Brit Hume, who no doubt gleans his talking points from this blog, concurs with what I’ve been saying here for some time:
Brit’s correct-ish. It’s easy to squawk about media bias. The overwhelming media bias for Obama at this point is so obvious it’s like a minister pausing mid-sermon, listing to one side, and ripping off a burrito fart…kinda hard to miss. I do not think bias is necessarily partisan however. Imagine either Bill Clinton or George W Bush were still President. Imagine a deadly attack on American consulates and embassies on the anniversary of 9/11…wait you don’t have to imagine that – it just happened. Can anyone fathom this not being reported as a terrorist attack by every national media outlet? They would be in a froth about the anniversary and extrapolate from there. But at the time the media loved to dish Clinton. and to snoot about W’s ignorance as soon as his polls fell far enough to allow them free rein. For the presstitutes, both men were unseemly goombahs, the one thing the Andrea Mitchell types of the pathological media can’t abide.
For days all we’ve heard about is a laughable “movie” and how it hurt the feelings of some people so much they spontaneously tortured American diplomats, then killed them. Nope, it was not a terrorist attack. If it had been we might then question Obama. As you know questioning Obama is just this side of a thought crime. If Obama wins another term it will likely be a crime outright.
The media psychosis around Obama is complete. Not only do they avoid any news that will harm Obama’s reelection chances, most don’t even see that it’s a problem to avoid reporting any news that will harm Obama’s reelection chances. The messiah’s skivvies never have skid marks, cuz the messiah never poops. This is a fact, don’t ya know.
As unfair as the media is however, Brit’s right. Romney’s people certainly knew he’d would be attacked on all fronts. Either Romney did plan for this, which makes ignoring it campaign malfeasance of the highest order. Or he does not care – which makes ignoring it surreal. Either way it will make a difference if it keeps up. The one sure way to steal an election is to keep it close, game the polls, then quickly claim the initial bogus numbers are the real ones. Once a close swing state is called for Obama on election night the dye is cast no matter what the real numbers end up being. Once NBC says Obama won Florida only “sore losers” will question it as the media has now told us for weeks that Obama is a sure winner, and Romney’s a fool. It will make sense that Obama won Florida – how could he not? He’s been ahead for weeks, also Romney makes gaffes etc etc… What the final tally really is doesn’t matter anymore than the real reason our consulate in Libya was torched matters. Facts are not relevant to this narrative. Facts are, in fact, an annoyance and not particularly necessary. George W Bush and Dick Cheney never bothered with them and they got their war anyway. The media made sure we got scared and stayed scared.
Romney, unlike McCain, once gave of the distinct odor of a man who intended to win. He still does here and there. But his campaign has moved into the dangerous and often lethal “just wait till the debates” phase. This is like the fan whose football team is losing with 1 minute left yelping “Plenty of time! Plenty of time!” Sometimes 1 minute is enough – usually it isn’t. Especially when the commentators are hell-bent on calling the game with 45 seconds left.
I suspect Romney’s team is suffering under the delusion that their man will get 3 unfiltered chances to speak to America – and therefore pull ahead for good. Foolish in the extreme. Obama will do fine. Romney’s performance will be trashed no matter how good everywhere from SNL to CNN. Within 20 minutes the unfiltered Romney will be clogged. The narrative set this month will be maintained. Only Reagan and JFK changed the game with debates. Does anyone outside the Romney family think Mitt Romney is JFK or Ronald Reagan?
For candidates the media detests the only thing to do is attack, attack, attack. Change the subject. Make the subject the other guy in a BIG way. Make the media itself the subject of the media. Team Romney hasn’t come close to this.
I will say this: If Romney’s campaign thus far is the biggest head fake in election history and the man pulls it off and wins, I will eat six heaping helpings of crow on this blog. I live on crow for a week. I will eat all the crows…Russell…Cameron…Sheryl…
The obvious backup strategy is to hang Hillary out to dry for it.
This is interesting. Is Dow suggesting Obama just won the election?
Three, four, weeks ago, there was a lot of fear on Wall Street about September, which is typically a bearish month. Then September brought new year highs. It’s notable that Romney’s 47% comment was released during this month; also he released his tax returns, which he had to have known would generate criticism.
The Dow typically goes down when a Democrat wins and goes up when a Republican wins, so you would need to redo this analysis controlling for whether the incumbent was Democrat or Republican. A confound is an uncontrolled variable that provides an alternative explanation for your findings. In this case you want to claim the behavior of the Dow indicates whether an incumbent is likely to win or not. You need to eliminate the alternative explanation posed by the impact of an incumbent’s political party on the Dow.
“The Dow typically goes down when a Democrat wins and goes up when a Republican wins, so you would need to redo this analysis controlling for whether the incumbent was Democrat or Republican.”
