Image 01 Image 03

We Win On The Facts

We Win On The Facts

Mockery may be part of the plan, but it’s not going to be enough in 2012.  Not with the mainstream media and entertainment industry on his side.

Just tell it like it is, straightforward and hard hitting.  He’s driving us over a cliff.  We win on the facts.

Whaddaya think about this first RNC 2012 ad?

But if you are going to play the mockery game, no need to spend money on it, just use what’s out there already:

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


ObamaCare – Live Your Carefree Lifestyle


The Rick Roll video needs to be AutoTuned!

1. The first ad is a reasonable first draft. The second doesn't work for me: too discordant. If I hadn't been asked for an opinion, I would have turned it off quickly.

2. Back when McCain took a brief lead in the 2008 campaign, the ads I liked mocked Obama without descending into viciousness. They implied it was hip not to take Obama's shtick seriously.

Obama's narcissism continues to invite mockery, so the 2008 approach shouldn't be abandoned. Otoh, his track record speaks for itself. So I suggest two kinds of ads: hip mockery a la 2008, and deadpan just-the-facts narration that Bill advocates (if I read him correctly).

Combining mockery and just-the-facts will yield one of the all-time greats ads if it works; if it fails, the combination will be less than the sum of its parts. Best to get the ingredients right before trying to blend them.

Unfortunately, I don't like the first RNC ad. Its sarcasim gets in the way of the facts. In fact, if someone more listens to this than watches it closely he could come away thinking this is an ad in favor of Obama. When the facts are so clear they should be stated as facts, not wrapped up in some clever message that could be lost on some of the audience.
Another way to articulate this: Viewers who quickly pick up on the sarcasim are probably against Obama before watching the ad.

Instead of helping the establishment GOP place the first brick on their latest "lesser of two evils" game plan, why don't we focus on fixing the problems on our own team? You are kidding yourself if you think that Obama is poised to lose.

So long as the corrupt GOP leadership devotes its heavy guns against the Tea Party conservatives, they can't win in 2012. They don't care. The plan is to make sure that the nominee is a placeholder which they will argue is "the only Republican who can beat Obama". Once their "electable Assistant Democrat loses, they will blame the Tea Party hoping to put us out of business. Then it's an open road for Jebbie in 2016 which is all they want.

If we don't want that to happen, let's take care of business in 2011. We either fix the GOP in 2011 or abandon them forever.

First ad was a little over the top, but had a lot of points that resonated well about the awful record.

Yes- a fact driven campaign is needed, but they should not abandon pointing out that pop icons make horrid presidents.

Sarcasm and mockery are not good vehicles for expression. Whatever happened to selling the public on the desirable aspects ? The right would then be able to have an open, honest and frank discussion with the voters and they could then make an informed decision. By couching their message in sarcasm they people who are being reached out to reflexively quit listening.

Mockery definitely has its place in this case.

Many of the people who voted for Obama did so because it was seen as the "hip" way to vote. These same people can't stand being seen as dupes, especially young voters.

Keep showing them what dupes they were and they'll be reluctant to prove themselves dupes a second time.

I love the RNC ad, but not the 2nd.

The RNC will have to spend some real money if they want to blame Obama for the Bush legacy. Even some Republican senators have acknowledged how well Obama has handled challenges like the recession (thanks Pres. Bush– 4 years is supposed to be enough to recover from a war waged on credit; croney contractor looting; and Wall Street corruption overseen by the toothless sham of the SEC? Get real).

The fact is, Obama has been party to saving the only system we have–which was threatened. You want the future? You have to invest in it, even if you have to borrow to do it. Basic business principles.

You hate "Obama care"? Is this the road to socialized medicine? Yes. Halleluja. For THIS industry, nothing else can contain costs and deliver quality leveraging all availble economies of scale. We need to contain costs. Insurance companies haven't been able to do it, except by denying care although indicated. Companies that self-insure are burdened. It is the beginning of the end of private health insurers. The republicans can fire up the hatchet-job machine, and irresponsibly persuade people that this is not in their interest — but they had better be prepared to explain how states will absorb the cost of treating the uninsured as they do now. And how we will maintain the public health system to which we've become accustomed as the income disparity widens and people aren 't able to pay for health care.

