Would it be wrong next year to target conservatives with adds showing how Romney is

[DuaneBidoux]

I'm thinking that a group of adds telling how Romney approved "Obamacare" targeted at conservative districts could repress conservative turnout at election time.

There is probably a similar vulnerability he has with conservative evangelical voters with the religion issue (e.g., he is not a true Christian but a member of a cult).

He has got so many liberal stances (or at least he HAD them) that we could issue after issue be targeted with adds vocused at conservatives in an attempt to bring down vote turnout (hell, that's a lot more subtle than simply changing the laws to suppress voter turnout).

Obviously the group delivering these adds couldn't say "I'm Obama and I approved this add"). Maybe it could be a new group called, for example, "Americans for liberty and God").

What the hell, I'm tired of this stance that we "have ethics" and would never do the kinds of things they do. But we are not Ghandi laying down in front of a tank from the British empire where there is a constitutional democracy, we have become Ghandi laying down in front of Nazi tanks. And I have a feeling if Ghandi had done that he would have become a speck on the pavement and his name would have been forgotten.

[marmar]

1. If Democrats stick to an economic populist message, they won't need to resort to lowbrow tactics.

nt

[DuaneBidoux]

3. Personally with the current economic situation I think they need both.

I think there is a very good chance that the Republicans could take both the congress (In trade has it at 3/1 that the Repubicans will take the Senate next year and the logistics look extremely favorable for them to do so) and the presidency next year.

Look at what just happened to Spain: they have what are essentially two parties there, one socialist and one a center right party. The people have been extremely pissed off with the ruling socialists (or at least they were ruling until several days ago) for pushing austerity and they wanted to "punish" them for their stance on austerity. So they just voted in the conservatives who were promising much stricter measures.

It doesn't make sense of course--but voters are frequently most interested in taking out their anger on the party in power than anything else.

I seriously think that anything that must be done should be done to win--you can bet your ass the other side feels this way and will act on those feelngs.

If we were to lose both houses of congress I'm not even sure I want Obama to win as the dems will then get the blame for what have essentially been Repubican lite policies which have trashed everything.

[madinmaryland]

2. An absolute NO to discussing his religion. Now his policies are fair game, and

we should remind voters that Romney was for ObamaCare before he was against ObamaCare. Flip-flopper.

Also, Newt's lack of ethics should also be a campaign theme.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

4. I think the time would be NOW

Keep him from getting the nomination NOW, forcing the GOP to reach deep into their clown college back bench. He's the only candidate on their side capable of getting any significant support from independents. And conservatives will vote for anyone to get rid of Obama in the general. Gingrich, Cain, Bachmann, and Perry almost would need no campaign ads aginst them, as all they have to do is open their own mouths.