Posted on 07/19/2009 2:53:51 PM PDT by fiscon1
In business, and in life, there is a concept that everyone should follow, manage expectations. If you promise someone that something will get done in two weeks and it's done in three you look like an incompetent. If, on the other hand, you promise it done in four weeks and it's done in three you're a hero.
(Excerpt) Read more at theeprovocateur.blogspot.com ...
I wish somebody would ask Obama, at one of his many, many press conferences, why pregnant women are the only people who have a right to choice.
I sure as hell don’t want ANY politicians, especially members of the party of death, making decisions about my healthcare.
I like the ad, but it could have cut to the chase a lot sooner. Obama says “right now” and “going as planned,” and then “wasn’t designed to work in four months.” IMO, the ad waited TOO long, dilly-dallied too much, before putting in the “wasnt’ designed to work in four months” bit. Glad they’re putting it out there ... but the ad that cuts to the chase quickest is the one that dullards who voted for Obama will be most hit by, not one that lumbers along and loses their gnat’s-attention-span. Just my two cents.
I think that’s style. They want to show how rosey he spoke and lead the viewer to how his story has changed over time.
If the GOP would spend a buck and put these ads on television instead of just on youtube, I might consider giving a buck or two, but as it is, they’re mostly preaching to the choir. I email links for these ads but they have to get the message out better.
Considering the fact that the ad will (I hope!) run repeatedly and be seen many times by the same viewers, that’s probably a good way to go about it. The writer of the article is correct, I think, in the WHY of what makes the ad devastating. Obama has gone beyond failing to manage expectations — he’s lost control of them completetly, and the ad illustrates it using his own words.
if it’s only on youtube then I agree with you though RCP also showed it. I think there was 44000 viewings. We’ll see how many views it gets. I agree though this ad is excellent and they should put it out.
It makes libs uncomfortable when you ask them why there is a "right to privacy" between a woman and her doctor when she wants a baby removed like it is some type of tumor, but if she wants an actual tumor removed she will have to get the government's permission under Obamacare and there is no right to privacy.
“I sure as hell don’t want ANY politicians, especially members of the party of death, making decisions about my healthcare.”
Make no mistake, I’m pro-life.
...But in that statement, you have made a logical contradiction. It is EXACTLY “politicians” who will ban abortions if we get a chance, and “politicians” who currently regulate it.
So, in a strict libertarian stance, the pro-life people would definitely lose out.
I’ve always thought that the whole abortion debate had flipped each side on its head, with the “limited government” crowd wanting MORE government here, and the “more government” people wanting libertarian freedoms.
This is also why the Terri Schiavo case split Freep so badly....
I see your point. I suppose I’ll have to admit that there are some politicians who can be helpful and actually do what the Constitution says they can do. I’m not sure who they are tho.
I’ve been out of the loop for awhile so I’ve not heard anybody but Laura Ingraham make that point when she was hosting O’Reilly’s show last week.
That question should be asked everyday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.