Exactly like an Obama ad

This Ted Cruise ad could be an Obama ad, except for one single word (and the face). It may in fact BE a recycled Obama ad, with the tiniest bit of editing. Check it out.

Someone needs to be fired, and right now too. The same old crap such as this won’t do this time around. It won’t do at all.

45 thoughts on “Exactly like an Obama ad

  1. Well, our current president actually managed to get elected. Twice.

    Unfortunately, there’s not enough Lyles in this country to get anyone elected president, so while ads like this shouldn’t (and can’t) substitute for what you’re looking for, they shouldn’t be a disqualifier either. Seems to me to be a reasonable way to ease into things.

  2. His job now is to win the election. This has been shown to decisively win elections, twice.

    Under what rationale should he NOT go with what works?

    • Oh, this kind of drivel has won every election that’s even been won. That is if we assume that saying nothing is smarter and more effective than saying something. On the other hand, since no one has ever tried actually saying things, it’s impossible to say that THIS kind of drivel is what won.

      SOMEONE has to win. If they’re all dirtbags, and someone wins in every every election, then do we conclude that only dirtbags can win elections? I don’t. I think people are tired of this.

      I point out the majority of eligible voters who stay home most of the time.

      If the argument for strategy is “it’s always been done this way, and it’s always ,worked'” and if that is solid strategy, then we need nothing new. If we need nothing new we don’t need a Ted Cruise.

      The question is, are the American people tired of say-nothing politicians, or are we ready for someone honest?

      I would just like to see someone serious for once, someone who doesn’t feel he must play silly, stupid shit games because that’s how everyone before him won, someone who displays a modicum of trust in the American voter. I’ve never seen it.

      You’ll never convince me that that mind-numb ad is the smart way to go. You’re talking to someone who’s been making a decent living for sixteen years off of ideas that everyone around me said would not only never work, but even if it did it would never sell due to the price.

      Probably the best ads Cruise is getting right now are from the insane left, calling him extreme, out of touch, and all the rest. As you have asserted your position I could just as credibly assert that the left’s degree of freak-out is what elects conservatives. I could say leftist freak-out is what got Scott Walker over the top in his recall elections and you’d have no way to counter it– there’s never been such an effort from the left in a state election, and he won big, so…”proof”.

      Anyway, this stuff (by which I mean a real person running a real campaign) is so extremely rare, to non existent, there is no laboratory data on it, so you can’t say much beyond speculation. It then becomes a matter of trust and faith, doesn’t it?

      • I would just like to see someone serious for once, someone who doesn’t feel he must play silly, stupid shit games because that’s how everyone before him won, someone who displays a modicum of trust in the American voter. I’ve never seen it.

        Newt Gingrich ran that campaign. He lost.

        • Newt sucked. He’s the one who said “The era of Reagan is over…” He was never grounded in principle, but ran a campaign of personality and photo op. Exactly the kind of thing I’m opposing here. He’s the “hair spray Republican” I’ve joked about several times. The pasty white, hair sprayed, smiley-faced nothing.

          • Right, so the reason that the strategy you are proposing, which has not worked to date even though it has been tried, is that the wrong people were trying it.

            Just like communism.

  3. “The same old crap such as this won’t do this time around. It won’t do at all.”

    I’d like to agree with you, but I’ve seen too many supposedly rational people absolutely *gushing* over Cruz – and Walker for that matter.

    It’s like the last few elections never happened.

    • Oh, I gush over Cruise too, sort of, though I hold out for the possibility that he is a sociopath. That ad doesn’t help.

  4. I think Ted Cruz is going to serve his purpose — and that’s to make sure no Republican gets into the White House.

    He’ll never win. He’s only going to stir the pot and take votes away from whoever the Republican nominee ends up being.

    I guess Democrats have to do their part, by calling him vile and disgusting, Canadian too.

    • Nice try given what you have to work with, which is nothing.

      Dole, McCain and Romney were the kind of Republican that ensures no Republican will make it to the Whitehouse, see. They are the Progressives whom it pains to have to stoop so low (as they see it) as to pander for votes from conservatives. The Bushes were merely better at faking it, and only slightly, and they won because the American people were made to believe that a Libertarian vote was a wasted vote.

