In the wake of the JPMorgan fiasco, and with growing discussion about how best to regulate Wall Street, the secretive, far-right American Future Fund is reportedly investing $3.4 million in this attack ad, which will air in seven 2012 battlegrounds. I'm not sure if AFF has thought this one through.
The gist of the minute-long ad is that while President Obama says he's helped crack down on financial-industry excesses, American Future Fund would have voters believe he's actually a close Wall Street ally. We learn, for example, about the $42 million Obama received from "Wall Street bankers and financial insiders" in 2008, and the vote he cast before becoming president in support of the Bush bailout of the financial industry.
There's nothing especially inaccurate about the ad -- which is more than I can say for most secretive, far-right groups airing anti-Obama attacks -- but the whole point of the criticism strikes me as bizarre.
For years, conservatives have said Obama is an anti-business socialist, imposing harsh regulations on Wall Street and using antagonistic rhetoric towards those in the financial industry. But the new message is that Obama is quietly a close buddy of the Wall Street elite?
The American Future Fund is spending $3.4 million on an attack ad that, in effect, says conservatives have had it backwards for nearly four years: the president isn't too mean to Wall Street; he's too cozy with Wall Street.
I've heard Obama's liberal detractors make this case in compelling ways, but there are two main problems with it coming from the right.
First, AFF is giving away the game, conceding that Wall Street ties are necessarily a bad thing. But if that's true and voters work from that assumption, it's AFF's allies -- Republicans -- who'll suffer most. After all, it's the Republican presidential nominee who's the new darling of the financial industry elite, vowing to eliminate safeguards against Wall Street excesses.
The underlying message the AFF is trying to get across is among the most ironic things we'll see this year: "Obama is too friendly with Wall Street, so vote for Republicans, who'll make things easier on Wall Street."
And second, the right is eventually going to have to decide what it is, exactly, they hate about Obama, because at this point, I don't think even conservatives know for sure.
At different times over the last four years, Obama's detractors on the right have said he's a ruthless Chicago thug and a weak pushover. He's a bystander who goes golfing too much and an activist president who engages too much. He's sticking to the Bush/Cheney script on national security and he's putting us at risk by abandoning the Bush/Cheney national security agenda. He's cutting cherished entitlement programs like Medicare and he refuses to cut entitlement programs like Medicare.
He's too mean to Wall Street and he's too nice to Wall Street.
If the right would just pick a caricature and stick with it, their criticisms would at least be more coherent.
Leave a Comment:
He's a good President with a good record .
No wonder they are apoplectic.
That's why they have to make up a version of Obama to fight .
The real one is kicking their butts
The harder they try to make him look bad the better he looks.
Heh. They just have no idea what might make Obama look bad. Especially since they don't quite have the cojones to say "But...but...he's black!" Yep, the dittoheads get another dubious point to parrot, but for the undecided, it's all contradictory noise. This point that Wall Street contributes to him despite his orders to the DOJ to crack down on financial fraud (look up StopFraud.gov) suggests that, whether or not he wants to regulate them more, he is better for them and the country than the alternative.
To those like me, who will vote for Obama anyway, it's almost amusing to see the Right scramble to find something to criticize that makes sense. Oh, there are a number of Obama moves that have worried me -- for instance, I'm mad that Gitmo is still open and that terrorist defendants are being tried in military courts. They are simply criminals and deserve no more special treatment than run-of-the-mill criminals. (I wouldn't mind if Ted Nugent was sent there, though, awkward as that is for my civil rights stance.) But, overall, President Obama's doing a great job despite GOP obstructionism. Not nearly as liberal as I would like, but things are happening. Effective, smart, charming, moral without being obnoxious about it...and might even be a good person to have a drink with. :D
He is too easy of a target. Why anyone would think not is beyond me. You people seem to miss what's going on. Calling Repubicans obstructionist is crazy! Obama had both the Senate and the Congress, and still complains he can't get anything done. Ever wonder why he did'nt, when he could? He has no clue! And, to go after Romney as being a bully. What a joke! Why don't the liberal media go after Obama for what he did as a youth? Anyone read his book? What was that he did? Doing drugs, and mentioned pushing a girl. Read the book, it's there! And, stop your whinning. We need someone to straighten the mess he's made, out! And, by the way. Romney was'nt at Bain when the steel plant closed. And, that 78% of the companys they took over, who were going brankupt succeeded. Not too shabby of a record. I'll take those numbers all day long. I better go to where the real truth in news is told. Back to FOX network.
It's romney's model that closes plants and gives the jobs to Mexico and China.
I know first hand; I worked for a company that Bain purchased. Within month the company was sliced and diced and the plants were closed.
So if you think giving U.S. jobs to Mexico and China is good for the country then mittens is you guy.
