On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, the Republican National Committee is touting an expansive new video database that party operatives say is their most potent weapon for attacking President Obama in 2012.

The electronic catalogue, which RNC officials describe as “The Book,” is a searchable trove of “every utterance” from Obama – including hundreds of pages of quotes, video clips and data points documenting the entirety of the president’s first term.

It will provide fodder for an expected onslaught of video attacks in the months ahead, officials said.

“It’s a virtual Lexis-Nexis [database] for a Republican campaign going after a Democrat,” said RNC communications director Sean Spicer. “We have everything he has done and said catalogued six ways to Sunday.”

While presidential campaigns have long amassed opposition research and sought to use an opponent’s words against him, Spicer said the latest iteration is groundbreaking in its efficiency and specificity, thanks in part to the president himself.

“We’re in a unique place this cycle, unlike any other cycle, because Obama made very specific promises in very specific locations,” Spicer said.

“A lot of times candidates speak in platitudes, and you can argue those facts back and forth all day long. But Obama has said very specific stuff on the campaign trail and in office.”

The RNC will debut a compilation of Obama clips from the newly polished video library in a TV ad to run across Iowa on Tuesday. The montage is expected to show “promises” Obama delivered in Iowa in 2008 contrasted with economic and other data on the reality now.

One example from the RNC’s trove: Obama’s 2009 comment that the Recovery Act would help bring 2 million Americans out of poverty. The file cites census data suggesting more than 6 million Americans joined the ranks of the poor since 2009, instead.

Another page from “The Book” features Obama’s promise to help between 7 and 9 million homeowners refinance their mortgages, coupled with recent reports suggesting fewer than 2 million homeowners were helped under the plan.

Republican strategists say juxtaposing Obama’s words with data on the economy, health care costs and other issues will be the most potent mechanism for winning over crucial independent voters who may like Obama personally but are skeptical about his policies.
“This is not an effective tool – it’s the most effective tool,” said Spicer. “We literally have gone through and looked at this over and over again. Survey after survey, focus group after focus group all say this is the most effective way to bring these folks over to our side.

“It is 100 percent the most effective tool we have,” he added.
Meanwhile, Democrats and the Obama campaign have spent months amassing a similar opposition research database focused largely on the public and private sector record of GOP front-runner Mitt Romney.

They have launched relentless attacks on the Massachusetts governor using his own words in an effort to paint him as a man without a “core” and raise questions about his character – something Republicans have so far signaled they are loathe to do with Obama, given his personal popularity.
Team Obama has also been quietly preparing to mount a vigorous defense of the president’s record against the expected GOP line of attack.

“Four years ago, President Obama said on Iowa caucus night that he would make health care affordable and accessible for all Americans, put a middle class tax cut in the pockets of working Americans, start to free us from our dependence on foreign oil and end the war in Iraq – promises that have been fulfilled,” said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt in an email.

“He came into office when our economy was hemorrhaging more than 700,000 jobs a month and pulled it back from the brink, and we’ve now had 21 straight months of growth and almost 3 million private sector jobs created,” he said. “He is rebuilding an economy that’s meant to last, not a bubble economy based on paper profits that leaves the middle class behind.”

The RNC database was first reported by Peter Wallsten of the Washington Post, which was given an exclusive preview.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/president-obamas-words-rnc-weapon-of-choice-in-2012/

True dat.

The Gov shills will come back with;

That's not what he said. It's taken out of context. The meaning of what he promises are subjective. Etc., etc., etc.

or, that type of 'nitpick' could be done with ANY candidate


as no candidate succeeds in having EVERY campaign initiative even HEARD by congress, let alone passed

and noone can promise what support they will receive from two houses of over four hundred people

if anyone could predict that type of thing one hundred percent, I would be scared,, to be quite honest,,,

it sucks having to read over and over about how bad obama sucks and then someone else posting gibberish about how he doesn't or it's not his fault. this country needs a leader who can not only lead the people, but can lead congress and whoever the else he needs to. our next president should be a leaderin every sense of the word. it doesn't matter which political party he sides with, it matters how he leads all political parties. if he can only convince the people who support him to vote his way, than he shouldn't be leading anyone

good luck finding that person who convinces those who dont support him to vote his way,,,(or her way)

it ain't luck missy. plenty of past presidents have done it. a leader can rally the masses

A mulatto president. It seemed like a novelty a lot of progressives thought would be a cool fad. That's why he was voted in.