No you wouldn’t. Here’s why:
Further:
Yes indeed. That is what we are seeing now. The narrative is being established that Obama is inevitable: The polls are all swinging his way, etc– even though observations on the ground largely dispute this. In my opinion, voting machines will be hacked to make sure that O wins. It’s really quite easy to do, as Black Box Voting has proved numerous times. Right now we are seeing the groundwork being laid to make sure that an O win is expected, maybe even a really big win. No one will blink at the results. With a “mandate”, O will be even more powerful and more able to pretty quickly finish closing us down into a completely fascist state. (All the while smiling that big smile and saying things we like to hear, of course.)
Before this spring when the curtain came up on the O re-election production, his prospects were not great because we could all still remember what a shitty President he has been. But now that his role as the preaching messiah has been reprised, the elctorate is running on hope, faulty memory, and an incredible lack of critical thinking.
Again, the wild card is the Middle East. The administration has handled it terribly. If the media weren’t on Team O, we would be in national crisis mode now- a terrorist attack on a consulate, our ambassador murdered. Is it not surreal that Obama went to a fundraiser after it happened and no one thought that was inappropriate? That Susan Rice obviously lied about the video being the sole cause and the press doesn’t seem to be offended at all? That the big stories of each day are still about how inept Romney is?
It is possible that the Middle East situation may get to such a point that the media can no longer continue to spin it to do no damage to Obama. Another deadly attack and all bets are off.
That’s my two cents worth.
I fear it’s all being set up to refuse to accept the results if MR wins — they’ll claim fraud and ‘voter suppression.’
Then it’s civil war, and may the best-equipped picatinny win.
I’d like to see the Ministry of Propaganda lose this election as much as Obama. They think they are invincible.
Kim, your comments are worth a lot more than two cents.
The media and the Bots are now, imo, lawless.:
This is hopeful:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/23/skewed-and-unskewed-polls/
Romney has two opponents, O and the msm, no wonder it’s an uphill slog for him.
I think this week will be somewhat telling on foreign policy, Obama supposed to speak at UN on Friday, possibly to reinstate the ridiculous assertion that.were a religuously tolerant society and can’t we call get along? I think Netanyahu scheduled to speak on Friday so depending on what he says there could potentially be strikes against Iran within a few weeks, but the Ministry of Truth will probably let Obama/foreign policy dominate the news cycles this week as a result.
I still give Romney a slight statistical advantage IMO because he’s got more money but to me on a gut level this is feeling more and more like 2000 all over again. For Romney it shouldnt “feel” this close (I know there are those that think that Romney is surging in the polls and the media isn’t covering it) but considering all the baggage that Obama has going against him I just feel like Romney should be pushing a little harder. I know people will say “that’s not who Romney is” which really just means “that doesn’t jive with this idea of Romney that I have in my head” but that is beside the point.
Romney’s strategy seems to be keep it close/finish strong in October (I’m basing that hunch on things Romney has said, particularly “better not to be right too early in politics”) but I don’t really think that the debates will move the dial that much for either candidate… The right/left media will declare their guy the winner and people will forget.
Keeping it close as a strategy seems to benefit Obama, becaue he will continue to just lie and say he is winning or game the count to steal it in November (ie Choom gang interception). I think Romney’s campaign war chest can continue to keep the race essentially deadlocked, but he still needs a “moment” to get the undecideds to break for him, and IMO he has to create that because MSM is just going to keep providing air cover for Obama.
Again, based simply on Obamas record and Mitts campaign funding this should feel like Mitts race to lose, right now it still feels like Obama’s.
Also I think a 6 Day War type of scenario benefits Romney because the overall butterfly effect will outlast the fighting.
A prolonged Israel/Iran conflict benefits Obama because people will be hesitant to change leadership in wartime or the leadup to war. I think Barry is banking on this scenario.
Out of morbid curiosity, I tuned in MTP yesterday, just as David Gregory was saying ” I want to talk about Romney’s taxes”..At first I wondered if MTP runs repeats”. It was simply unbelievable. Anti American protests all over N.Africa, and the M.E., Iran going nuke…and This is what MTP presents ?? Dan, unless another six day war takes place in Prime Time, the media will Still be reporting b.s. about Romney, imo. War,? What War? Look over here at Romney’s Cadillacs! If they weren’t so dangerous, they’d just be nitwits, now they’re dangerous nitwits.
Agree with you 100% Sophie, the media won’t even bother to cover a quick Israeli surgical strike in prime time, but the potential resultant gas hikes/etc. will be another story and I think that probably benefits Romney as another reason for Obama buyer’s remorse in the minds of undecideds.
Reminds me of an East German news show I used to watch, SCHWARZE KANAL, about how horrible things were in The West. One of their favorite reports:
“New York City — 70,000 Deaths From Drug Overdoses”, and flash an old photo of passed out hippies from the sixties.