Come on Steve, you act as though "coherence" actually means something to the GOP. Let's face it their mission is obfuscation of everything in order to get their way, I mean it's not as though they can tell the truth, really want to lead the people, actually have a plan that doesn't blow up the American economy, yadda, yadda, yadda....I'm just saying....
You and Steve have missed the point. This ad is not designed to convince moderates to vote for MItt Romney, it's designed to get solid Democratic Party voters to become disillusioned and stay home on election day. It's likely to be effective, on that front, so long as Obama continues to run his administration as though he were in the pocket of Wall Street. The recent fiasco makes this problem worse, for Obama. There is no need to worry about hypocrisy on the part of MItt Romney, because that's just not a factor, for the intended audience of this amazingly brilliant ad.
@ Gary -- Good point. Except that those of us who keep up are aware that Wall Street, on the whole, is happy with the economic trends under Obama and put this particular factoid down to the fact that they will try to keep the guy in office who seems to have a clue. The GOP has economic disaster written all over their plans. So say conservative economists.
I see your point, and figure I must be one of those "political junkies" - I try to stay informed, my bad. I just figure, I'm not the only one staying informed, but then again - I did watch the GOP primaries, and was appalled, then got wasted they were just so disheartening, then I contemplated moving to another country, but hey - we've exported so much grief to other nations, they probably don't take American refugees......
Donni and Zora - The "low information voter" is the big problem for the Democratic Party. Apparently 69 million people voted for Obama in 2008. Then, in the mid term elections, millions of people stayed home, and the 45 million who voted for Democratic Party candidates got their ass handed to them by evangelical christian fascists wrapping themselves in the banner of the "TEA Party". Ads like this one directly work toward reproducing the GOP success of 2010. It's not clear to me how to reach those folk, how to get them to the polls, how to persuade them to choose the liberal side of the discussion. In 2008 they could no loner deny, after 8 years of Bush, that there was something wrong. They just don't seem to make the connection between the GOP and its life-denying, strip-mining-of-our-future policies.
Well, they're probably going to stick with the one about him being too black, at least privately.
Whomever avers the Republican as the party of ideas is a fool for not paying attention to the demise of substance and the rise in sophistry in said party for the past 20 years!
The Republican game plan in 2012 is to throw fecal matter into the fan in hopes of hitting low-information voters where it counts - in the eye! -Kevo
This is called the "Throw It Against the Wall and See If It Sticks" principle. Many years ago, I was a juror in a criminal case. The defense attorneys in that case did exactly what the anti-Obama people are doing now. The lawyers would throw out all sorts of alternative theories, most of them just marginally plausible and many of them contradictory. They even trotted out a superannuated retired professor to go into great detail (talking in his "I'm Lecturing to Stupid Frat Boys at 8 a.m." voice) refuting something the prosecution actually did not say. All this to the end of dropping a little dollop of "reasonable doubt" in some juror's head. It didn't work back then. Whether this will work with the American voting public--alas, I'm pessimistic enough to think that it just might.
The problem with the jury analogy is that the jurors have to sit still and listen to both sides in detail. As a result they are generally right. Voters don't have to sit still and listen and many don't.
Keep them coming Steve, keep them coming, your short game is great!
Oh and can you please take a minute and talk about Bork being on Romney's team?
There is plenty to write about there!
I got scared for a moment, thinking you meant 'the Borg' cause they were well organized.
Being wrong is right if you are a republican. Somtething like that anyway.
Time to take back the government from lobbyists and wealthy greedy pigs.
That darn Obama—voting for the bailout that Bush asked for and signed!
Uh... Isn't it a fact that Romney is collecting much more from those "fat cats?" You're right, this is pretty weak stuff as "scandals" go.
Easy. He's Un(*wink*)American(*nudge*)!
Besides, his baby mama has a big butt.
I often write that a Republican's claims never have to be proven, they just need to be made, and they thus become truth. This is more of that and then some. Because now, they're not even tailoring their ads around what their base supposedly hates about Obama, they're making an ad and telling their base "here's what you hate about Obama now," and if the next ad gives them a contradictory reason to hate Obama, whatevs, they're preaching to a base that hates Obama anyway, who cares why. The only thing important is to get them fired up and ready to vote against Obama, and hope that their enthusiasm will pick up converts along the way. It's a little "throw everything against the wall and see what sticks." But it's also a lot "our base is so stupid they'll believe anything we tell them to believe. We construct new realities all the time and while you are busy debating their merits or their legitimacy, we're off creating newer realities, you're always behind, and thus you always lose."
