Right-wing Romney Republicans at Breitbart.com question Obama's SAT scores

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 12:06 AM GMT
    By Charles Johnson:

    "It’s one BOMBSHELL EXCLUSIVE after another at the site that Andrew Breitbart built! Man, these guys are ON FIRE!

    Stand back, because the VETTING continues with an astounding new breaking news story by Charles C. Johnson (no, it’s NOT ME): EXCLUSIVE: THE VETTING - DID OBAMA HAVE LOWER SAT SCORES THAN GEORGE W. BUSH?

    So, in order to make such a bold pronouncement, Charles C. Johnson must have obtained the long-sought SAT scores of Barack Obama, right? After all, he says they’ve ESTABLISHED it.

    Wow! What a BOMBSHE… oh wait. You mean, he didn’t get the SAT scores? So what’s the basis for this claim?

    BreitbartBreitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time.


    That’s it?

    They’re kidding, right?

    Nope, not kidding. (These people are out of their freaking minds.)"

    _______________________________________________

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 23, 2012 12:54 AM GMT
    I honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 12:56 AM GMT
    I don't fully grasp what's going on in the Republican party. It's like they have lost any semblance of decorum and are just getting crazier and crazier.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 12:58 AM GMT
    creature saidI honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.

    It will be Romney's main point. He will stay above the fray holding Obama account for his performance, and in a positive way. The others, e.g. PACs, will vet him as he has never been vetted before. And well beyond the good Rev.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 23, 2012 1:03 AM GMT
    I'm already making a prediction that in 2016 another Democrat will take the presidential office in 2016.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 1:03 AM GMT
    creature saidI honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.

    But this tactic DOES work with some voters. The Teabaggers will soon be quoting it as fact, and so will the RJ conservaposse. It's the "chipping away" approach, where you just whittle your opponent down, no matter how unfairly, little by little.

    Some people will laugh at your lie, but some people will believe it. Then you create a new lie, and another group of people will believe it, while others may not. Your goal is to make enough people believe ANY of your lies, as a cumulative effect, that your political opponent is damaged sufficiently to sway the election.

    And so expect the conservaposse here to be throwing as many Obama lies against the wall as they can, to see which ones stick. It's the reason they're here, since they contribute virtually nothing else to this site.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 1:06 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    creature saidI honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.

    But this tactic DOES work with some voters. The Teabaggers will soon be quoting it as fact, and so will the RJ conservaposse. It's the "chipping away" approach, where you just whittle your opponent down, no matter how unfairly, little by little.

    Some people will laugh at your lie, but some people will believe it. Then you create a new lie, and another group of people will believe it, while others may not. Your goal is to make enough people believe ANY of your lies, as a cumulative effect, that your political opponent is damaged sufficiently to sway the election.

    And so expect the conservaposse here to be throwing as many Obama lies against the wall as they can, to see which ones stick. It's the reason they're here, since they contribute virtually nothing else to this site.


    Their goal is for Romney to "stay above the fray" while they sling the ugliest kind of dirt.

    Course, that didn't work for McCain in '08. Won't work for Mitt Scissorhands and the angry Republican hate lobby either.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 23, 2012 1:11 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature saidI honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.

    It will be Romney's main point. He will stay above the fray holding Obama account for his performance, and in a positive way. The others, e.g. PACs, will vet him as he has never been vetted before. And well beyond the good Rev.


    I don't think you understand. What the Super PACs are doing are going back to the same old stories. There were plenty conspiracies swirling around about his SAT scores, his drug use, Rev. Wright, and it did nothing to stop him from whooping McCain's ass.

    You may think that some new discoveries are being made regarding Wright and his SAT scores, but to many it is being viewed as beating a dead horse.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 1:17 AM GMT
    creature said
    socalfitness said
    creature saidI honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.

    It will be Romney's main point. He will stay above the fray holding Obama account for his performance, and in a positive way. The others, e.g. PACs, will vet him as he has never been vetted before. And well beyond the good Rev.


    I don't think you understand. What the Super PACs are doing are going back to the same old stories. There were plenty conspiracies swirling around about his SAT scores, his drug use, Rev. Wright, and it did nothing to stop him from whooping McCain's ass.

    You may think that some new discoveries are being made regarding Wright and his SAT scores, but to many it is being viewed as beating a dead horse.