      Liberty was never on the ballot.

      More to your point though, is the fact that Ted is running for the Republican nomination. You knew that, didn’t you? You’re getting ahead of yourself there. You’re assuming that if Ted doesn’t get the nomination he’ll run anyway as an independent or third party. There is currently no evidence to suggest that, but I wouldn’t oppose it. I’m fine with no Republican making it to the Whitehouse so long as they keep running squishy Progressives.

      Let them put up another McCain, Romney, Bush, or how about a Carl Rove? I’ll campaign against them.

  5. Does it really matter what type of ads are run? Whether we get a D or an R as president? I thought we had all figured out by now that there is no difference between them. They are all out to crush the spirit of this country and its citizens and get rich and powerful in the process. Both sides have done everything they can to strip us of our liberty and independence. Both side have done nothing but lie to us over and over again. Have you heard this one? ” If elected I will end Obamacare and and stop illegal immigrants”. Did any of them even really try? Until we figure out that NONE of the people at the fed level give a crap about us we will stay lost in the woods.

    • Exactly. Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B, those are the mainstream “choices” we are given. With one or two exceptions, none of these people give a damn about the Constitution. Indeed, they stomp on it at every opportunity Obama is neither the first nor the most blatant of politicians to do so; this criminal behavior goes back at least a century, if not 150 years. What may be different this time is that at least there are a small but non-trivial number of citizens pushing back, unlike the analogous situations during the reign of, say, FDR.

  6. Professor Quigley’s dream has come true. With no difference in the parties, all we do is replace one set of rascals with another set, and government continues unchanged. So why even bother voting?

    • Actually, most politicians are elected for life, just as Alexander Hamilton planned. So it’s not even like they are replaced by interchangeable bastards; for the most part they aren’t replaced at all. And yes, surely this is one reason why a lot of people don’t bother voting.

  7. Maybe I’m way off base here, but my biggest worry about Cruz is whether he will be able (or even willing) to put the Constitution ahead of his religious beliefs. I just don’t get the impression that he will. Announcing his run at Liberty University, of all places, and in front of an audience whose attendance was coerced, is not something I find allays my concerns.

    Beyond that, he’s going to have a hard fight for the nomination. He’s pissed off too many of the Republican apparatchiks for them to let him become the de facto voice of the party – though that notoriety should also help give him the numbers to keep them from freezing him out of the debates like they did to Johnson last time.

  8. “Maybe I’m way off base here, but my biggest worry about Cruz is whether he will be able (or even willing) to put the Constitution ahead of his religious beliefs.”

    Yes, Jake, you are way off base there, for it was through their religious beliefs that the founders wrote the constitution. If I were to aks you to put your finger on that article of the constitution that would in any way be in conflict with Ted Cruise’s, or anyone else’s, religious beliefs (except for some Muslims who apparently believe that all non Muslims must be killed), I bet you a thousand dollars you cannot find it.

    What you’re saying is essentially the same as saying;
    “…my biggest worry about Joe Huffman is whether he will be able (or even willing) to put the second amendment ahead of his advocacy for the right to keep and bear arms.”

    It is nonsensical. I’m sure you are aware, if you think about it, that this country was founded in large part by people seeking religious FREEDOM, “their Creator” being mentioned in the Declaration. You cannot, therefore, separate the constitution from religion and put them in conflict. That conflict is only in your mind. It is fake.

    • Or are you saying that you know something about Cruise’s religion that I don’t know, such as that his religion opposes liberty, or requires government force to compel all citizens to go to his church or something? Or are you saying that he’s a racial Muslim? ‘Cause that would be weird, and so you’d have to come up with some extraordinary proof.

    • “If I were to aks you to put your finger on that article of the constitution that would in any way be in conflict with Ted Cruise’s, or anyone else’s, religious beliefs (except for some Muslims who apparently believe that all non Muslims must be killed), I bet you a thousand dollars you cannot find it.”

      His continued support of the State Marriage Defense Act in opposition to the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment says otherwise. Because, from what I can tell, he seems very strongly opposed to allowing gay couples who are married to have the same legal protections as straight couples, based on his religions view of marriage.

