Tomorrow’s Anti-Obama Ads Today

The future anti-Obama advertisements are already written. The ads will begin to air as soon as the 2010 election cycle begins in earnest. The ads will be deadly.

For those wishing to actually see what anti-Obama ads will look and sound like we already have samples. The samples are advertisements already airing in the New Jersey election for governor which will take place this November 2009.

The ads running against Jon Corzine are what we have been saying about Obama since 2007: “Watch what he does, not what he says.

The ad targets Corzine broken promises on jobs which, if only the name and picture changed, describes Obama to an “O”. Obama assured the nation with words that if his “stimulus” scam passed the unemployment rate would be kept under 8 percent. The unemployment rate is now 9.4 percent.

Obama can’t be trusted. Watch what he does, not what he says.

Another advertisement targets Obama Corzine for breaking a “read my lips, no new taxes”. Corzine considered a tax hike but abandoned abandoning the no tax hike pledge.

Obama is considering tax hikes on those earning less than $250,000 a year (taxes on those making over $250,000 are not part of the pledge Obama made). Indeed, Obama has already broken his pledge if the taxes raised on cigarette smokers is part of the equation. Honest reporting would conclude that raising that “sin tax” should fall under that now broken “no tax” pledge umbrella.

Obama is running away from the “no new taxes” honor pledge for those earning $250,000 and no doubt the Obama TelePrompter is already loaded with flowery words to justify the broken pledge as worthy of dishonor.

Jon Corzine faces a tough reelection fight. The self-financed campaign for reelection is sure to be generously funded by Corzine but right now the situation is so bad that Corzine is will bring Obama to New Jersey to campaign for him on July 16.

A new poll raises the question of Obama’s value at campaign events because his own poll numbers show his own poll numbers drifting down.

PPP finds Barack Obama’s approval rating at 53% in New Jersey, a level below that found in any other public polling since he took office, and a result fitting the trend of his slowly declining numbers nationally.

As is the case in most places Obama’s numbers are highly polarized on party lines, with 88% of Democrats but only 13% of Republicans giving him good reviews. Independents are pretty much split down the middle with 46% viewing his performance unfavorably and 43% giving him positive marks.

Obama continues to be very popular with the minority groups who gave him large majorities at the polls in the state last year- 85% of African Americans and 68% of Hispanics say they like the job he’s doing. But among whites he’s dropped into slightly negative territory with 47% disapproving to 46% approval.

It will be interesting to see if Big Media “journalists” will ask Obama about Corzine’s now strong support for Gay-marriage. We suspect that with Big Media it will continue to be a case of “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

Perhaps Jon Corzine will ask Obama why he has NEVER marched in a Gay Pride march. Perhaps Jon Corzine will show Obama the tax advertisement. We doubt Big Media will ask Obama about the waffle on the “no-middle-class-tax-kike vow”.

The White House seems to be retreating from President Barack Obama’s campaign promise that he would not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.

Under persistent questioning from ABC’s George Stephanopoulos Sunday, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod declined to restate the vow and left open the possibility that the president might sign health care reform legislation that taxes high-cost, employer-provided insurance plans which some middle-class families currently receive tax free.

With Obama it’s always Waffle time.


ED HENRY: Robert, I just wanted to ask about health care. Yesterday on ABC, David Axelrod was asked repeatedly about whether the President would veto any health reform bill that has a tax on people making — a tax increase on anybody making under $250,000 per year. So I want to give you a chance, as well. (Laughter.) Will the President veto — will the President veto any health bill that has a tax —

ROBERT GIBBS: We should get David down here. You know, here’s what — I think we get this question once a week, in some form or another. I think in many ways, Ed, what marks the difference between this health care effort and other health care efforts in the past is exactly what the President described — a very large table with people sitting at it, trying to solve a problem that we’ve been working on for 40 years.

The good news is we’re making significant progress, and all those people are still sitting at the table. We haven’t drawn a lot of bright lines. We understand there’s some flexibility on the part of Congress to work through some of these policy issues. And we’re going to allow that process to continue to make — that process to continue in order to make progress.

HENRY: That may be true, but the President on the campaign said that — he made a flat pledge that he would not raise taxes on anybody making under $250,000. So is that pledge still operable?

GIBBS: Well, again, I think in some ways your question is hypothetical because there are any number of different bills, different proposals. I think the President has outlined what he believes is the very best way to pay for health care.

HENRY: It doesn’t have to be hypothetical. He made a pledge —

GIBBS: I understand.

HENRY: — he said, I am not going to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000. Is that pledge still active?

GIBBS: We are going to let the process work its way through.



UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: So it’s not. (Laughter.)

GIBBS: We’re going to let the process work its way through. All right?

You have that awfully perplexed look on your face, Mr. Garrett.

MAJOR GARRETT: Well, what would be the reason for reversing among the most conspicuous, if not the most conspicuous, campaign promise that this candidate Obama repeated everywhere across the country?

The Laborers Union is not eating waffles. The Air Line Pilots Association, Amalgamated Transit Union, American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada, American Federation of Teachers, American Postal Workers Union, Association of Flight Attendants, Association of Professional Flight Attendants, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way, Communications Workers of America, International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Association of Fire Fighters, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, InternationalBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Longshore and Warehouse Union, International Longshoremen’s Association, International Union of Police Associations, Metal Trades Department, AFL-CIO National Air Traffic Controllers Association, National Association of Letter Carriers, Professional Aviation Safety Specialists International Union, Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Transport Workers Union of America, International Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, United Auto Workers, United Mine Workers of America, United Steel Workers, and the United Transportation Union – are not eating waffles. These unions are all opposed to their health benefits getting taxed because in many instances they gave up other compensation in order to get good health care coverage.

Read Obama’s lips, “no new middle class taxes”: