Saturday, March 24, 2012

Santorum Envisions Obamapocalypse

As tweeted by Hollywood-Elsewhere, this is apparently a real Rick Santorum campaign ad:



There are moments of increasing frequency where I honest wish it were possible for Santorum to be the Republican nominee. Not only would he be more likely to lose, but what would amount to a sustained public flogging of the worthless "Christian Right" mindset that both creates and buys into nonsense like this ad would be an enormously positive - to say nothing of entertaining - development.

31 comments:

9jack9 said...

not gonna lie, when you take into account Republican voter suppression, there might be just enough people willing to buy into this.

I would like to get married one day...

Thomas said...

My voice is way deeper than this guy's. If I voice political ads, do I have political power?

No, this is some pretty good filmmaking though. If I was like 16 I'd totally be on board with this.

A. Ivan said...

"Imagine a small American town two years from now if Obama is re-elected AND THE DEAD WALK THE EARTH."

Nixou said...

I just love the "Their freedom of religion under attack"

translation: Obama does not allow us to bully Mulsim and Atheists and does not give a shit about our pseudo-religious justifications for our anti-poor-women agenda, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,

As for the "nuclear threat of America's ennemy": Remember that a Frnech Socialist hailing from the same province than Chirac is about to retake control of the french nuclear arsenal: be afraid America, be very I just love the "Their freedom of religion under attack"

translation: Obama does not allow us to bully Mulsim and Atheists and does not give a shit about our pseudo-religious justifications for our anti-poor-women agenda, whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa,

As for the "nuclear threat of America's ennemy": Remember that a Frnech Socialist hailing from the same province than Chirac is about to retake control of the french nuclear arsenal: be afraid America, be very Afraaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaid

Lord Slithor said...

If that wasn't the most blatant display of everything the Republicans - particularly the hard Right Republicans - are afraid of, I don't know what is.

I saw my sister recently, and she both shocked and disappointed me when she told me she was voting for a Republican this year. She and my brother-in-law's business has been struggling, and she doesn't feel as if what Obama's done has worked out. I told her I very much doubted Romney had her best interests at heart, and not to even get me started on Santorum. But she somehow thinks if a Republican gets in office, the economy's going to somehow magically improve.

I "got" it; she's frustrated, tired, trying to raise a fmaily, dealing with an injury from an accident, not to mention the BS she has to deal with from her mother-in-law. But still, I told her you have to weather the storm. Just because it's tough right now under the current administration doesn't mean you jump ship and go for the other guy just because he's saying what you want to hear. I also told her Obama's not soley to blame, and would have been more successful had the Republicans not stymied his efforts at every turn.

But she's not alone in what she thinks, and this ad in a way articulates the fears and frustrations she and many others must be feeling. And the prospect of that scares me more than the intentions of the ad itself does.

Blue Highwind said...

Unfortunately for Rick Santorum, this ad will totally blow back in his face. Because now Obama has the Zombie Vote.

James said...

Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, Paul, AND Obama are all horrible choices for president. Vote third party this November.

Lord Slithor said...

Well, earlier Santorum said re-electing Obama would be better than electing Romney! That pretty much guarantees Obama's re-election right there!

antecedentless said...

The only thing even remotely "Christian Right" in the video is "Freedom of Religion"

And that is not even specifically Christian.

JeffBergeron said...

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/24/032412-opinions-column-santorum-rauch-1-2/

Santorum is truly terrifying.

Link_Shady said...

I would love to see this movie, if nothing else a movie were the bad guy is the president just being a dick with everyone sounds amazing.

Also, fuck republicans

James said...

Link_Shady: Fuck republicans AND democrats.

Taylor said...

@Antecedentless: In this context, yes it is, because Santorum's version of "Freedom of Religion" refers solely (And incorrectly) to the 'right' of Christian employers to deny women medical coverage based on personal preferences.

patrick.b.healy said...

I seriously thought this was Stephen Colberts work until they said Santorum's name.

biomechanical923 said...

I don't see why everybody is believing the falsehood that a president has the power to change anything. The president pretty much only has the power to veto a law, and put his own spin on the state of the union. That's it.

A majority in Congress can nullify the president's veto. You would think people would be more wrapped up in getting a majority vote than with whatever phony face is on the banner.

James said...

Notice that Bob always goes after the GOP candidates, who are atrocious, I will admit, but whenever Obama does something wrong (like the NDAA or renewing the Patriot Act), he spins it or ignores it? Bob is a hypocrite, just like the majority of so-called liberals and conservatives in this country.

Just admit you're a hypocrite, Chipman. We all know it.

Benfea said...

@James,

Ah, we can't ever get through a political discussion without one of you pulling out the old false equivalence double fallacy.

Not only are you guys always wrong when you insist Democrats are exactly as bad, but even if you were (by some miracle) right and that Obama was exactly as bad, how does that in any way excuse what Santorum has done? Your whole "argument" rests on a tu quoque fallacy.

Aiddon said...

GodDAMN Santorum is insane. Seeing the world through his eyes must be one of the most bizarre things ever.

antecedentless said...

