New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Create an account
Typophile RSS | More Feeds
Is it just me, or is the Romney for president logo weak, because the R is overbalanced to the right :)
Omney? Who's Omney?
It clearly says "<3 MONEY". ;-)
MONEY - believe in America
I like it: Romney is over 80% about MONEY and the rest is hollow
And if he gets elected, or even just under 50% of the vote, what would that mean?
Believe in America...because...it's not real?
Nobody on a type forum wants to complain about the overly tight and ligaturized EY?
If the "EY" got spaced out, the tagline could be a bit longer. "Believe in Americans", perhaps. Or is that asking too much from your average redneck voter?
I don't think there's anything seriously wrong with the OMNEY part of the logo. Since the EY is "tight and ligaturized", the O and M should also have been kerned, but that's a nitpick.
Instead, the big problem with it is that the "R" logo doesn't really stand out as an R. One could look at it and initially not quite notice that the squiggle on the left is supposed to be an R.
Of course, much about the logo is effectively designed. The R being striped red, white, and blue, with the slogan "Believe in America", clearly identifies him as a conservative politician but in a feel-good way.
Nitpicks aside, I think the logo is fine. No one would have any difficulty reading it as "Romney".
Speaking of Swiss politics, I'm reminded of Orson Well's comment (speaking as character Harry Lime) in the classic movie "The Third Man":
"In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
Orson's comment isn't factually correct, but it's a famous moment in the movie.
Since all we're doing is tossing out opinions here, I gotta side with Hrant on this one. It's all about the money, and this particular logo treatment is, quite frankly, a brilliant solution to saying precisely that, without actually saying so. In other words, it's a brilliant piece of linguistic legerdemain.
Think about it: over the years, there have been several discussions about how humans appear to have an inbred ability to unscramble misspelled words and eke out the intended meaning. That's precisely what this logo does: the R is only suggested, so you read what's actually there: OMNEY. So, you say “What the hell is OMNEY? That makes no sense. Obviously, someone was not paying attention when they spent God knows how much money putting this logo together. Because, when you rearrange the letters just ever so slightly—just a tad, just a smidgen—they spell MONEY. Now, MONEY makes sense!”
Which means that this logo accomplishes precisely what it set out to do brilliantly: it's all about the money! And, hey: this Mitt guy—he's knows his way around money. If it's all about the money, Mitt is your man...
If it's all about the money, Mitt is your man...
Depends which way you want the money to be moved; towards, or away from, those who already have more than the average share of it.
Hey, I'm not giving a political endorsement: I'm reading the freaking tea leaves. Or getting paranoid about mind control. Take your pick.
I've corrected my post.
Well, you may not have intended to make a political comment, but it seemed to me that what you wrote could be interpreted as such a comment, and one that was factually incorrect - Obama, and not Mitt, might be your man even if the election is about money for you, depending on where you want the money to go.
Before the 2008 election, some commentator dared to go on record saying the unthinkable: if a terrorist attack happened shortly before the election, this would boost John McCain's popularity, leading to his winning by a landslide.
In my opinion, that's just about what did happen, except, of course, in reverse. Just before the election, the stock market crashed.
Historically, the Democratic party is identified with unionized labor, with protecting American jobs, with concern for the working class and the poor. Which is more popular than being identified with big business and the moneyed interests, even if it could be argued that favoring them is the "rational" way to make more jobs in the long term.
(On the other hand, the Republicans are also identified with a vigorous foreign policy and with social conservatism. These things play better electorally: I'm surprised a Populist party hasn't risen up to offer Americans the "best of both worlds", or at least what they seem to really want.)
Given this, just as John McCain, who wasn't promising to pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq with the kind of haste that lost Vietnam, was seen as the better choice to confront al-Qaeda, Barack Obama, from the party of FDR, would have been seen as the better choice to keep a stock market crash from causing another Depression and vast human misery.
My conclusion from this was that America wasn't really "ready" for a black President - he got elected due to a "perfect storm", as it were - and so the Republicans could run just about anyone and win the next election.
Just about. Not someone from the extreme lunatic fringe, though. Unfortunately, the Republicans seemed bent on doing just that - and now we have Mitt Romney, a moderate Republican who is currently doing his best to convince his party, that, no, really, he is from the lunatic fringe after all.
But, on the other hand, the committee system, which, through pork-barrel politics, strongly encourages Americans to re-elect incumbents to both houses of Congress, means that if Americans do re-elect Obama, he is unlikely to have filibuster-proof majorities in both houses of Congress.