I could easily agree with your assessment, John, but there is one detail that is keeping me from doing that. I agree that the MSM is doing its best to define the outcome of this election, and I agree that it would be conventional and sensible for Romney to hit harder. But the one thing that has changed immeasurably is the trust that average citizens have in the MSM. These days, not so much.
In the past 4 years, distrust of the media has risen 8 points, and the turning point seems to have been in 2006, where trust/distrust was 50-50. So if distrust of the MSM has risen to 60% and shows no sign of reversal, why bother? Nobody believes them anyway.
If it is true that Independents will decide this election, it looks like bad news for Obama:
Here’s a link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157589/distrust-media-hits-new-high.aspx
Good point, Anthony. It is possible that the “grass roots” openness about their distrust of the media could become a defining story with legs unto itself. If “the media is full of shit” takes hold that alone could generate backlash without any nudging from Romney’s team. Middle class whites “riot” quietly. As in they speak softly and vote loudly.
With a moderate sense of disconnect to either “team” I watch the media with wonderment and think “who buys this crap?”. Yet, I know many do. The good news for Romney is that it is still close. Obama is needing every arrow in the quiver to keep it close. Not most arrows. Every. Last. One. The only arrow left outstanding as of today is the overt foreign crisis. We do have one but it’s obviously being avoided, so they must fear that tactic right now. I have no doubt an October surprise is cued and waiting in the wings. Don’t know what it is though.
As for hanging it all on Hillary at this point – I don’t see that as possible until after the election. Obama needs Bill. Whatever they may ‘have on Bill’ his helpful presence in swing states is predicated on Hillary somehow. They chuck her under the bus and Bill becomes the master of double speak again.
Again? Slick Willie never stopped being the master of doublespeak, maybe even triplespeak.
Well, if it’s all about foreign crisis, Obama referring to Ambassador Steven’s death as a “bump in the road” just gave us a peek at what to expect about how well that will serve him
I’ve said all along: the FUD coming from the Ministry of Propaganda was psychological viagra targeted at the obots, to give them at least a semi for obama so they’ll work on the campaign and get their sorry asses out on a rainy November day to vote for the biggest disappointment since PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN II.
According to the Gallup poll on voter enthusiasm, it’s worked — dem enthusiasm up 20 pts. (But Gop & Indy has risen, as well.)
OFA knows the middle class and indies are lost. It’s all about turn-out.
Tamerlane, you’re wrong about Pirates of the Carribean II.
Obama’s first term is at least as dissapointing as The Phantom Menace, and feels 4x as long.
I stand corrected. The PHANTOM MENACE had a phantom plot.
Slick or bone dry, Bill Clinton was the best president in my lifetime, and I’m quite old, thank you.
LOL Im not criticizing Bill Clinton, I consider myself exceedingly blessed to have been a teenager and voted for Clinton in my first election. It’s probably one of my fondest memories of growing up.
But, if anyone is capable of talking out of both sides of their mouth simultaneously, it’s Bill Clinton. Just sayin!
Agree with Dan. Also, lets not forget that unfortunately, Bill and Hillary BOTH need the support of the Dems for any future political endeavors, and talking shit about Boy Wonder would totally blow that. Politicians do what politicians do, and self-preservation comes before anything else. I would say that in the scenario that John suggested above, if Hillary gets thrown under the bus, Bill will continue stumping for The Dog Eater. I also agree that there will be several double entendres, and so carefully crafted that nobody will be able to pin anything on him. Most likely, you will see very little of him (like “Hidin’ Biden”)
“…in the scenario that John suggested above, if Hillary gets thrown under the bus, Bill will continue stumping for The Dog Eater.”
That’ll be realllly sad. It’s bad enough that’s he’s pimping for BO now. Honestly, it’s really hard to watch.
Whats even scarier for me is the fact that nobody, unless Im completely wrong, is talking about the possibility that the Benghazi attack is indicating that Al Queda is probably setting up shop to operate out of Libya.
Do you think its Al Queda? or Muslim Brotherhood? (or are they one and the same?)
I dont know why but I thought of this when you asked about Muslim Brotherhood.
FRANK DREBIN: When I see 5 weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of the park in full view of 100 people, I shoot the bastards. That’s *my* policy.
MAYOR: That was a Shakespeare-In-The-Park production of “Julius Caesar”, you moron! You killed 5 actors! Good ones.
The Muslim Brotherhood is basically the political wing of Al Queda.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi, the new President of Egypt, is in New York now to give a speech to the UN General Assembly. And after that Bill Clinton will host Morsi at the Clinton Global Initiative, where Hillary spoke today.
All very cozy.
Dan — AQ was always a key part of the Libyan rebel group. It was so obvious that, as I recall, even some in the MSM reported on it!
