PDA

View Full Version : Time for ‘democrats for Romney’



Neo
08-18-2012, 08:35 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/time_for_democrats_for_romney_AUZ6cjhzmQwugmwm4pEt 6J


Time for ‘democrats for Romney’

By JERRY DELLA FEMINA

Last Updated: 12:18 AM, August 17, 2012

Posted: 10:44 PM, August 16, 2012

Why not?

Almost all of my friends are Democrats; all of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Ask them these days, as I have, if they plan to vote for Obama this November, and they’ll give you an “Oh shucks” sad smile, look down, look back up with guilty eyes and say “I’m disappointed.”

Then they play the party line and say. “But Romney? But Ryan?”

I’m not talking about those African Americans, Latinos and lockstep Democrats who’ll blindly vote for Obama no matter how high unemployment may be or what shape this country may be in.

I’m talking about a good number of intelligent, caring, middle-class Democrats who are a soft nudge away from casting their vote for Romney.

All they need to know is that they’re not alone.

Democrats were disappointed in 1980. They’d had, under President Jimmy Carter, four years of inflation, unemployment and gas rationing. Yet, when asked, they said, “But Reagan?”

At this point in 1980, Carter was nine points ahead of Ronald Reagan in the polls. Reagan had been slimed by the press and pro-Jimmy Carter forces as being dumb and bumbling. Sound familiar?

Carter treated Reagan as a ridiculous figure who, among other things, was ignorant of details of nuclear-weapons policy. Reagan cheerfully promised economic growth and asked Democrats, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

In the end, Reagan proved that good-natured conservatism could win by huge margins. But a lot of credit for the win must go to “Democrats for Reagan.”

Who were they? Well, Wikipedia says:

“They were mostly white, socially conservative blue-collar workers, who lived in the Northeast, and were attracted to Reagan’s social conservatism.

“Stan Greenberg, a respected Democratic pollster, analyzed white, largely unionized auto workers in suburban Macomb County, Mich., just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle-class aspirations, but instead saw the party as working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor.

“Democrat Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.”

Here’s an example of a commercial that would win Democratic votes for Mitt Romney and maybe turn the election his way:

It would use Democrats who’ve actually decided to vote for Romney. It would be word-for-word true, though soft in tone. It would come as a welcome relief for voters of both parties who’ve had it up to here with negative false commercials. (The “Mitt Romney killed my cancer-stricken wife when he was at Bain Capital” is the best example.)

The ad would open with a man, about 40, sitting in his living room with his wife and kids seated next to him. He looks into the camera and says:

“I’ve voted Democratic all my life. In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama. It was a vote I am proud of. I wanted to be part of the generation that voted a black man into the presidency of the United States. It was the right vote for the right reason. But, sadly, it was for the wrong man. “I don’t think this country can survive four more years of Barack Obama as president. I know my family can’t. I lost my job two years ago, and I fear I’m going to lose my house.

“Mitt Romney has the business experience to bring back our economy fast. He has my vote.”

Other Democrats for Romney commercials would feature:

* A woman who wanted Hillary Clinton in 2008 but voted for Obama in the general election.

* A middle-class African-American owner of a declining small business.

* A student who enthusiastically cast his first vote in 2008 for Obama but hasn’t been able to find a job since then.

Etc., etc., etc.

Again, these commercials wouldn’t slam you in the head but deliver a soft nudge to Democrats who, in their heart of hearts, know that four more years of Barack Obama’s anti-business, share-the-wealth policies will cripple this great country we all love.

Jerry Della Femina, the chairman of Della Femina Advertising, is a member of the Advertising Copywriters Creative Hall of Fame.

Noir
08-18-2012, 08:46 AM
Economically - maybe, i'm sure there are people who could well be swayed by economics alone. But economics alone is not the issue, because...Social Policy. To many of the liberals i know (anecdotal) their primary concerns about Romeny/Ryan revolve around social policy, and those are fundamentals that won't sway.

jimnyc
08-18-2012, 08:58 AM
Economically - maybe, i'm sure there are people who could well be swayed by economics alone. But economics alone is not the issue, because...Social Policy. To many of the liberals i know (anecdotal) their primary concerns about Romeny/Ryan revolve around social policy, and those are fundamentals that won't sway.

This election is going to be ALL about economy and jobs. No offense, but people like yourself who might be swayed against them because of an abortion stance, or similar, are in the extreme minority. Think otherwise if you like, but that won't change anything. America right now is all about the falling economy, the failed actions to make it better, and the 41 straight months of job failure under Obama's leadership.

Sure, some will be swayed be their abortion stances and some will come to them as a result. Having a candidate for/against abortion is something that comes up with every election. Most people with their abortion stances have had their political affiliations chosen a long time ago. So this would mostly effect the younger generation - where Romney has a HUGE lead and it's only increased since his choice of Ryan.

Kathianne
08-18-2012, 09:00 AM
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/time_for_democrats_for_romney_AUZ6cjhzmQwugmwm4pEt 6J


Time for ‘democrats for Romney’

By JERRY DELLA FEMINA

Last Updated: 12:18 AM, August 17, 2012

Posted: 10:44 PM, August 16, 2012

Why not?

Almost all of my friends are Democrats; all of them voted for Barack Obama in 2008.

Ask them these days, as I have, if they plan to vote for Obama this November, and they’ll give you an “Oh shucks” sad smile, look down, look back up with guilty eyes and say “I’m disappointed.”

Then they play the party line and say. “But Romney? But Ryan?”

I’m not talking about those African Americans, Latinos and lockstep Democrats who’ll blindly vote for Obama no matter how high unemployment may be or what shape this country may be in.

I’m talking about a good number of intelligent, caring, middle-class Democrats who are a soft nudge away from casting their vote for Romney.

All they need to know is that they’re not alone.

Democrats were disappointed in 1980. They’d had, under President Jimmy Carter, four years of inflation, unemployment and gas rationing. Yet, when asked, they said, “But Reagan?”

At this point in 1980, Carter was nine points ahead of Ronald Reagan in the polls. Reagan had been slimed by the press and pro-Jimmy Carter forces as being dumb and bumbling. Sound familiar?

Carter treated Reagan as a ridiculous figure who, among other things, was ignorant of details of nuclear-weapons policy. Reagan cheerfully promised economic growth and asked Democrats, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

In the end, Reagan proved that good-natured conservatism could win by huge margins. But a lot of credit for the win must go to “Democrats for Reagan.”

Who were they? Well, Wikipedia says:

“They were mostly white, socially conservative blue-collar workers, who lived in the Northeast, and were attracted to Reagan’s social conservatism.

“Stan Greenberg, a respected Democratic pollster, analyzed white, largely unionized auto workers in suburban Macomb County, Mich., just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for John F. Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle-class aspirations, but instead saw the party as working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor.

“Democrat Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.”

Here’s an example of a commercial that would win Democratic votes for Mitt Romney and maybe turn the election his way:

It would use Democrats who’ve actually decided to vote for Romney. It would be word-for-word true, though soft in tone. It would come as a welcome relief for voters of both parties who’ve had it up to here with negative false commercials. (The “Mitt Romney killed my cancer-stricken wife when he was at Bain Capital” is the best example.)

The ad would open with a man, about 40, sitting in his living room with his wife and kids seated next to him. He looks into the camera and says:

“I’ve voted Democratic all my life. In 2008 I voted for Barack Obama. It was a vote I am proud of. I wanted to be part of the generation that voted a black man into the presidency of the United States. It was the right vote for the right reason. But, sadly, it was for the wrong man. “I don’t think this country can survive four more years of Barack Obama as president. I know my family can’t. I lost my job two years ago, and I fear I’m going to lose my house.

“Mitt Romney has the business experience to bring back our economy fast. He has my vote.”

Other Democrats for Romney commercials would feature:

* A woman who wanted Hillary Clinton in 2008 but voted for Obama in the general election.

* A middle-class African-American owner of a declining small business.

* A student who enthusiastically cast his first vote in 2008 for Obama but hasn’t been able to find a job since then.

Etc., etc., etc.

Again, these commercials wouldn’t slam you in the head but deliver a soft nudge to Democrats who, in their heart of hearts, know that four more years of Barack Obama’s anti-business, share-the-wealth policies will cripple this great country we all love.

Jerry Della Femina, the chairman of Della Femina Advertising, is a member of the Advertising Copywriters Creative Hall of Fame.

Like this?


http://youtu.be/SFErH4-c9p4

taft2012
08-18-2012, 09:42 AM
Economically - maybe, i'm sure there are people who could well be swayed by economics alone. But economics alone is not the issue, because...Social Policy. To many of the liberals i know (anecdotal) their primary concerns about Romeny/Ryan revolve around social policy, and those are fundamentals that won't sway.