But I will say this - it's not (all that much) about Obama being black. They attacked Clinton just as hard, just as often, and they never backed off of him, either. It wouldn't matter who the Democratic President was, or what his color was, or even how often he agreed with Republican policies and worked with them to achieve their goals in public or in private. For too many Republicans, Politics is "The Big Game," for many of the more Lard-Assy Republicans, the only game they were ever good at, the only game they were ever allowed to play without getting injured. Football for fat-asses with much higher stakes. It's "us vs. them" and the won-loss record means more than actual governance. In many instances Obama is to the right of Reagan, but how often do you hear Republicans acknowledge that versus Obama being a communist fascist terrorist. No, race isn't the reason (or the main reason) why Republicans hate Obama, it's just that his race and background is the easiest way to tailor ads that subconsciously prey on some people's fears.
Slappy> you've got it totally backwards! However not surprised especially reading your post, and others. You guys like to call names of people, or their party affiliation. That shows me how intelligent, or not, some of you may be! I'm Independent, and vote for whom I think will do the best job for what is needed. And, we need a new President.
I love the intelligent posts here but I end up angry and have to sublimate. I'm a bit old for porn sites so I like snark. Bush and Romney were both bullies. Was that because they were both cheerleaders in their 'private schools'? McCain only played a bully on t v.
lolz
If only the Obama administration didn't get all their policy ideas from Republicans, they might have been successful. I'm still scratching my head, because in 2008 most of us thought we elected a Democrat.
I think that it is the contrary. We elected a person who is not afraid to bring ideas to the fore no matter whose ideas are they. It takes a person with vision to give new ideas a try.
What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried? ~Abraham Lincoln
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
afrommi
The irony is that there was once a Lincoln Savings & Loan that crashed during the savings and loans crisis. They branches had tons of Lincoln memorabilia displayed. Too bad they never listened to the words of the man they enshrined.
Oh, Maria, lest anyone forget, are you referring to the bankers who used FDIC government guaranteed money to make risky investments with depositors' money and the depositors were left holding the empty bag—the last time we had a banking crisis, after banking regulations were relaxed under Republican President Reagan?
Charles Keating, the President of Lincoln Savings, went to jail for corruption. It came out that five Senators, known as the "Keating Five," obstructed regulators' investigation of the bank that might have prevented the collapse of the bank. One of the Senators who received some of Keating's more than $1M contributions was Maverick McCain. Keating was later asked if he thought his contributions influenced their actions. He famously answered, "I certainly hope so."
C'mon, people. It's too easy to know what's going to happen and why anymore.
First, this is just Wall Street and Republicans knowing that the regular American hates Wall Street.
Second, Wall Street and Republicans know the regular American is a lazy, irresponsible citizen that is ignorant beyond belief.
Third, tie your enemy, Obama, to the group the regular hates, Wall Street
Fourth, this leaves Wall Street and Republicans free to dismantle any regulations they want because those regulations are what Obama wanted, and because regular Americans now worship "free" (unfettered) markets (due to the fact Dems were cowardly to fight against the idea for the last 30 years).
Fifth, dumbass regular American buys it hook, line, and sinker.
Sixth, you know what happens when Wall Street gets to gamble willy nilly. Things like the financial crisis, Great Recessions, bank bailouts, ..., and regular American cycle their hatred of government because Republicans tell them it's the government's fault.
Seventh, repeat.
JP Morgan's loss will have no effect on the Republican push against Dodd-Frank and Democrats will cower from a fight because... well, because they're cowards.
It is possible for this country to get dumber, but not much.
I do not think the average American hates Wall Street. But they hate the greediness with which it operates. That kind of greediness is unnecessary in a country like ours. Americans were the most independent and richest country in the world. We consumed everything we produced and then some. With good living wages and benefits we were all doing well. It only took deregulation to bring the pinions of greediness to the fore. Companies started wanting more profits. So, the only way was to save on salaries, wages and benefits by taking those away from employees who already put them at the top.
They took a page out of Romney's flip flopper strategery tactics book?
Let them waste their money arguing both sides of an issue about Wall Street when the Silent Majority doesn't believe either since the Bush economic meltdown.
It amuses me to no end that rich people are so wrapped up in speculating in the markets when there is real money to be made in investing in new ideas and products that will change the world and improve life on this planet.
Manipulating dwindling existing capital which is only worth something some of the time versus building real equity and growth? Yes, the really smart business people take pride in what they do instead of always having to apologize for their gambling problems.
Romney has yet to make a case for any accomplishment he made at Bain. Show us the your big success. Saving the Olympics? Hercules did that with one of his arms tied behind his back over 3,000 years ago.
Romney never created anything new or saved a business that wasn't capable of doing it itself...and probably would have done it faster and better if he hadn't gotten involved. He just butted into an existing venture and manipulated the equity.
Anybody who can con other investors into taking all the risk.
The American middle class doesn't have any venture capital available for Romney to risk nor the urge to roll the dice after the Bush/Cheney economic meltdown.