      I supported Palin (and therefore, sadly, McCain) because she had demonstrated her willingness to veto a bill her religious beliefs caused her to support, because she felt it would violate the Alaska Constitution. Would Cruz do the same?

      Or, to put it more bluntly: Is he willing to keep his bible out of my bedroom?

      • Liberals put the government in your bedroom decades ago. You can either have Cruz “in your bedroom” by not extending benefits that the government shouldn’t have been regulating from the first place into MORE groups… or you can have the Pelosi brigade who REALLY want to be in your bedrooms, demanding written consent every time a husband has sex with his wife, and the ability to decide six months after the fact that yes meant no.

      • I don’t know what to make of that argument, it is so far off into the weeds, beyond esoterica, beyond anything that matters to a serious society, that about all I can do is shake my head and ask; “What do you suppose those who actually wrote and ratified the constitution would think of this suppoosed ‘issue’?”

        If you’re going to defend “the constitution” then you should back waaaay up and take several good, close looks at the minds that put it together. In short; I don’t think it means what you want to think it means.

        I understand that millions of people have been tricked into believe that this “gay marriage” thing is about freedom and hunam rights, and the constitution (?!?) even, but I will not hesitate to say that you’ve all been fooled by evil people who don’t give a damn about your bloody freedom. I’m sorry that you’ve been so horribly de-railed and side-tracked, but I’m doing what I can do and undo it. The problem is that, once you’re hypnotized, I don’t know fully how to un-hypnotize you.

        Again; take yourself back to the late 1700s and into the mind of those who wrote the actual constitution (not the one you’d like to see written, but the real one) and tell me what those who actually wrote it would say about men marrying men, or women marrying women, and demanding that their “marrriages” be somehow authenticated with a stamp of approval by the federal government.

        They would think you mad, as do I. The gay rights movement started out OK, as a movement demanding that other people leave them alone. Non interference. Cool. Non interference equals liberty. Now it has become a movement demanding something entirely different. It’s not content with non interference.

        Those who uderstand liberty on the other hand, will take all the neglect they can get. Neglect = liberty, see.

        • “tell me what those who actually wrote it would say about men marrying men, or women marrying women, and demanding that their “marrriages” be somehow authenticated with a stamp of approval by the federal government.”

          Probably about the same way they’d feel about people of different races marrying. Do we really want to go there?

          Like I said, I don’t think the government should be in the business of approving marriages at all, but if they are, they need to apply the relevant laws equally to everyone. Excluding a specific group from the protection of existing laws because “god” said so flies in the face of what was actually written in the Constitution (which, by the way, includes its Amendments, not just the parts written in the late 1700’s).

          • Probably about the same way they’d feel about people of different races marrying. Do we really want to go there?

            Fuck YES we want to go there. Are you SERIOUSLY fucking accusing Cruz of being ANTI-MISOGYNIST?

            The guy who is actually IN AN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE? The guy who is the product of an INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE?

            We LITERALLY have a “white hispanic” who is the product of a white and hispanic marriage who is married to a white woman, and you want to accuse him of being RACIST?

            You are off your fucking rocker. You have to be a troll. I guess now I’M a racist because I married a “white hispanic” woman, right?

          • “Are you SERIOUSLY fucking accusing Cruz of being ANTI-MISOGYNIST?”

            No, I’m not. I’m talking about “the people who actually wrote” the Constitution. How did we get from that to Cruz being against interracial marriage?

            Also, I suspect that the word you’re looking for is “anti-miscegenationist”. I would hope he is anti-misogynist, since misogyny means “dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women”.

          • You brought it up, in the context of “what other things are you afraid that Cruz will pick Bible over Constitution on.”

            You asked it we wanted to go there. Yes, we want to go there. So far, you are afraid that Cruz will keep the religious institution of marriage religious, and that he will be against interracial marriage (except, of course, for the ones that he and his parents are in, presumably.)

            Do you have any other fantasies about Cruz’s religion that you want to share with us? Maybe throw a blood libel in like the anti-Semites do with the Jews?

