If you have any teenage daughters in the room, you might want to give them $50 and send them to the mall.

When Michelle Ray linked me to a Russian campaign ad from Vladimir Putin that slutted up the dictator’s 2012 re-election tour, something instantly seemed familiar. I had seen the ad before and knew the meme to be precisely (slap) identical. Being fluent in Russian, I can verify that it is the same idea.

The title of this masterpiece is “Opening women up for their first time.” The video translation of “elect” should be “candidate.” The closing of the ad says: “Putin: First Time — Only for Love.”

And just in case you thought that was a “fluke”:

This one is called “Russian Beauty Describes Her First Time.” The weird phrases “Safe as houses” translates to “solid as a rock.” But wait, the Vladdy Daddy gets even more suggestive:

The phrase in the middle is “Let’s Do It Together.” At the end: “Elections December 4th.” The English-language music is really ironic.

So what’s next for the Obama campaign? We’ve had the war on women, war on dogs, Bane capital, Mitt hates cookies, taxathon, Julia, vote your lady parts, Big Bird, binders full of women, bayonets and horses, and now, a creepy college girl’s “first time” confession. Now, that’s flexibility.

Joe Biden may be laughing, but the American people are not!

This Scripture from The Bible sums it up perfectly:

(AP)

“It’s a promise that was made long ago: you work hard, pay in, your Medicare benefits are guaranteed. But Mitt Romney would break that promise,” the ad says. “Replace your benefits with a voucher. Insurance companies could just keep raising rates. Instead of a guarantee, seniors could pay $6,400 more a year.”

The claim that the Romney/Ryan plan would cost seniors $6400 is completely false and based on an outdated and questionable Medicare reform plan from Rep. Paul Ryan – the plan that Romney and Ryan actually support does not include any cost increases for seniors. Ramesh Ponnuru explained all of this in a Bloomberg column, the day that it was announced Ryan would be Romney’s running mate.

Under the original Ryan plan, retirees would have chosen a private health plan and the government would have contributed money toward the cost. The amount of money would have depended on the beneficiary’s age and health status. Over time the average amount of money would have risen with inflation.

Critics pointed out that health-care costs have risen faster than inflation for a long time. If competition failed to change this trend, senior citizens would indeed have been left paying more.

The new version of the plan cleverly fixes the problem. Insurers would submit competitive bids to see who could cover Medicare’s traditional benefits for the lowest premium. The average amount of financial assistance would be equal to the second-lowest bid. So seniors will always have an option that leaves them with no higher costs than now. If they pick something even cheaper, they will come out ahead.

Ryan’s budget includes a failsafe to make sure the plan saves money even if competition doesn’t lead to restraint in premium growth: Total spending on Medicare would be limited to the growth of the economy plus inflation plus 0.5 percent.

That failsafe doesn’t rescue the Democratic attack, however, because the Obama administration caps Medicare spending at the same level. There is no scenario under which Medicare recipients have to pay more under the Romney-Ryan plan than they have to pay under the Democratic plan. The Obama campaign is, in short, responding to new thinking with stale talking points.

If that isn’t enough to convince you, then read this recent memo released by the Romney campaign debunking the claim.

Follow Chris on Twitter

“I don’t think that Governor Romney is somehow responsible for the death of the woman that was portrayed in that ad,” said Obama. “But keep in mind this is an ad that I didn’t approve, I did not produce, and as far as I can tell, has barely run. I think it ran once.”

But while President Obama said that it only ran once on television, according to a Senior Republican media strategist, the Obama SuperPAC has paid at least $169,047 to promote the Youtube video of the ad online.

“YouTube has a video analytics tool that allows you to determine the number of views per video through advertising,” the media strategist explains. “If you have the number of views that a video has obtained through advertising, the only question is how much they paid. Cellar is $0.35 per view and ceiling is around a dollar $1.00 per view. Therefore, the cost estimate we have developed per view is really very conservative because we went with $0.35 per view.”

He provides us with this chart:

Basically, it only ran once on television, but the outrageous ad continues to circulate online.

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

“That’s the American Way!”

How effective do you think this ad will be?  So far, does Romney seems like a better or worse campaigner than you were expecting?

Obama’s ad tells part of the truth, the part that favors him, just enough to fool Democrats and Obama Kool-Aid drinkers. In a campaign ad that is now running in Virginia, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, and Wisconsin, he claims that his policies have promoted clean energy jobs and reduced the nation’s dependence on foreign oil, while enduring secretive unfounded attacks from the energy industry. And he even has the nerve to promote his ethics record. And all of this in a 30 second ad.

You can, if you have a very strong physical constitution, watch the ad here.

Let’s examine what Obama claims in the ad, then look at what Paul Harvey used to call “the rest of the story.”

