‘Julia’ ad fascinating for its sheer ideological purity

President Obama’s new web campaign ad, “The Life of Julia,” (watch) is perhaps the most blatantly statist political advertisement yet from one of the two major parties. Pitched, I suspect to single women, primarily those college-aged and worried about the responsibilities of adulthood, it posits that government programs are essential to every stage of a woman’s life. It’s fascinating for its sheer ideological purity.

From Head Start as a toddler to Social Security and community gardens volunteering late in life, big government is the most intimate partner of Julia’s life. Once Julia’s taken advantage of ObamaCare to stay on her parent’s health care plan until she’s 26, dad and mom disappear from her life. When Julia decides to have a child in her mid-30s, there’s nary a mention of a dad or father. In fact, when Julia’s son Zachary turns into an adult, he disappears from Julia’s life. Julia only gets fair pay because government allows her to obtain equal pay. She become a Web designer because Barack Obama helped make it possible.

Julia does have her demons. They are Mitt Romney, Rep. Paul Ryan, and the rest of the Republicans, eager to destroy her life at every opportunity. The savior of Julia’s life is President Obama and federal spending, which dictates every positive development through the several decades of her life. The assumption is that deficits don’t matter, that federal spending can last forever, that through every step of life, Democrats can hold a woman’s hand and use taxpayers’ money to provide a happy life.

It’s an audacious — and insulting – ad. It wll be interesting to see if it works for the president’s campaign team.

Share
This entry was posted in The Political Surf and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to ‘Julia’ ad fascinating for its sheer ideological purity

  1. TV says:

    The most statist ad ever? Do mean that this ad most blatantly points out the importance of government is most people’s live? OK, then — it does point out that many –most, in fact, including you — have government (yes, blatantly) in their lives till death do yous (Philly talk) parts. Is that a bad thing? No. Republicans — people on the right — simply pitch in (statist-also) terms of defense spending, road construction, education, business investment incentives, etc.

    • waitingforhisreturn says:

      Are you ignorant? The government #1 duty is to militarily protect it’s people. The business of directing our lives and telling us what we can an cannot do by taking away the freedoms given to us by the constitution IS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS JOB. It was always intended for the people of these United States to pursue their way in life WITHOUT the government butting in and doling out the portions they say I should have. It kills ambition, dreams, goals and all that was placed in us by God. Fear of failure keeps people on the governments teet. But that in itself is already failure.

      • Granter says:

        We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common defense, PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

        I do NOT find that “The government #1 duty is to militarily protect it’s (its) people” in the Preamble. Neither do I find an OR between, “form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the Common defense, promote the general Welfare AND secure the Blessings of liberty.”

        Certainly, a Facist Totalitarian government would make the military #1 as you ardently advocate.

        However, the Constitutional values enumerated in the Preamble are inalienable and inseperable — anything less is spurious sedition of the highest order.

        • Brent Glines says:

          It is my understanding that the Preamble to the Constitution, while interesting historically, does not hold the force of law. For that, you have to rely on the rest of the constitution, where the powers allocated to the separate branches of government are enumerated.

          • Granter says:

            The Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to the “PREAMBLE AS DIRECT (EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE) OF THE ORIGIN SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.” Clearly, the highest court in the land disagrees with Glines’ argument that the Preamble “does not hold the force of law”.

            When Glines prefaces his assertions with, “It is my understanding”. . . obviously, the debate has reached the lowest point of diminishing returns . . . his “understanding” is ALWAYS diminished.

          • Brent Glines says:

            Grantor said “The Supreme Court has repeatedly referred to the “PREAMBLE AS DIRECT (EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE) OF THE ORIGIN SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF THE CONSTITUTION.” ”

            OK, cite a case where the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, has used the Preamble as the chief source in making a legal decision.

            Clearly, not only does the highest court in the land agree with my interpretation, all the courts in the land agree that the Preamble has no force of law, regardless of Granter’s opinion to the contrary.
            Let me save you some time.

            ‘Due to the Preamble’s limited nature, no court has ever used it as a decisive factor in case adjudication’.

        • Brent Glines says:

          Analysis of the language in the Preamble to the Constitution.