          • “So far, you are afraid that Cruz will keep the religious institution of marriage religious, and that he will be against interracial marriage “

            If marriage is a religious institution, then the government, federal or state, has no business defining, enforcing, or recognizing it.

            I have never said (and specifically denied it when you accused me of saying it) that I worry about Cruz’s views in interracial marriage. You seem to have some issues with reading comprehension.

          • I have no trouble reading. I agree that the government should have never been in the marriage business to start with. Expanding government intervention is NOT the way to solve that problem.

            You think that you are playing a sly game of tangentally smearing Cruz with anti-Christian bigotry and accusing him of racism without getting any on yourself.

            Not happening. You throw it out here, and I’m throwing it right back on you.

            Do you think Cruz is racist, yes or no? You’ve already “gone there.” Are you going to double down or disavow it?

          • “Do you think Cruz is racist, yes or no? You’ve already “gone there.” Are you going to double down or disavow it?”

            I’ve denied it twice already, but since you seem to be unable to understand that, I’ll say it again loud and clear. I do not believe Cruz is racist.

            ” I agree that the government should have never been in the marriage business to start with. Expanding government intervention is NOT the way to solve that problem.”

            I don’t want them to “expand” that intervention, I simply want them to apply the existing intervention to everyone equally, without excluding certain groups based on some people’s opinion of “god’s will”.

  9. “You can either have Cruz “in your bedroom” by not extending benefits that the government shouldn’t have been regulating from the first place into MORE groups”

    I’m firmly of the belief that the government – at any level – has no business deciding who can and cannot marry. And if I thought for a moment that Cruz’s actual reasoning behind that bill was to move in that direction I might not be so concerned, even if I might disagree with the method. But he has actively attempted to deny the equal protection of the law to certain groups his religion deems unworthy of those protections.

    Where else is he going to follow the dictates of his religion, rather than the Constitution? Or is he willing to do as Palin did and veto laws his faith tells him he should sign, because they conflict with the Constitution?

    • What other “dictates of his religion” COULD you worry about? You are far inflating a very minor point that effects the ancillary rights of maybe .5% of the population.

      Do gay people “feel bad” about the state not celebrating their marriage? I guess, but I don’t see how that really matters enough for so many people to be so damned worked up about.

  10. This has gotten into bizzaro land. Once again, and with feeling; the constitution was written by a majority of Christians, who wanted to be free from undue interference. The constitution embodies Judeo/Christian principles as well as they understood them. It IS a compromise, yes that is true, but it’s the best they could do at the time. OK?

    OK. So how it is that someone can be concerned about a politician’s Christianity being in contradiction to the constitution? Or to put it another way; what is it about Christianity (in your understanding) that contradicts the constitution? I can answer that myself – the 16th amendment is somewhat in contradiction to Christianity, in my understanding, and also the 18th. I’d have to pick through it really carefully to find others, but for certain there is no prohibition of interracial marriage in the constitution, and there naver was – such a prohibition would be counter to Christianity. Remember we’re talking about Jesus here – someone who advocated love (spiritual love, i.e. God’s love, not romantic love) and understanding above all else. So what part of “Love thy neighbor” or “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” is so scary and threatening?

    Anyway, if ALL we had to worry about, if the worst thing about today’s national and global political and economic scene was the difficulties that homosexuals were having in getting “married”, we’d REALLY be in fantastic condition! We’d be in better shape than Mankind has ever been in, and by far!

    Apparently the American left, and also Libertarians, aren’t nearly as concerned about gays being killed en masse in Muslin-controlled parts of the world, and that the Muslim Brotherhood might have infiltrated this country to a shocking degree, nor about the mass killing of Christians going on right now, nor about the national debt, nor the ever-growing reach and the grabbing of power by our own government.. No; the biggest threat is that a (gasp) Christian would become president, and (gasp) “prevent” a gay couple from getting “married”. Good golly Miss Molly. Maybe we don’t deserve to survive as a country. Maybe we need a few decades of real oppression, real suffereing, and mass murder and starvation to get us thinking about what really matters. Maybe that’s what it’s going to take.