    We will have to see what plays with focus groups. In 2008, McCain was upstaged by the economic meltdown and how it was perceived he responded; Obama came with a positive message, along with hope and change fluff, and it worked. Against that, the discussions about Wright and Ayres did not have much impact.

    The context now is very different. Obama has a record, fluff words won't work with most, and he has started running a highly negative campaign to keep attention off his own performance.

    The dynamics are quite different along with the context, and what did not work then may be effective at this point. The other thing is if factors from his past can be shown to be significant drivers to his current policies, then those factors will be looked at in a completely different light than just digging up dirt.
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    May 23, 2012 1:23 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    creature saidI honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.

    But this tactic DOES work with some voters. The Teabaggers will soon be quoting it as fact, and so will the RJ conservaposse. It's the "chipping away" approach, where you just whittle your opponent down, no matter how unfairly, little by little.

    Some people will laugh at your lie, but some people will believe it. Then you create a new lie, and another group of people will believe it, while others may not. Your goal is to make enough people believe ANY of your lies, as a cumulative effect, that your political opponent is damaged sufficiently to sway the election.

    And so expect the conservaposse here to be throwing as many Obama lies against the wall as they can, to see which ones stick. It's the reason they're here, since they contribute virtually nothing else to this site.


    The ones who are going to buy into it are the ones who would not have voted for Obama in the first place.

    I doubt George W. Bush's reckless behavior in college turned off a significant of people from voting for him. I doubt John McCain leaving his wife while she was recovering for an heiress swayed many voters to Obama's side. People speak fondly of JFK and Clinton, and both are known for cheating on their wives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 1:23 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature said
    socalfitness said
    creature saidI honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.

    It will be Romney's main point. He will stay above the fray holding Obama account for his performance, and in a positive way. The others, e.g. PACs, will vet him as he has never been vetted before. And well beyond the good Rev.


    I don't think you understand. What the Super PACs are doing are going back to the same old stories. There were plenty conspiracies swirling around about his SAT scores, his drug use, Rev. Wright, and it did nothing to stop him from whooping McCain's ass.

    You may think that some new discoveries are being made regarding Wright and his SAT scores, but to many it is being viewed as beating a dead horse.

    We will have to see what plays with focus groups. In 2008, McCain was upstaged by the economic meltdown and how it was perceived he responded; Obama came with a positive message, along with hope and change fluff, and it worked. Against that, the discussions about Wright and Ayres did not have much impact.

    The context now is very different. Obama has a record, fluff words won't work with most, and he has started running a highly negative campaign to keep attention off his own performance.

    The dynamics are quite different along with the context, and what did not work then may be effective at this point. The other thing is if factors from his past can be shown to be significant drivers to his current policies, then those factors will be looked at in a completely different light than just digging up dirt.


    No. They won't. That's why the right-wing let the lead balloon that was the Jeremiah Wright "scandal" drop in three days. Now it's the publishing brochure and back to birtherism. And now SATs.

    The reality is that these "scandals" only incite those who already believe them and offend independents who will not differentiate between Romney's "above the fray" campaign and the dirty tactics of super PACs.

    So by all means pour it on. It only hurts Romney who have no real platform besides embracing the Ryan budget which the majority of Americans reject and being against women, gays, Latinos, etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 1:26 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    creature said
    socalfitness said
    creature saidI honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.

    It will be Romney's main point. He will stay above the fray holding Obama account for his performance, and in a positive way. The others, e.g. PACs, will vet him as he has never been vetted before. And well beyond the good Rev.


    I don't think you understand. What the Super PACs are doing are going back to the same old stories. There were plenty conspiracies swirling around about his SAT scores, his drug use, Rev. Wright, and it did nothing to stop him from whooping McCain's ass.

    You may think that some new discoveries are being made regarding Wright and his SAT scores, but to many it is being viewed as beating a dead horse.

    We will have to see what plays with focus groups. In 2008, McCain was upstaged by the economic meltdown and how it was perceived he responded; Obama came with a positive message, along with hope and change fluff, and it worked. Against that, the discussions about Wright and Ayres did not have much impact.

    The context now is very different. Obama has a record, fluff words won't work with most, and he has started running a highly negative campaign to keep attention off his own performance.

    The dynamics are quite different along with the context, and what did not work then may be effective at this point. The other thing is if factors from his past can be shown to be significant drivers to his current policies, then those factors will be looked at in a completely different light than just digging up dirt.
    And so does the party of "NO"!icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 1:33 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    creature said
    socalfitness said
    creature saidI honestly thought the economy was going to be their major issue with Obama. It seems like all they want to do is rehash the same points from 2008. It case they forgot, it didn't work. Obama won the election anyhow.