We cannot afford this sector to be run by the 'free market.' Parts of it might be best run by the free market, but not as the dominent method of distributing services. Everyone has to be part of the solution. Why did the industry fight it so hard? Because they know this is not in their interest. Yes, they get a short term windfall — but they know very well that it will generate buy-in for national health insurance/socialized medicine. (Isn't it remarkable how easily one can actually say "socialized"? Socialized medicine. Socialized medicine.

Check out Scandinavia before you dismiss this solution. Because WE NEED a solution. What we have had is bankrupting us. Obama is up to the task of the republican smear machine. He will have a second term. Like or not.

I concur about the GOP ad. While I like the general concept, and think that humor is the way to go (and clever use of humor will attract the young'uns), the choice of specific examples was wanting. Also, loose the unicorn/rainbow at the end; it disrupts the entire flow of the commercial. Sarcasm or mockery; choose one or the other in a single ad.

@ Laurie

You couldn't be more tedious if you tried.

Make your point if you must, but I'm not going to bother wading through 800 words of your tripe trying to find it.


My point–If you want to win on the facts, you must be campaining for Obama. The facts as I read them say he's doing a good job with a bad hand.

While I have you, though, I really would love to know– specifically–why the right is so eager to replace Obama. What would have characterized a better job given with what he had/has to work with?

@Laurie — Well, there you go again . . .

@Laurie. My wife is from Canada. I showed her your post. She shook her head sadly and said "She has no idea what she's talking about". And you don't.

@Wasdave– can you be more specific? Our system is unsustainable. Denmark's works better. Also, for the record, I am not an expert in health care economics, but I do know a bit. In fact, once upon a time I even studied with one of the (if not THE) titan in that field. Again I'm not expert, but I'm not blowing smoke either. So, can you be more specific?


OK, I'll give you specifics. My wife is talking about how she had to wait months, in pain, to have her gall bladder out when it went bad (and not in the middle of the Manitoba prairie either. She lived in Calgary). I had an uninsured friend who had the same thing go wrong with his gall bladder and it was removed inside a week here in the US. She's talking about how, when she talks to friends from back home, she is absolutely gobsmackered what they take as a matter of course (naturally she did too, back when she lived there.). Example: Recently, she was talking to a friend who told her that he had been having mild chest pains. She expressed concern, and he told her not to worry, he had called the doctor and made an appointment to be seen, he was scheduled for the end of July. THE END OF JULY??!?? With CHEST PAINS????!!!!!!!!!If I had chest pains (even "mild" ones), I'd be seeing a Cardiologist today, but this friend thinks nothing of waiting 5 months to be seen. But hey, at least it's free, eh? (Never mind that $.51 of every tax dollar in Canada goes to pay for this marvelous system of socialized medicine). Here's the thing: My wife didn't know any better either. If you'd asked her before she emigrated to the US, she would have sung the praises of the wonderful "free" care up North while scorning our "barbaric" free market system of health care. But now, see…now she has a basis for comparison, and….um…uninformed…yea, we'll go with "uninformed", this is a polite blog.. people like you spout off about how we HAVE to put the government in charge of health care because that's the only way things will be "fair", she just shakes her head and says sadly "You have no idea what you're talking about". And, as I said, you don't. Thank your lucky starts for that.

And no, things aren't better in Denmark. The 5 year survival rate for every major disease except 1 (pancreatic cancer, if I recall correctly) is highest in the world right here in the good old USA. If you're sick, this is the #1 place to be if you want to get better. Somewhere north of 75% of all new medical procedures and drugs are discovered here, and you're trying to convince me that we need to destroy that system? You are, bluntly, out of your bleeding mind. As the post title states, we win on facts.

Finally, sustainability. Well…..maybe. Depends on how you define "sustainability", for all too many on your side of the debate "sustainability" means "the ability to give things (for "free"! Yay!) to people who will support me and ensure my personal position"). Still, assuming that you mean "bringing costs down", the only way to do that is to transition to a consumer driven model of health care delivery. Putting the "compassionate" government in charge of health care has terrible consiquences, just ask Tom Godwin. Oh wait, you can't he's DEAD*.