• Claim: Secretive oil billionaires attacking President Obama — The Rest of the Story: The Oil & Gas industry in general, and the Koch brothers in particular, have been anything but secretive in their attacks on President Obama
• Claim: Implication that President Obama has created 2.7 million “clean energy industry” jobs — The Rest of the Story: The number 2.7 million came from a Brookings Institute report. The ad cites the report from the Brookings Institute (see page 4 of the report). That report says, “The clean economy, which employs some 2.7 million workers, encompasses a significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries… Most clean economy jobs reside in mature segments that cover a wide swath of activities including manufacturing and the provision of public services such as wastewater and mass transit. A smaller portion of the clean economy encompasses newer segments that respond to energy-related challenges. These include the solar photovoltaic (PV), wind, fuel cell, smart grid, biofuel, and battery industries.  &nbsp[all emphases mine]

  The report says that the “clean economy establishments added half a million jobs between 2003 and 2010.” Obama was inaugurated in January, 2009, so his claim to any job created before he was inaugurated is a outright lie! Further, the report refers to “clean economy” jobs, not “clean energy” jobs. The great majority of the “clean economy” jobs are not in the “clean energy industry.” But as we have seen, Obama is quite adept at comparing apples and oranges.

  Bottom line: Obama claims ANY job, regardless of its nature, to belong to the “clean energy industry,” and tries to claim that the “clean economy” and “clean industry” are the same thing!

• Claim: Implication that Obama played a role in the increase in US domestic oil production — The Rest of the Story: Most domestic oil production growth was worked up, leased, drilled and plumbed-up for production over the last decade or more, long before he was inaugurated. His policies have actually done just the opposite – they have reduced production. Increases in production have come from two sources:
  • Fracking of shale in the Baaken field: despite the EPA’s efforts to stop fracking, the Baaken field continues to produce
  • Gulf of Mexico: deepwater discoveries in the gulf that have been brought on line over the last three years were discovered years before Obama was inaugurated

• Claim: The US dependence on foreign oil is now below 50% — The Rest of the Story: While his claim may be true, the ad fails to explain why it is true: oil consumption is down because we remain in an economic recession/depression, something he promised to end if elected.

The ad says, “Independent watchdogs call this president’s record on ethics ‘unprecedented.’” The “unprecedented” line comes from a statement by a coalition of government watchdogs in 2009, just three months after Obama took office. It specifically referred to Obama’s promise to increase transparency and to end the “revolving door” of former lobbyists becoming presidential appointees. He kept neither promise.

The ad, filled with innuendos, assumptions, half-truths, and out-and-out lies, will play well with the dim-witted who will take President Barack Hussein Obama’s claims at face value, not bothering to do any kind of research and/or fact checking.

If this is his FIRST campaign ad, what can we expect as November approaches?

But that’s just my opinion.

Look…  I know that this statement will speak to the hearts of many Americans, but Perry really shouldn’t have added the line about “gays serving openly in the military”.  I think he had a good ad on his hands without the addition of that statement.  And to be honest with you, I’m not at all sorry for him for any heat this might bring upon his campaign.

This is a year where Republicans have an honest chance to unseat the current president, and that’s saying a lot, considering how dire the GOP’s hand was in 2008.  Commercials like this do nothing to bolster those chances, however, and I’m ashamed of Perry for putting this line in there.

Now, I know that Perry has been gaining support on this website, and that I’ll draw the ire of many of our readers for pointing this out, but if you WANT Perry to be the next president of the United States, ads like this do not help.  Whether it is fair or not, Republicans are known for being “against the gays”.  How does this ad help to change that perception?  It doesn’t.  It only “reaffirms” what many have suspected about Republicans all along.

Also… it was a good ad without that line.  Perry looked good, he sounded good, the production values were solid, and his message was fine.  Adding the line about gays serving openly in the military did nothing to improve or embellish it.  It was foolish, and it was the opposite of helpful.

This isn’t the first time that Perry has disappointed me, nor is it the first time that he’s “stepped in it”, but after enough occurrences, these things start to look like nails in his coffin.

What do you guys think about this amazing new video?  Does it make you want to vote for Barack Obama in 2012?  Or does it make you want to run to the nearest trash can and hurl?  Let us know in the comments below.  And as always, resist we much.

This new “campaign ad” from Mitt Romney tells the hard truth folks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZLUKiGTXI&feature=channel_video_title

What do you think?  Has he convinced you?  Or are you still holding out for Ron Paul to finally have his year?  Let us know in the comments below. (and send your hate mail to Jimmy Kimmel in Hollywood, CA)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iefi-7qXpzk&feature=channel_video_title

First the obvious… What is up with the cigarette smoke at the end of the video?  Can somebody tell me?  Now the not so obvious… Did you notice the blinds swaying behind Herman’s head at the end of the video?  I’m pretty sure this thing was shot in a hotel.  Maybe even a Holiday Inn.

Okay, you know what I want.  Comments, people.  What do you think is happening in this video?  A lot of people have been scratching their heads to figure out this one.  Let us know what you come up with.  You can tell us in the comments below, on Facebook, or you can call my home phone.  I should be in after 7pm.