Just to add fuel to Jame's fire
Bush's foreign policy is intact, for the most part, and thank God. We do not need to go through the process of obtaining a warrant to intercept someone who is calling a phone number known to be used by terrorists. That is probable cause enough.

Even under Bush, with the exception of a few miscreants the U.S. military never endangered life or limb of captured enemy combatants, and reserved "enhanced interogation techniques" for a very ehm... select few.

As for Nixou and Taylor
The "every sperm is sacred" insurance mandate political theater has nothing to do with the poor and little to do with women's health. It has everything to do with the fact that the two viable non-romneys are catholic.

Elessar said...

So is Rod Serling's estate suing? I mean, who gives a shit about the stupid attack ad (I'm pretty much desensitized to this kind of shit, it's the usual BS that Santorum and his type throw). I'm just curious if that 'ripped from the Twilight Zone' delivery constitutes a breach of copyright?

Probably not. But it'd be funny.

Anonymous said...

@Elessar

Even if something that unspecific could be copyrighted, I'm pretty sure this ad falls under the "parody" section of fair use.

Anonymous said...

. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`



Ugh, why you dumb Republicans, your making us normal Republicans look crazy.

Anonymous said...

Very similar to:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=A+Russia+Without+Putin&oq=A+Russia+Without+Putin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=youtube-reduced.3...18561l18561l0l19173l1l1l0l0l0l0l96l96l1l1l0.

cdstephens said...

This is why as a Republican I'm voting Democrat this year. On a side note, I can't wait until Republicans realize that catering to the "hard Christian right" is a bad idea (coming from a Christian).

For example, the whole birth control insurance debate highlights the absurdity of Republicans. The rational argument against it would be, a) birth control is cheap enough such that middle and upper class women don't need it, b) there exists several sites already that provide free birth control to those in poverty, particularly those funded by Title-X, c) the pill is not required for good health or to maintain a normal life (note that viagra is required to physically have sex at all and to treat a medical condition), d) there are even cheaper alternatives through the use of condoms. Republicans however are forced to make arguments about religious freedom instead because they're trying to cater to the hard Christian right, and it's hurting them.

Anonymous said...

Rick Perry, you have competition for the title of "Stupidest political ad ever".

antecedentless said...

The content is not wrong... inaccurate, but not wrong.
The presentation sucks, but I won't get into that. I will get into the facts of the matter.

The insolvency of medicarelessness and socialist insecurity and the rotting pile of bonds that make up both trust funds are much bigger issues than the "religious freedom issue" (if there is a problem with Georgetown's cyst exception, and believe it or not they do have a cyst exception, then it can be fixed without forcing them to pay for morning after pills;; yes that is a religious freedom issue. No one is suggesting that, say, Jehovah Witness employeers with their own health insurance pool should refuse transfusions)... and those won't get really bad until the end of the decade (and when it does it will be the poor, injured, elderly, disabled hurt the most; the middle class will be coasting along for the most part*), not two years from now. Because of the way ACA is structured, much of it will not come into effect (purposefully) until after this election season, and it will at worse make our health care system somewhat similar to Spain's, which may sound like a good thing at first...

...People like me are going to be fine.* Again, the information presented is not necessarily wrong, just presented wrong.

*There are some talk show radio hosts that suggest, like this ad, that Obama's re-election=doom and gloom. FDR was re-elected twice. We have an incredibly resilient economy that has survived and recovered from much worse than what we are experiencing now. However, our current fiscal situation (inb4 tax cuts for the rich & unneeded wars) is unlike anything experienced under FDR (or ever) but that will take more time to truely make the needy go through hell... and sadly it will only effect the needy.

Anonymous said...

@antecedentless,

Since FDR served four Presidential terms altogether, wouldn't he have been re-elected three times?

antecedentless said...

Big fail on my part. Yes, that is true. For some reason I thought Roosevelt no. 2 died at the end of his third term, not the beginning of his fourth.

Shannon said...

@cdstephens said... "c) the pill is not required for good health or to maintain a normal life (note that viagra is required to physically have sex at all and to treat a medical condition)"

Tell that to the people who need it so that they aren't bleeding to the point of anemia or have cramps so bad they literally cannot stand up. Or those who develop cysts or are laid up for days with migraines because their hormones are so out of whack. Not everyone's period is just a few days of cramps and bloating and bitching and then it's over with. Some people have very extreme symptoms and there is no good reason for them not to be treated when the means are right there. They shouldn't be made to suffer just because someone else doesn't agree with the pill's use or knows nothing about what the pill can treat and refuses to learn otherwise (like every Republican candidate and almost every talking head on the right.)

James said...

Benfea: I am NOT excusing Santorum. I think he's a horrible presidential candidate and a poor excuse for a human being. I dislike the democrats and republicans, and try as you might to deny it, Obama is as bad as his predecessor and GOP counterparts (as antecedentless provided with the link)

Reece said...

Hmm. Better punctuation is needed. The ad made it sound like the price of petrols freedom was under attack.

Oh and the rest of the ad was fucking awful.