1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Chicago Cubs and the "Defeat of Barack Hussein Obama"

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Dick Whitman, May 17, 2012.

  1. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    The whole "Thanks Roberts" thing is silly. That Toobin article breathlessly reported that the SC decides whether to decide a case in a narrow or broad way? That always happens. And if they think that the statute is unconstitutional, their job is to say so, not to apply it in a limited manner. The only thing that made it unusual was the compromise struck to re-argue.

    Again, my personal view, and I think that most of the justices in the majority would agree with this though I can't say for sure, is that elections would be better with some way of regulating the amounts of money and advertising in out elections (the sheer waster of resources is offensive), we would have to amend the constitution to get it done. To recycle a cliche, if Jesus in piss is protected as free speech, ,how could political advocacy attempting to influence an election not be?
     
  2. Zeke12

    Zeke12 Guest

    You mean, if he has to answer for some of the shit prominent Mormons have said through the years, this is a huge loser for him?

    Yupper.
     
  3. Bob Cook

    Bob Cook Active Member

    I keep hearing that Obama's record is enough to kick him out of office, yet the efforts to bring up old religious issues or the "we don't know him yet" meme keep getting funding. I don't get it.

    The only thing I can figure is that the people funding these efforts believe that Obama's record won't motivate people to come to vote against him. But they believe that playing to racial or religious fears will.

    By the way, I also believe it's a waste of time to try to motivate voters to come to the polls based on a fear of Mormonism. Evangelicals aren't going to vote for Obama even if Romney worships Satan, and there about a million more things about Romney bigger than Mormonism that would motivate people to vote against him.
     
  4. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    Bob, the significance of this campaign to me is that it reveals the fundamental belief among the ultra-wealthy Republicans such as Ricketts that Republican voters are basically complete boobs who can only be motivated by the crassest appeals to hate and fear. It's odd to have a party financed by people who hold their supporters in total contempt.
     
  5. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    Well, Obama's record would be enough to get him kicked out of office if he was running against someone that most people liked. It was the same thing in 2004. If the democrats pick a better candidate, Bush probably lasts one term.

    I've said this before, but Obama's numbers are going to come up as soon as he hits the campaign trail based on his likability. Romney's people I'm assuming know this, and that's why they're pulling out any and all the stops.

    Going after a religion is tricky. Obviously, the Mormon religion has some pretty funky beliefs, but you could say that about just about any religion out there. Just because Brigham Young said something once doesn't mean that's something that Romney believes.

    It would be the same with Obama.

    I don't think this is ever going to materialize.
     
  6. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    Canon of avoidance?
     
  7. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    I don't see it that way. Plenty of people are going to vote against Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with Reverend Wright. I think they're trying to go after a small percentage of independent voters who might help Romney pick up a couple states where the race is tight.
     
  8. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    I dunno, Mizzou. An incumbent President is about the only issue almost all American voters have an opinion on, for better or worse. The election is, as you say, close, because those opinions are closely divided. I think this ad is being concocted because Ricketts thinks that's how you win in politics, by counting on hate and fear. It talks about HIM, not Republican voters, or any voters. In short, it shows he's scum walking. I also wonder if Ricketts thinks the Cubs will never need a favor from the city of Chicago.
     
  9. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    I don't think that's what's going on here. The proposal wasn't to interpret the statute in a way that avoids the constitutional question, but to resolve the case ignoring the constitutional problem that they didn't think was resolvable. I'm honestly rusty, but is that the same thing?
     
  10. LongTimeListener

    LongTimeListener Well-Known Member

    Maybe Ricketts can do a 25-year "where are they now?" retrospective on Willie Horton. But then that wasn't really about race, I've been told.
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Precisely. Like I said a few posts above this, he needs to tread very, very carefully here.
     
  12. Zeke12

    Zeke12 Guest

    Any day spent talking about religion is a day Mitt Romney's losing.

    Any people who can be reached by this kind of attack are already baked into the cake.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page