    It will be Romney's main point. He will stay above the fray holding Obama account for his performance, and in a positive way. The others, e.g. PACs, will vet him as he has never been vetted before. And well beyond the good Rev.


    I don't think you understand. What the Super PACs are doing are going back to the same old stories. There were plenty conspiracies swirling around about his SAT scores, his drug use, Rev. Wright, and it did nothing to stop him from whooping McCain's ass.

    You may think that some new discoveries are being made regarding Wright and his SAT scores, but to many it is being viewed as beating a dead horse.

    We will have to see what plays with focus groups. In 2008, McCain was upstaged by the economic meltdown and how it was perceived he responded; Obama came with a positive message, along with hope and change fluff, and it worked. Against that, the discussions about Wright and Ayres did not have much impact.

    The context now is very different. Obama has a record, fluff words won't work with most, and he has started running a highly negative campaign to keep attention off his own performance.

    The dynamics are quite different along with the context, and what did not work then may be effective at this point. The other thing is if factors from his past can be shown to be significant drivers to his current policies, then those factors will be looked at in a completely different light than just digging up dirt.


    No. They won't. That's why the right-wing let the lead balloon that was the Jeremiah Wright "scandal" drop in three days. Now it's the publishing brochure and back to birtherism. And now SATs.

    The reality is that these "scandals" only incite those who already believe them and offend independents who will not differentiate between Romney's "above the fray" campaign and the dirty tactics of super PACs.

    So by all means pour it on. It only hurts Romney who have no real platform besides embracing the Ryan budget which the majority of Americans reject and being against women, gays, Latinos, etc.

    As I said above in simple English, the effectiveness of such tactics will have to be studied using focus groups (consisting of independents in swing states). How you or I respond or postulate is not ultimately what will determine the tactics going forward.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 1:38 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidAs I said above in simple English, the effectiveness of such tactics will have to be studied using focus groups (consisting of independents in swing states). How you or I respond or postulate is not ultimately what will determine the tactics going forward.


    And the focus groups will conclude that American do not wish to be associated with racism, so your ploys will not work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 1:41 AM GMT
    That proves they are insane.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 1:47 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidAnd the focus groups will conclude that American do not wish to be associated with racism, so your ploys will not work.

    And how many wars can the Republicans keep going? There's:

    - The War on Women
    - The War on Gays
    - The War on Terrorists (that includes a lot of innocent ordinary Americans)
    - The War on Unions
    - The War on Minorities

    Are Republicans actually FOR anyone, except corporations, Christian funadmentalists, and the mega-rich?
  • KissTheSky

    Posts: 1980

    May 23, 2012 1:51 AM GMT
    I, for one, am shocked to learn that some other students in Obama's class had low SAT scores, which clearly means Obama is not qualified to be President.
    I don't know what other conclusion one could draw from this bombshell.
    Thank you, conservative propaganda machine, for bringing this important story to light. I look forward to hearing it repeated endlessly on Fox News. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3271

    May 23, 2012 1:56 AM GMT
    well I do recall the endless talk of how Kerry and Gore were smarter and Bush was a C student.

    So there is obviously a precedent. And these articles were in the NY TIMES.

    Whether it is relevant for voters is well a personal decision.

    So what goes around,,, well you know the rest.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 2:02 AM GMT
    Thanks, TroyAthlete.

    This story was posted on Charles Johnson's site called littlegreenfootballs.com.

    littlegreenfootballs.com and Charles Johnson have an interesting history.

    For several years, Mr. Johnson was a rather Conservative Rightwinger.

    Then he became disgusted with the SHEER STUPIDITY of his fellow Rightwingers that was becoming impossible for him to ignore.

    Nowadays you'll find the best exposure of Rightwing Lies on littlegreenfootballs.com........as Charles Johnson knows these lunatics like few others possibly could.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 23, 2012 2:02 AM GMT
    musclmed saidwell I do recall the endless talk of how Kerry and Gore were smarter and Bush was a C student.

    So there is obviously a precedent. And these articles were in the NY TIMES.

    Whether it is relevant for voters is well a personal decision.

    So what goes around,,, well you know the rest.

    Good point.
    Bush vs Kerry
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2005-06-10-benedetto_x.htm