    • “…written by a majority of Christians”? A citation might be needed for that.

      It might depend on the definition of “Christian”. Jefferson was probably best described as a deist. Adams was rather ambivalent about religion but probably is best described as a Unitarian. Is someone a Christian if they don’t believe in the Trinity?

      • “Is someone a Christian if they don’t believe in the Trinity?”

        According to the majority of Christian sects, for whatever that is worth, no.

    • “but for certain there is no prohibition of interracial marriage in the constitution, and there naver was”

      In the Constitution, no. But the states certainly had them at the time, and for a long time after. And none of the founders that I’m aware of seemed interested in pointing out how those laws were “counter to Christianity”.

    • Apparently the American left, and also Libertarians, aren’t nearly as concerned about gays being killed en masse in Muslin-controlled parts of the world, and that the Muslim Brotherhood might have infiltrated this country to a shocking degree, nor about the mass killing of Christians going on right now, nor about the national debt, nor the ever-growing reach and the grabbing of power by our own government..

      I am a little surprised you put Libertarians with the left, I don’t even remotely see the connection. I see a Libertarian as someone who wants to limit government. Someone that want’s people to have their freedom, their liberty. Do you think that’s what the left or even the right for that matter wants these days? No, I see Libertarians as a completely separate group,completely outside of the current paradigm.

      • Indeed. There are only two kinds of politicians, those who want to control you and those who don’t. The former are called republicans, democrats, socialists, communists, or fascists; the latter are called libertarians.

  11. I’ll help you out here, so you can better understand what concern here, shall I?

    Never mind the subject of the OP, which was that a Republican ad is indistinguishable from a Democrat ad, except for one single word.

    Here’s your concern. You’re unsure whether Cruise is a true Christian. If he isn’t, then of course you have many potential legitimate concerns. If he’s saying he’s a Christian and he isn’t, he’s lying. Either that or he’s been horribly decieved. Either way it wouldn’t be good, just like any other lying politician, i.e. most any of them.

    If he IS a true Christian, you have nothing to worry about regarding your rights, or anyone else’s rights. No one has anything at all to be worried about regarding a true Christian president (except those who stand in opposition to the Principles of Liberty). The only problem there is that a true Christian would probably never run for office, so OK; right there I’m starting to fall in with you, but for rather different reasons.

  12. “Here’s your concern. You’re unsure whether Cruise is a true Christian. If he isn’t, then of course you have many potential legitimate concerns.”
    […]
    If he IS a true Christian, you have nothing to worry about regarding your rights, or anyone else’s rights.

    And here is the crux of my concerns – who is defining what makes a “true Christian”, here? Does your definition agree with Cruz’s definition? Based on what you’ve said here, if it does I might not like it, but agree that I probably don’t have anything to worry about.

    But if it doesn’t, we get back to the actual point of my original question: If his religious beliefs conflict with the rights of others, will he follow his religion, or the Constitution?

    • “And here is the crux of my concerns – who is defining what makes a “true Christian”, here?”

      With the understanding, of course, that whoever takes ownership of that concept is intrinsically committing a No True Scotsman fallacy.

  13. I see exactly what Jake is saying. It is the same as what the founding fathers were trying to do when they wrote the Constitution. They were most certainly not trying to force any of their values on us. Were their values a basis for what was right and wrong, of course. But it was also their values that allowed them to see that we are all supposed to be free to live our lives in whatever manner we think is best. With little to no interference from the gov. I am a Christian saved by Jesus and I say it does not matter what your religious preferences are when is comes to being a citizen of this country. Nor should it matter if you are an elected official. Bearing this in mind I ask, where in the Constitution does it say anything about marriage? Please point out to me any article that gives government any power regarding this issue. Please check your states constitution, you will not find it in there either. They have no authority to decide who gets married or not, they have usurped this authority form the churches. The crux of this whole thing is all about government and contractual benefits and concerns.

    The libertarian in me says the gov. need to mind its own business and stay out marriage (and a whole hell of a lot of other things). After all as a libertarian I believe that everyone has a right to all of the same benefits and protections as I do. Isn’t that what this is about? Freedom and equality for all.

