Movie Trailer’s Are Usually Deceptive

Rick Perry came out with a terrifyingly scary “shock and awe” style campaign video earlier today that casts President Obama as some fascist ruler who led us into nuclear apocalypse with the motto of hope. In a previous post, jay mentioned that the frightening audio track is actually the theme music from the SAW films. Now despite how much I wish this was a trailer for a new post-apocalyptic Children of Men or Waterworld type film, it’s very, very, very factually deceptive.

The most misleading part about the video is how the Perry Campaign asserts that Obama is to blame for the latest U.S. Census Bureau statistics about poverty in America that put the national poverty rate at 15.1 percent for 2010.

 

 

As the following timeline illustrates, the number of people in poverty has been steadily rising since the 2001 recession during George W. Bush’s first term in office, and that number increased considerably at the onset of the 2008 recession.

 

 

It would be difficult to argue that Obama’ economic policies capitulated us to this hellish, empty Hallmark store aisle pictured in Perry’s campaign ad.

 

 

Moreover, for Rick Perry to argue that his “proven leadership” will get us out of this mess is simply false, since Texas’s poverty rate of 18.4 percent is higher than the national average by 3.3 percent. If you want to go by Perry’s rounding-up of the national rate to make it seem like “one-in-six” Americans are living below the poverty line, then the amount of Texans living in poverty would be one-in-five.

I suggest that if the media and the Obama campaign want to seize onto the actual substance that lingers after this frightening phantasmagoria plays out, it shouldn’t be too difficult to prove how factually deceptive this campaign video is.

Comments

  1. JimC146 says:

    One note. Democrats have held the majority legislative/executive control since January 2007 when after the 2006 elections they took the Senate and House away from the GOP. Then from Jan 2009 until Jan 2011, they had all 3: House, Senate, and White House. Even now they still have the Senate and the White House. How much control of the power do the Democrats need to own anything? Does it really take 100% Democrats in the House, Senate, and the Presidency for it finally becomes their ownership?

    Just askin…

  2. nathan says:

    The Republicans had essentially full control of the White House and both branches of Congress from Jan 2001 to Jan 2007. So I guess it took the Republicans about 7 years to run our economy into the ground and sky-rocket the national debt by refusing to pay for two wars and the Bush tax-cuts. And then when the Democrats took the legislative branch in 2007, the Republicans began (and continue today) holding our legislative process hostage by invoking the unprecedented abuse of filibusters and supermajorities. Does it need to take 100% Democrats in all government for the Republicans to stop reckless obstructionism?

    Filibuster Chart

  3. Emery Tynon says:

    “One is loved because one is loved. No reason is needed for loving.” ~ Paulo Coelho

  4. JimC146 says:

    Sure, one could call the GOP obstructionists. However, another way to look at your “Rise of the Filibuster” graph is that it could be titled “Rise of the radical ideological agendas”. As both parties become more left-wing/right-wing, fewer bills will get the support of centrists where most of America lies. Logically, if a bill is less partisan, less ideological, then it should be able to garner bipartisan support from centrists of either party and overcome any filibuster. However, in recent years, emboldened by the fringes, fewer centrist ideas have come forward.

    So one man’s obstructionism is another man’s victory over far left-wing/right-wing agendas…

  5. nathan says:

    To say that ‘radical ideology’ only began once the Democrats took the House in 2007 might be the most idiotic thing I’ve heard lately. I think there’s an amazingly ignorant level of revisionism in your narrative, and so many other conservatives, which paints George W Bush as some middle of the road statesman who just, by chance and no fault of his inept ‘far-right’ neo-conservative policies, happened to leave this country worse off than when he started. I suggest you stop watching the O’Reilly Factor or whatever Obama-Outrage media source you drink up.

  6. JimC146 says:

    I didn’t say anything about W. I happen to think he was not the shiz. However, logically, if those in the majority cannot get enough votes for cloture, then the legislation by definition is too radical to garner support. Only other explanation would be that there is nothing but far radicals in the opposition. That can be your opinion however, regardless of the view, the inability to get enough votes for cloture means the legislation is not appealing to enough of the law makers and therefore fits the reason the filibuster exists.

    It can be your opinion to think the evil GOP simply obstructs the perfectly well thought out, understood, centrist legislation that the Democrats clearly put forth OR you can surmise they have pushed too far to the left and cannot get support to overcome the 60 votes threshold, even when they had a 59 vote advantage.

    I think most rational people can come to the logical conclusion that it is the latter…