney. Mitt doesn't have a chance
If that is THE message, then Republicans really have nothing at all. So, let's see. Obama is a beer-drinkin', fly-killin', comedy-lovin' singing celebrity who is (supposedly) responsible for student loan debt? News flash: Americans actually like celebrities a lot more than they like rich guys. barfo
It's untrue, but will clearly resonate with voters who have only double-digit IQ's. The bottom line is nobody in any party thinks Romney is an honest person nor does he appear to have a spine or a brain. This will be an Obama romp.
Unfortunately, this is likely. Romney is not presidential material in my opinion. Neither is Obama. I think he's absolutely worthless. But if both candidates are terrible, I think most people will simply vote to keep the one already in office.
the known evil is better than the unknown evil. gotta agree, neither are all that appealing but these races come down to being charismatic and able to sway peoples opinions and obama is 1000x better at that than mitt has shown to be.