          The Preamble covers ‘why’ the Constitution was established, and as I mentioned, has no force of law, and the rest of the Constitution defines ‘how’, and thus defines our system of government.

          • Granter says:

            “The Preamble covers ‘why’ the Constitution was established”.

            Well, that’s ONE purpose of the Preamble, SOOOOOO?

            It does NOT follow logically (non sequitur) that, because the Preamble covers ‘why’ that, therefore, the Preamble ‘has no force of law’.

            Besides being absurd, it’s untrue. (previous post)

  2. Brent Glines says:

    This ad blatently points out the goal of liberals to carry people from cradle to grave.

    Gone are the days of “I am woman, hear me roar!”

    Instead, Obama would have women say, “I am woman, hear me grovel.”

  3. Pingback: Oh, Julia: From Birth to Death, Left and Right – New Yorker (blog) | Amazing News

  4. rls says:

    doug — you call it “ideologically pure” — i call it simple pragmatism … as the middle class continues to disappear as more and more of america’s wealth accrues to the top one percent, it’s only logical that more and more people are going to need more and more government help … if republicans don’t mind growing income inequality, they shouldn’t mind growing safety nets for those who aren’t among the absurdly wealthy …

    • Doug Gibson says:

      Rick, how can we pay for this? I’m all for taxing the rich more via capital gains and even perhaps Social Security. But the numbers required to have a society like “Julia” lives in over the decades goes far beyond taxing the rich more.

      • Granter says:

        A society on the outs with itself ALWAYS asks, “How can we pay for this?” This inevitably creates a spiral downwards to defeatism and oblivion.

        Successful societies make astounding goals and accomplish impossibilities because they have a vision not blinded by ‘daily receipts’ and blind avarice

      • rls says:

        doug — what we really need to do is address the issue of growing income inequality … when we have a strong middle class, making decent wages and paying their fair share of taxes, there will be fewer people in need of such government assistance as seen in “julia.” — however, income inequality continues to grow, a once-healthy middle class continues to shrink, and the need for widespread government assistance endures …

        • Brent Glines says:

          Is income equality really the driving factor, or should it be standard of living?

          Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

          ● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

          ● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

          ● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

          ● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

          What we have in this country, it would seem, is a faulty definition for the word ‘poor’.

          • rls says:

            brent — how many people have lost their homes, how many people are trying to support a family making non-union wages of $14-15 an hour, how many state employees (teachers and police) have been laid off … i don’t think the “average” picture is quite as rosy as you may think …

          • Brent Glines says:

            I never said things were great for everyone, but even so, as the census data indicates, for many people, ‘poor’ does not seem be an accurate description.

  5. Brent Glines says:

    ‘Why’ is insufficient.

    As mentioned in my previous link that analyzed the langurage in the Preamble, part of the ‘why’ they included the phrase “to provide for the common defense” was due to threats from Great Britain, Spain, and other powers, and to be able to address those threats. But knowing WHY does not explain HOW, which is why Article I gives Congress the power to declare war, to raise and maintain armies, and so forth, and Article II assigns the role of Commander in Chief to the President.

    Why is useless without How, and laws are written and more importantly limited by How, not Why.

  6. Granter says:

    Ellis v City of Grand Rapids
    jacobson v Mass
    Marbury v Madison
    Chisholm v Georgia
    US v Boyer

    “Why is useless without How.”
    More Glines, ‘It is my understanding’ pronouncements, generalizations, and make it up as I go along conclusions?

    Actually “how” without “why” is like the downed pilot, paddling his lifeboat furiously, who communicated that he was making great progress, but didn’t know what direction he was going!

    Acting on one, without the other, is a formula for disaster!– No one but Glines would do such a thing!

    • Brent Glines says:

      One at a time. I wasn’t able to fine a ruling on Ellis v. City of Grand Rapids, but I did find JACOBSON
      v.
      MASSACHUSETTS
      .

      What does that ruling say about the Preamble?

      “Although that Preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States unless, apart from the Preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.”

      Well, THAT kind of blows your theory all to Hell, doesn’t it?

      HINT: If you are going to cite something, read it first so you know beforehand if your own citation is going to make you look like an idiot or not.

      On to the next citation.

    • Brent Glines says:

      Marbury v. Madison
      I see no reference to the Preamble there at all. Why did you bring it up?