Normally, this would just mean that he would have to rule as a politician and not a dictator. Since today's Republican party has a policy of "my way or the highway", though, essentially nothing of importance can get done to address economic problems unless the Republicans can get the credit... which will be an argument for many to vote for Romney, even though such behavior should not be rewarded.
I supported G. W. Bush's policies in the War on Terror, so I'm no left-wing radical, but the current behavior of the Republican party dismays me.
Inspired by Jackson, John, and Hrant's comments, here is the real Romney logo:
If you can repost and make it go viral, it would be cool!
Here's a direct link: http://therepublicon.blogspot.com/2012/07/real-romney-agenda.html
KEEP TAKING IT FROM THE POOR.™
In looking on the net for more examples of the logo, I ran across this comment from Iowaadguy: he pointed out that the R looks like red white and blue toothpaste—which is one reason it looks so weak. I ended up redrawing the R, but I think I made the left side a little stronger, by mistake...
So: do you feel better, getting all this stuff off your chest? Good.
Because, when I said I wasn't making a political endorsement, I actually meant it. But, you see things your way, I see things my way and, evidently, never the twain shall meet. But, hey: thanks for sharing your opinions.
I wrote a blog post about this a while ago: http://edoctor.tumblr.com/post/4560064950/doctor-overanalyzes-the-mitt-r...
I think it's pretty terrible. Trajan is just not the right choice here, having lost virtually all personality from overuse — and if it did still have a personality, is the Roman Empire really what you want to associate yourself with as a modern American presidential candidate? The E-Y ligature is arbitrary and unnecessary, and while the R is supposed to resemble a banner or a flag, it just ends up looking like the Aquafresh logo. Also the R crashes into the slogan.
You just did - thank you. :-)
is the Roman Empire really what you want to associate yourself with as a modern American presidential candidate?
And Trajan also says Hollywood movies! How do you think Reagan and Schwarzenegger got elected?
I thought to put this on Reddit, and at the moment it's #1 on the 'hot' list of political humor. And it has already got more hits than any of the analytical posts on my political blog.
::learning about the internet::
On the E-Y ligature, they get points for trying. When I was reproducing it, I saw that they extended the lower arms on the E to fill the white space, and chopped the serif on the to E arm. The problem is that that made the E-Y too visually dense relative to the rest—made worse by not thinning the top arm to compensate.
But as DrDoc says, the really big problem is the 'aquafresh' R...
I take that back. The *really* big problem is Mitt Romney.
is the Roman Empire really what you want to associate yourself with as a modern American presidential candidate?
Well, it certainly is true that ancient Rome had its flaws. But for a while, it was a Republic instead of an Empire, thus inspiring the movie Star Wars... and serving as the basis for at least the forms of pretty much all the Western political systems. For example, the United States and Canada both still have a legislative house called a Senate.
I see this thread is more about us vs them, than it is about a lame logo.
In that case...
'Obama care' is, from my perspective anyways, one of the greatest tragedies to happen against one the greatest nations of all times.
Sorry to inform you Americans that their greatness doesn't lie in the military nor does it lie within American wealth (as diminished as it may appear at the moment), nor does it in all of your amazing accomplishments. The greatness of America is to be found deep within each and every true American soul.
And it is that soul of America which has been given the power - via your incredible Declaration of Independence - to be Independent. The single most wonderful attribute of American Independence is that each and every American citizen can pursue - AN IDEA - to its fullest.
OK? That's it that's all. Nothing in America is of greater significance than that. When a government can empower any single citizen to achieve their -IDEA - then amazing things can happen.
You say you want to diminish America? No probs, all you have to do is restrict the Independence of every single American citizen. Tax them, fine them, contain their accomplishments, confine their progress, force them into a corner where they ... have ... no ... choice!
Sounds easy enough - or is it? How do you diminish the soul of an Individual?
Simple answer is that you can't. But you sure can try. And start by imposing restrictions ... 'Obama care' is one such restriction. Under 'Obama care' in just four years those American citizens that have successfully lived the 'American Dream' - and choose not pay to the government what the government demands you pay for its 'Obama care' - you will be forced to pay a considerable fine, or be restricted by another tax.
What is socialism at its core? Is it the government diminishing one citizen's gains for the benefit of another citizen of lesser accomplishment?
American Independence is being carved up slice-by-slice-by-slice. But I'll tell you this much, those American's who have striven for their - IDEA - to come to its fullest ... will move their hard fought gains elsewhere!
