Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
This just in: Jeff Greenfield sucks.
Not only does he have a horrendous, almost Traficant-worthy rug:
he followed up his "Robme's Daffy Duck will win out over Obama's Bugs Bunny" kitsch classic with this:
http://news.yahoo.com/why-obama%E2%80%99s-attack-on-gov--romney-won%E2%80%99t-prevent-president-romney.html
In 1992, Bush’s re-election effort used the same tactic it had used in ’88–indeed, some of the same language–to go after Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton. One memorable ad showed gloomy, black and white images of a landscape that had apparently suffered some sort of devastating disaster–which led to the ad being nicknamed “Nuclear Winter.”
The sound of a mournful wind could be heard as the announcer said: “In his 12 years as governor, Bill Clinton has doubled his state’s debt, doubled government spending and signed the largest tax increase in his state’s history. Yet his state remains the 45th worst in which to work, the 45th worst for children. … And now Bill Clinton wants to do for America what he’s done for Arkansas. America can’t take that risk.”
And in 2000? Consider an ad the Gore campaign ran in Ohio: “George W. Bush wants to bring his Texas ideas to Ohio.” But manufacturing workers in Texas are the eighth-worst paid in America; Ohio’s are the fourth-best paid. And Texas went from the 29th-worst to the 48th-worst place to raise a child under Bush. “On Nov. 7th, is that the change we really want for Ohio?”
Why were the attacks on Dukakis uniquely successful? Because they were visceral: filthy, unsafe water; violent criminals left to roam free on weekends. In contrast, the attacks on Clinton and Bush were awash in mind-numbing statistics that made no emotional connection to the voter.
The sound of a mournful wind could be heard as the announcer said: “In his 12 years as governor, Bill Clinton has doubled his state’s debt, doubled government spending and signed the largest tax increase in his state’s history. Yet his state remains the 45th worst in which to work, the 45th worst for children. … And now Bill Clinton wants to do for America what he’s done for Arkansas. America can’t take that risk.”
And in 2000? Consider an ad the Gore campaign ran in Ohio: “George W. Bush wants to bring his Texas ideas to Ohio.” But manufacturing workers in Texas are the eighth-worst paid in America; Ohio’s are the fourth-best paid. And Texas went from the 29th-worst to the 48th-worst place to raise a child under Bush. “On Nov. 7th, is that the change we really want for Ohio?”
Why were the attacks on Dukakis uniquely successful? Because they were visceral: filthy, unsafe water; violent criminals left to roam free on weekends. In contrast, the attacks on Clinton and Bush were awash in mind-numbing statistics that made no emotional connection to the voter.
"Visceral"? "Mind-numbing statistics"? He must think the American voter is a complete
Oh, wait...