    • Brent Glines says:

      Chisholm v. Georgia.

      This decision does mention the text of the Preamble:

      “The people therein declare that their design in establishing it comprehended six objects. 1st. To form a more perfect union. 2d. To establish justice. 3d. To insure domestic tranquillity. 4th. To provide for the common defence. 5th. To promote the general welfare. 6th. To secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity . . . .

      The question now before us renders it necessary to pay particular attention to that part of the second section which extends the judicial power “to controversies between a State and citizens of another State.”

      Again, this asks why. In order to decide the case, the determining factor lay in Article III, dealing with the judiciary.

      ” ‘The judicial power of the United States shall extend to controversies between a State and citizens of another State.’ If the constitution really meant to extend these powers only to those controversies in which a State might be plaintiff, to the exclusion of those in which citizens had demands against a State, it is inconceivable that it should have attempted to convey that meaning in words not only so incompetent, but also repugnant to it; if it meant to exclude a certain class of these controversies, why were they not expressly excepted; on the contrary, not even an intimation of such intention appears in any part of the constitution.”

      The portion in single quotes above is paraphrased directly from Article III.

      “Article III Section. 2.
      The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;”

      Thus the ruling was decided not upon the language of the Preamble, but upon the language from the body of the Constitution, so this example fails as well.

      • Granter says:

        Glines states: “Preamble does not hold force of law.”
        Response: Supreme Court has repeatedly REFERRED TO THE PREAMBLE and by doing so created the FORCE OF LAW!
        Glines states: Cite a case where Supreme Court has used Preamble (as chief source? silly) in making legal decision.
        Response: Citation of (some, by no means all) cases that REFERRED TO THE PREAMBLE and by doing so creates the FORCE of LAW.
        Glines states: ?????? It seems Glines wants to declare victory by surrendering and changing the TOPIC. My argument responded to Glines thesis, that he NOW chooses to run away from, “The Preamble does not have the force of law”.

        I know, the moving target is harder to hit maneuver, is the one trick pony Glines favors, but it’s really dishonest and makes him look bad.

        • Brent Glines says:

          You are not paying attention. Reread the except from the case YOU REFERENCED, Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. Direct from the Supreme Court itself. The Preamble “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”

          It just doesn’t get any more plain than that. How could they be more clear?

    • Brent Glines says:

      U.S. v. BOYER

      This case seems to be totally irrelevant to your argument. Why did you cite this one?

  7. Granter says:

    What counts as “A chief source in a (supreme court) legal decision”? Justices make their individual rulings for a variety of reasons, including the majority and minority opinions — Chief source?? Do you understand the Supreme Court, or are we still limited to “It is my understanding”?

    • Brent Glines says:

      Really? I have to interpret basic English for you now?

      OK.

      As in Jacobsen v. Massechusets or in Chisolm v. Georgia (see above), sure the court can make passing references to the Preamble. But when it comes to the legal theory actually used to decide a case, the Preamble doesn’t hack it. For Constitutional questions, you need something from the body of the Constitution.

      The Preamble carries no force of law.

      If you want to find an example to the contrary, next time don’t be so lazy. Find the text of your own decisions, and make the argument yourself, quoting from the actual decision YOU ARE CITING.

      Don’t make me have to continually demonstrate that you don’t know what you are talking about.

      • Granter says:

        The Court has read the Preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent states.
        McCulloch v Maryland
        Chisholm v Georgia
        Martin v Hunter’s Lessee

        Now, go fetch!

        Wonderful you found your thesis again — don’t blame me for your minldless wild goose chase.
        So the best you can offer is your bald opinion that, “when it comes to the legal theory actually used to decide a case, the Preamble doesn’t hack it.”????
        You are right where you began with “It is my understanding”– and in between a lot of misunderstanding, abuse, and obfuscation!

        • Brent Glines says:

          You already cited Chisholm v Georgia, dimwit, or did you forget?

          Find the decisions, and provide quotes supporting your arguments. If you can’t, you have no case. Unless you can prove otherwise, I think I can rest my case with what I’ve already cited with Jacobsen v. Massachusetts. Thanks for that one. You could hardly have presented a case that proves my point better.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>