All those who occupy the 99% will left to feed off of one another. And therein lies the great American tragedy.
Hmm. This does not strike me as funny, just cheap. Despite my opinion of the American right. National difference, perhaps? :)
J.Montalbano, calling someone names tells me all I need to know about you ...dude. And if you ever get around to reading this entire thread you will surly see the other posts which really do bather on politically. And for your future reference my name is clearly listed in my bio - which you somehow you chose to overlook also. Stay cool J.
frode frank , another interesting element of the Romney logo is that clearly exhibits the characteristict of being too clever and perhaps also trying too hard. Why fashion the logo into the shape of continental America anyways?
Frode, I did have more subtle versions in mind, but I figured that subtlety doesn't work that well on the internet. You get from 5Star what we are experiencing here in the US: completely hallucinatory arguments.
The individual mandate was a Republican idea, backed by Republicans for 20 years. The idea was to find a way to cover the uninsured while keeping a privately run, insurance-company based health care.
Upon Obama backing it, Republican Senators who had sponsored bills with it, repeatedly, suddenly discovered that it was against freedom and started voting against it and screaming with outrage.
They didn't introduce any new arguments, they just flipped on a dime for political reasons. Now Justice John Roberts, the notoriously conservative Chief Justice of the supreme court specifically argued that the individual mandate was *not* an impingement on individual freedom, because it was just a tax penalty, and did not affect a person's choices other than that.
Roberts was exactly right. And the act does not tell anyone which insurance to buy, which doctor to see, etc. It is largely a free-market system, with increased regulation to lower costs, and a subsidy to cover those left out in the current system. It is no way a 'government takeover of health care,' such as England's National Health Service—which by the way works very well for half the price, and covers everyone.
The fact that the super-conservative Chief Justice argues that it's not a 'government takeover' will have no influence on people like 5Star, though. It's all slogans and hysteria. Reality has nothing to do with it.
I've been posting reasoned arguments on my blog for a bit over a year an a half. This blunt-force unfunny satire has got more than double the hits in 6 hours than anything I've posted. Not good, but there is the reality we're dealing with here in the US.
You don’t have to scratch my itch, William :)
And you want these people to vote for a leader. Pure tragicomedy.
"'Obama care' is, from my perspective anyways, one of the greatest tragedies to happen against one the greatest nations of all times."
I think your perspective is lacking historical context, understandings of economics, and a bad definition of the term 'socialism'.
If you're looking for socialized health care, that'd be every other 1st world country out there.
Obamacare isn't socialized health care. It's simply the only fiscally possible way to make sure everyone can buy private (that's right, private) health care from the private (again, nothing socialist here) insurance industry.
If you want to freak out about socialism, rant about the interstate highway system or something.
> is the Roman Empire really what you want to associate yourself
> with as a modern American presidential candidate?
I don't think many people would look at that logo and think "roman empire".
But even if they did, neoclassic symbolism has been used by Democrats, too:
In the United States, they passed a law that said that health insurance companies couldn't "discriminate" against people who were HIV-positive.
Since insurance is a private agreement between two parties, and is therefore based on actual risk, this meant that it was no longer possible for an individual to purchase health insurance at a reasonable rate. Only employer health plans continued to exist.
The government brought in COBRA to allow people to keep their employee plans after they left their jobs.
So while employers and insurance companies are involved, individuals can't choose to pick their own health insurer, so effectively the situation is already not much different from state-run medicare, except for being messier and more complicated.
Quadibloc, that's in the right direction, but not completely accurate. If you have the money, in the US you can buy whatever health insurance or health care you want. That is 'freedom' in the Conservative's book—price never enters—and that won't change under Obamacare.
If the issue for Conservatives were the practical constraints of price, then the first thing they should be complaining about are the over 30 million who are priced out of insurance, or denied insurance at reasonable prices because of preexisting conditions. But Republican minority leader of the Senate Mitch McConnell said today "that's not the issue," in refusing to answer what the Republicans would do about the 30 plus million.
Of course, the reality is that there all kinds of practical constraints in a very messy system, if you can even call it that. It starts with the mandate that all hospitals have to provide care, whether or not people can pay, and extends to half of health expenditures in the country I believe being through medicare, and most insurance (irrationally) being through employers. By the way medicare part B is purchased through insurance companies, so it is a hybrid system.