    “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” –Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819.

  14. “I see exactly what Jake is saying. It is the same as what the founding fathers were trying to do when they wrote the Constitution. They were most certainly not trying to force any of their values on us. Were their values a basis for what was right and wrong, of course. But it was also their values that allowed them to see that we are all supposed to be free to live our lives in whatever manner we think is best. With little to no interference from the gov.”

    Pretty much.

    As further illustration, here is an example of exactly the kind of “Christian” elected official I worry about.

    Arizona state Sen. Sylvia Allen (R) derailed a discussion on gun legislation by expressing her support for mandatory church attendance nationwide, KPHO-TV reported.

    “Probably we should be debating a bill requiring every American to attend a church of their choice on Sunday to see if we can get back to having a moral rebirth,” Allen said during a Senate subcommittee meeting on Tuesday.

    Now, perhaps she really was being “flippant”, as she later claimed. But I’ve met enough people who really do believe that kind of law should be passed that I worry what such people would do if they thought they could get away with it.

    Heck, one of the big reasons Virginia took so long to allow hunting on Sunday was the argument that many people would hunt instead of going to church if the ban was lifted. Again, legislators were putting their religious beliefs ahead of the Constitution.

    Opponents of the measure, most of them from the Bible Belt counties of Southside Virginia, invoked tradition, too – that of keeping the Sabbath holy.

    “Sunday is the Lord’s day,” said Del. Tommy Wright, R-Lunenburg County.

    When religion is allowed to override the Constitution, whose religion do we get?

    • When religion is allowed to override the Constitution, whose religion do we get?

      I would say that based on the last decade, it already overrides the constitution. We got state Establishment of Leftist Humanism, complete with global warming apocalyptic millennialism, hysterical dietary restrictions, and leftist humanist redefinition of marriage.

      • “We got state Establishment of Leftist Humanism, complete with global warming apocalyptic millennialism, hysterical dietary restrictions, and leftist humanist redefinition of marriage.”

        While I can’t argue with the first two items, which fly in the face of logic and scientific evidence, I do have to ask – what is the “real” definition of marriage? According to who?

  15. Regarding the definition of a “true Christian”; It’s not complicated, though of course people attempt to deceive others and so it takes some observation over time. You pretty well know how to define a true constitutionalist, though there may be some disagreements around the edges. Same for a true adherent to the Boy Scouts Pledge, and so on.

    This “you can’t talk about it because you’re trying to define things and things can’t be defined– the fact that you’re trying to use definitions is proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about, so shut up”, comes from, as far as I can tell, Noam Chomsky, who is a master at it. Stop it.

    Regarding the definition of marriage; See above. Ten or Twenty years ago, and back to the beginning of civilization, no one on the planet would have had any difficulty defining marriage, and even though there would be some side-bar discussion of cultural differences such as polygamy and age of consent, it was well understood which cultures stood where.

    Regarding Libertarians (large “L”); So far as I have been able to tell, they want Americans out of everywhere except America. And so (correct me if I’m wrong here) they’d be opposed to the U.S. military getting involved in curtailing the current holocaust against Christians in North Africa and the Middle East. That’s the ONLY thing they have “in common” with the left, the far left, and communists– don’t get too excited. I’m a libertarian (small “l”).

    Also I’m slightly disappointed that no one responded simply with, “Hmm. You know, you’re right. Interesting isn’t it?” (regarding the advertisement) We want someone to stand out, right, someone different from all the other politicians? Yet I hear nothing but complaints and resistance when I suggest that maybe our ads should be at least slightly different from an Obama ad, that a good ad would be one that actually, you know, says something. See the problem?

    • Lyle I do see the problem. Unfortunately the American public, in general, responds to this type of ad. There are not enough educated voters to overcome the “obama voter”. And lets leave out all the voter fraud for now. I too would love to see something better, not just in an ad but in a candidate also. He seems to be talking a good game and, if elected, if he actually follows through with ANY of it I would be impressed. However the mans wife works for Goldman Sachs and if I remember right one of them is a member of CFR. Well this country always gets the leader it deserves which is why the leaders keep getting worse.

Comments are closed.