Oh no, those fundamentals most certainly do sway.

Ask around and you'll find desperate liberals; "I have a wife, two kids, no job, and a mortgage I can't pay. And you're talking to me about two fags who want to play house together? GTFOH!"

Tyr-Ziu Saxnot
08-18-2012, 10:39 AM
Oh no, those fundamentals most certainly do sway.

Ask around and you'll find desperate liberals; "I have a wife, two kids, no job, and a mortgage I can't pay. And you're talking to me about two fags who want to play house together? GTFOH!"

Our economy is in the crapper, jobs are as hard to find as hen's teeth, people are losing their homes but we are told that gays getting married , women getting free birth control and our candidates tax returns are key important issues! Anything to avoid discussing obama's destructive policies. People like Noir that care more about such trivial social issues than the reality of survival reveal a basic ignorance of we that understand responsibility IMHO. Right now the most irresponsible thing in the world to think about actually doing is voting for more of this guy and his destruction of our economy and culture! Americans are still just as free to be as blindingly stupid and irresponsible as they were in 2008 but now they have obama's record to look at and it aint pretty. I find it hard to believe that will vote for him that are not fooools, government workers/tit suckers, black and avowed enemies of this great nation. Millions will because millions exist in those groups. Millions will because millions are black and that is a completely sold out group. We all should take ample note of that lockstep group and understand that the weakest were corrupted first as is always the case IMHO.-Tyr

gabosaurus
08-18-2012, 10:39 AM
Liberals want someone who will not abruptly change their way of life. The more Romney shifts toward the center, the more liberals will listen to him.
Unlike conservatives, many liberals are independent and have not already decided how they will vote.

jimnyc
08-18-2012, 10:43 AM
Liberals want someone who will not abruptly change their way of life. The more Romney shifts toward the center, the more liberals will listen to him.
Unlike conservatives, many liberals are independent and have not already decided how they will vote.

Are you on record as previously having stated that this election will be all about the economy?

And your last line is a joke. Go look at the thousands and thousands at democratic underground alone. And if you think they aren't a small slice of a much huger pie, you are just denying it for the sake of thinking you are right. Many liberals like them decided when Obama won the last election that he was the candidate they were voting for in 2012. There are just as many liberals voting based on party as there are conservatives. Stating otherwise is either being obtuse or naive.

Thunderknuckles
08-18-2012, 10:44 AM
This election is going to be ALL about economy and jobs. No offense, but people like yourself who might be swayed against them because of an abortion stance, or similar, are in the extreme minority.
Jim you nailed it. Social Policy will have no part of this election but to a few hardliners. No, this is all about the economy.
We see Europe crumbling and the U.S. following closely behind. We MUST turn this around. I only hope that if Romney is elected he has the balls to make some tough reforms without regard to a second term.

Neo
08-18-2012, 10:51 AM
Liberals want someone who will not abruptly change their way of life. The more Romney shifts toward the center, the more liberals will listen to him.
Unlike conservatives, many liberals are independent and have not already decided how they will vote.

You mean like ignoring the sanctity of traditional marriage as being between a man and woman and just deciding one day to say that was out the window, same sex marriage is fine.

You mean like that?

Your 2nd statement is too idiotic to address so I'll pass.

fj1200
08-18-2012, 01:20 PM
Unlike conservatives, many liberals are independent and have not already decided how they will vote.

:laugh:

Kathianne
08-18-2012, 01:38 PM
:laugh:

Indeed. ;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/us/politics/pursuing-the-elusive-swing-voter.html?pagewanted=all

aboutime
08-18-2012, 08:07 PM
You mean like ignoring the sanctity of traditional marriage as being between a man and woman and just deciding one day to say that was out the window, same sex marriage is fine.

You mean like that?

Your 2nd statement is too idiotic to address so I'll pass.


OR....Ignoring, and disobeying both the U.S. Constitution, and the Presidential Oath of Office?
Any Liberal, Democrat who HONESTLY knows the difference when they hear Obama, or any Democrat constantly lie....knows. In good faith, honor, and actual pride in their ability to tell the difference. They cannot violate their own standards by voting for Obama AGAIN.


By the way. It is a safe bet. Gabby and some friends here on this forum are still so educationally challenged. They wouldn't dare argue, or disagree with the known Liberal, Democrat, Obama false statements based on Lies Only they Must Believe. After repeating them so often.