But now we are talking reality. When you start getting real—unlike 5Star or Mitch McConnell—then you realize that only a heavily regulated or government-owned system can supply health care to all affordably. That is what all industrialized countries except us do, much cheaper and generally with good results. If we were resolved to do it, instead of squabbling constantly with fantasy ideological arguments, we could do it very well.
"That is what all industrialized countries except us do"
Though that's not entirely true, either. We actually *do* provide that in USA. The VA system. And it works rather well. ;)
That's what I find hardest to accept in this 'debate' we've been having for so long. There are so many documented examples of how single payer systems work better than what we currently have. I wish data was used by those making the decisions. :/
Just for the heck of it, I'm going to try to find the time over the next few days to look at previous Presidential Candidate Logos. To see if anything, anything compares in design stupidity.
Romney's has got to be the worst. Hudson's comment says it all....
Who is OMNEY? And why is OMNEY prefaced with two weird parens?
I'm delighted especially because it makes OMNEY a less effective candidate than he already is.
And having it morph into MONEY with such little effort, is like an extra present. An Easter Egg.
I mean, what tea party moron signed off on this piece of sh-t?
The only thing I can think of with the R is that they were aiming for a flag waving?
It feels like they maybe had to 'committee it down' to the least offensive generic end result .
(Or, the alternate theory is that some young intern couldn't help but make the 'money' connection and is LOLing all the way...)
aluminum >I wish data was used by those making the decisions. :/
Yep. To many levels are involved in too many ways, from Federal > State > local hospitals, local clinics ...and on it goes. Fix all of that waste in the system first before the citizens are once again asked to do the heavy lifting.
And for the uneducated opinions such as Berkson's "...and did not affect a person's choices other than that. " , there in lies yet another hustle. The test will come when many folks simply don't pay the fine and refuse to pay another Obama tax on their income. How many more times will Obama chip any at someone's ability to earn a decent income? You're penalized for earning to much - what is it over 250k? - you're penalized if you don't buy into Obama care - and you're penalized when ... and on it goes.
Try fixing the system first. Show some leadership with solutions that streamline the system.
Richard Fink , Obama endorsing Shep's hope poster was to me the best disappointment ever! One hustler endorsing another! The words HYPE and HOPE are so similar ain't they? Anyways, this Romney logo is intersting in another way. I scaled it to a map of continental USA and the Y's right hand serif points to Massachusetts (or there abouts depending on how it is scaled), home of the Tea Party movement that fought against unfair taxation so long ago...
"Try fixing the system first."
The fix is a single payer system. Folks like you didn't want it for some reason. So this is the compromise. It's also pretty much what Romney did in MA. Both presidential nominees came to the same conclusion.
Not sure why that makes it the biggest tragedy ever to happen. Seems that keeping the citizens of a nation healthy is hardly a tragedy.
This logo, on the other hand, TRAGIC! (No, not really. It's not THAT bad...)
I generally avoid political discussions. But I couldn’t bypass this irony:
Massachusetts [. . . ] home of the Tea Party movement that fought against unfair taxation so long ago...
. . . and where, in 2006, governor Romney passed the Massachusetts Healthcare Reform law, complete with individual insurance mandate.
It’s true. I live here. I know. I was in violation of the law for two years, even though I had an individual catastrophic health insurance policy (didn’t meet the state minimum requirements). Finally the state caught up to me and I had to drop my long-standing policy and purchase a new one that cost ≈5× as much.
"Massachusetts [. . . ] home of the Tea Party movement that fought against unfair taxation so long ago... "
This is a Palin quote from right before Revere warned the British? ;)
>And for the uneducated opinions such as Berkson's "...and did not affect a person's choices other than that. "
My comment was explicitly about the individual mandate. You should add Chief Justice John Roberts to your 'uneducated' list, as that was his argument upholding the individual mandate: "Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it."
aluminum, I'm all for a single payer system - that's not my point. My point is that if I want to opt out of health insurance I can do so without penalty. It's the penalty part of Obama care that infringes on civil liberty. That is what defines an American - the right to say no or yes - and not to be forced nor penalized. Of all the Rep's candidates Ron Paul is/was the most awesome by a country mile.
dberlow, speaking of Palin ... 'How's that hopey, changey stuff working out?'
Taxes aren't civil liberty infringements. That's how modern societies work. Again, I have to ask why you aren't railing against the interstate highway system if your beef is taxes. ;)
Anyways, glad to hear you're for a single payer system. But since the GOP would never allow this, this is the best compromise we can come up with. It's a compromise, not a civil rights infringement nor tragedy of epic proportions.