Quote:
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
It's a pretty slick, well-conceived ad. Negative? Sure. But as much as I wish all the campaigning could be positive, it looks like we'll have to get used to it. I've seen worse negative advertising though. Joe the Plumber and some of the Reverend Wright clips in 2008 were worse.
If the facts in the ad are correct--and I don't hear any clamor from the Romney campaign that they're not--what do we have here? It seems to me that we have an incumbent who campaigned on "change" and simply hasn't delivered. And his opponent who is making similar promises, but has a record that belies what he says he intends to do.
Boy, what a choice. I can't see much space between them. One major difference is that one is an incumbent and one isn't. For me that's beginning to look like the only meaningful tie-breaker.
|
We know by now that you do not like voting for incumbents. I have used this tactic sometimes too if I do not like the way local politics are going. I usually only approach voting with that kind of position though when the incumbents had a lot to do with what the current situation is. Not sure how either Romney or President Obama can stop the huge amount of spending going into governmental programs which goes back through a few US Presidential administrations. Romney wants a huge military industrial complex build up to counter the threat he sees from Russia, China, and various other nations. Obama wants to continue with his Obamacare and other social welfare programs which also cost a lot of money. Both Romney and Obama look like they will continue to take us deeper and deeper into debt.