No management experience. How long had he been into politics?

Very suspect background. His mama a porn queen?http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1517233052161&id=2d750a11d9c9d7b44c4add2d2afee5ad

He hung with drug addicts and an 'alleged' terrorist. Set free due to technicalities.

No military experience.

He is so unqualified in so many ways.

Cha-ching bada-bing!

not in the recent past,,partisanship has taken over and the internet/media has ruined much chance for honest and relevant discussion to occur amongst the citizenry or for actual facts to be publicized as opposed to a million opinions and interpretations,,,

Obama’s 2009 comment that the Recovery Act would help bring 2 million Americans out of poverty. The file cites census data suggesting more than 6 million Americans joined the ranks of the poor since 2009, instead.

Explain your way out of that one Ms.

no way to explain what I dont know

I dont know what he actually said, or in what context, and I dont know the numbers concerning those in poverty when he took office and those who are in povery now with information that takes into account how much the population has grown since that time

in researching his speech I find he used the term million in the following sentences

'It’s a plan that will save or create three to four million jobs over the next few years, and one that recognizes both the paradox and the promise of this moment - the fact that there are millions of Americans trying to find work even as, all around the country, there’s so much work to be done'


' We’ll save taxpayers $2 billion a year by making 75% of federal buildings more energy efficient, and save the average working family $350 on their energy bills by weatherizing 2.5 million homes.'


thre may be another speech or address where he says specifically 2 million will be brought 'out of poverty', but at the moment I tend to believe its only part of what he probably said (there was probably an 'or' in there somewhere)


,,but, as stated initially, I am not aware of the facts enough to truly 'explain' anything


his projection could have just been wrong, the way we were wrong about WMDs or have been wrong in the past,,,,

he is human, he has had failures as president for sure, in terms of the goals he ran on,,,

You know, I get tired of listening to people criticize a candidate's or President's lack of experience, politically or militarily.

Abraham Lincoln, arguably the greatest leader this country ever produced as a President, had very limited political experience and zero military experience. And yet, in my eyes, he is the ONLY President that has EVER had to be a Commander-In-Chief in EVERY sense of the title. He actually learned strategy and tactics on his own, staying up late at night studying military theory, asking questions, and reading correspondences.

This country was founded on the principle that any man born in this country could conceivably become a Representative, a Senator, or a President. This is what is meant by "of the people, by the people, for the people". In England, Members of Parliament received no pay, and so one had to have wealth just to even consider running. In the U.S. this was changed. As the country grew, campaigning became increasingly expensive in ways the Founding Fathers never could have foreseen. Even during the late 1800s, political campaigns were much more personal than they are now. Political debates were a form of entertainment and recreation. Campaigning was done in person rather than through radio or t.v. People often got to meet or at least see the candidates, and if not, they likely knew someone who had.

So to judge a candidate based on lack of political or military experience is an elitist view. It perpetuates the cycle our government is in by continually electing candidates who are already part of the political machine rather than an outsider with a new perspective. Not only that, but some of our WORST Presidents have been elected based on the merit of their experience, be it military or political.

Grant had one of the most corrupt administrations our country has ever seen. He was elected based on military experience, despite his lack of political experience.

Richard Nixon had plenty of political experience, but was responsible for the worst political scandal our nation has known. He also served in the U.S. Naval Reserve during World War II.

Franklin Pierce was both a veteran of the Mexican War and an established politician from New Hampshire. However, he was a key cog in the political events which set the stage for Bloody Kansas. He proposed the annexation of Cuba, willing to use force to that end. Pierce also backed an American who staged an insurrection in Nicaragua, proclaiming himself President of said country.

Warren G. Harding was a long time politician, but as President spent most of his time playing poker and golf and womanizing while leaving others to run the government in his stead. At one point, even Harding was forced to admit, "I am not fit for this office and should never have been here." His administration was one of the worst episodes of private plundering of government funds prior to the Great Depression. He also had no military experience.

Neither military experience nor political experience are necessarily the litmus test for a good President. It is the sum of all other qualities that a candidate should be judged on, with experience being just one lesser part of the equation.

Great news Peccy, thanks for posting the info!! I will be using it for sure and spreading the word :)