*Oh, and before you buy wholeheartedly into that "it was really a mercy" crap at the end of the article, you should know that my Goddaughter was born that early, she was just 14oz at birth. Today she's a perfectly healthy 9 year old. Good thing she was born in the USA where the greedy, money grubbing, heartless medical system fought for her life instead of the UK where the wonderful, compassionate, fair and "free" NHS protects their bottom line, isn't it?

(P.S. I signed on with an email 'cuz LJ is being wonky. This is Wasdave)

@ WasDAVE: I am a bit shocked by your stories about the Canadian system. Obviously, they would make you and your wife conclude that socialized medicine is a disaster. My observations and experience with the Danish system are very different.

I lived with a physician in Denmark who ran the radiology dept at a large regional hospital. She made half of what she would have made here and this was heavily taxed. Her husband was a professor and they had a nice standard of living, but no status house or status car. A very nice house, however, and a second car. Whatever she forwent in luxury was offset by the benefit of supporting/giving back to civilized society. She was one of the thousands of Jews that escaped to Sweden in one night via the boats of Danish fishermen during WWII. She wanted to give back, and she wanted to live in a society where medical treatment is a right and not a privilege.

I have other friends in Denmark whose son was born with spina bifida. As a toddler and young child, he spent months every year in a major hospital getting treatments, surgeries, shunts, etc. (The condition was identified in utero, and there was never any gruesome discussion of a 'bottomline') An ambulance transported him (and his mother) the 100+ miles to a hospital on another island, where his mother was provided a place to stay while he received treatment. Not only was all of this free to his family, they were also provided a monthly stipend so his mother could stay at home and provide care. Now, this smart and cheerful boy who sped around in a toddler size go-cart inside a home with more joy than stress is today a smart and cheerful man in a wheelchair.

I have on-going relationships with a number of Danes. I have never once heard any complain that they had to wait for care or received poor care. If anything, most are shocked that Americans have to pay for health care. Yes, they complain about taxes– but they get a lot more for their tax dollar than we do. And they are quick to add that they don't mind paying what it costs to provide quality healthcare of all Danes.

@ WasDAVE cont'd.:
I am confident that your goddaughter would have received the care she needed in Denmark. As I doubt these sophisticated Danes (many who have lived in the US) would agree with your assessment that they just don't know any better.

When you say a consumer driven system, it suggests that the demand for health care is elastic and consumption will respond to price. But the truth is, either you need open heart surgery or you don't, correct?

But, you might say, if you eat mayo and don't work out and you have a heart attack, then you should have to pay. But how on earth would such a thing be tracked, and who really has the stomach for it? Well, you might say, you will be disqualified for insurance if you are obese. Ok… but once your obese uncle or sister has a heart attack, what will happen to them? They will — like your friend– be taken to the nearest ER, and the price of their care will be absorbed by the state. That's you and me. In Iowa, the hospital will have to eat part of the cost, which is why so many hospitals operate in the red and why so many have closed their ER.

When I say unsustainable, I mean hospitals closing their ERs, the number of uninsured increasing because of price, joblessness, and/or pre-existing conditions, those who pay for healthinsurance struggling to do so, the price of insurance sky-rocketing (pre-insurance reform, if now higher) and the uninsurable forced into bankruptcy before receiving assistance.

A surgeon friend of mine told me that while reviewing cases for an insurance company where insureds were requesting yet another surgery, he saw again and again that people had been made WORSE by unnecessary surgeries. Why? Market forces. The decision surgeon's made to order these may have only subconsciously been affected by market forces, but the cold facts are this: The money is in procedures.

The current system is perverse. People who need care don't get it while other people get too much. How is this efficient? How is this in our interest as a society and as individuals who pay to support it? Likewise, re: supply: doctors who do family practice or primary medicine (efficient first line treatment) make a fraction of what a specialist makes. Orthopedic surgeons make outrageous sums. Is a pediatrician less valuable to our public health than a podiatrist? Their pay would suggest so.

The current system is a mess! There are perversions in the allocation of resources that don't optimize the quality of care, cost the middle class what we'd once paid for college, and a huge percentage is pushed back to the states that are laying off teachers. How do you think it can go on? It can't.

Please see my response to you on the Citizens United string?