Once again, I’m having to question BigDawg’s compass. In my view, it’s unacceptable to have Morsi speak at the CGI event. Sleep with dogs, wake up with fleas.
Actually, that question was rhetorical, but its not as easy to know that when reading it rather than hearing it. Here’s something related that I find interesting. Gibbs spinning away for Massa. Says it’s “odd” that Obama won’t meet with foreign leaders. Odd?! Here’s the vid:
Hey NES, thanks for responses. I think that it’s definitely obvious that Al Queda is for all practical purposes the Libyan Rebel group. Muslim Brotherhood IMO is the political wing.
Just wanted to clarify, but also still stunned that this isn’t being reported more. I’m completely aghast that the Commander In Chief of the Armed Forces has the gall to call the death of American citizens “bumps in the road”.
Dan, I wouldn’t go so far as to say the MBrotherhood is the “political wing” of AQ. The MBrotherhood has a long political history, certainly pre-dating AQ. There is a definite connection — AQ’s now #1, Ayman al-Zawahiri, came out of the Egyptian MBrotherhood, eg — but I think the two groups are more akin to current bedfellows. I don’t rule out the possibility that they may part ways in the future. At bottom, AQ is never going to be a dependable ally for a state ruler, who, at some level, is going to want stability and control over the use of force.
http://battlegroundwatch.com/2012/09/23/how-big-was-obamas-crowd-in-wisconsin/
Axelrod: “Get me Riefenstahl on the phone, ASAP!”
Hahahahaha.
Interestingly, I think Riefenstahl may be working for Romney now. I saw some photos of a surprisingly large pro-Romney crowd in OH.
MAYOR: That was a Shakespeare-In-The-Park production of “Julius Caesar”, you moron! You killed 5 actors! Good ones.
Lol, it’s “good ones” that makes it so funny.
LOL I know, that is my favorite part. I love that they were mocking original quote from Dirty Harry too.
The OJ murders ruined some of my enjoyment of the Naked Gun movies though
Interjection: I certainly hope that I’ve got the leeway here to post my opinion on a campaign without severe run off. I”m not “for” Romney is in the tradition sense – only in the “Obama is a seething disaster and though I’m unimpressed with MR’s campaign he’s certainly not a self involved jackwipe so why not give him a shot?” sense. (That there is what you call shitty writing.)
I’m getting a ‘if your not with us all the time your against us’ vibe from points beyond. I can’t imagine being that guy again – even for a Hillary campaign. Not sure I ever WAS that guy. It’s odd, I hold out hope for neither major party candidate – but do have more faith in Romney. He’d almost certainly be a more engaged POTUS – a very low bar at this point. But from what I’m witnessing I don’t see how he gets the job. I don’t feel it’s my task to cheer on either side. Readers here “get” that I won’t stop writing because I don’t have a “team” this time….right?
I totally get that, JWS. What I don’t get are some commenters coming here to wag their finger at you for your allegedly ‘lapsed’ liberalism. They should get a clue.
its 2008 all over again. The most unlikely people are resorting to dickishness and douchbaggery. Don’t sweat the small stuff.
EXACTLY, John. Do I wish I had some amalgamation of FDR+JFK+WJC+HRC+DDE with a soupcon of the wit of the Dowager Countess of Downton Abbey to vote for. Of COURSE I do. But that ain’t the case and my vote’s too important to vote for a 3rd party candidate. (That was a luxury I allowed myself when I was young, but I’m too old now and we’re in too much trouble not to make the hard choice) And, so I see getting Obama out of office as priority #1 and as the only hope of not having this country head for disaster. Doesn’t mean that Romney will be able to turn the tide; it may already be too late, but it’s a question of taking a chance on a last resort vs. knowing that the current occupant will lead to failure and ruin.
They sounded like a bunch of WATBs to me.
Nice thought John.
I’m not voting for Obama, I looked at him as a candidate and figured he’d be an empty suit and hoped I was wrong if he won. I wasn’t. I’m not voting for Romney, I looked at his platform and I decided that I don’t agree with the majority of it, so I’m not voting for him. If he wins and is successful, I will stand corrected.
I’m not under and obligation to vote for lesser of two evils, or campaign to anyone to change their minds and sway their vote in accordance to my own beliefs. That’s fine if people are doing that, that’s part of our electoral process. AnnaBelle in particular has made it pretty plain at this point that she is actively campaigning for Romney… that’s her right and I respect that. That’s one of the things that make this country great.
In my mind, all any of us are obligated to do is educate ourselves on the issues of the time and vote for the best candidate that we believe is suited for the task to not only represent our interests, but the interests of our country. Not simply pick from the two choices that are offered to us.
If you do that and arrive at Obama, that’s fine with me. If you do that and arrive at Romney, that’s fine too. If you do that, and arrive at Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or Rocky Anderson, that means we beginning to have viable third party options in the US.
Someone is going to win in November and someone is going to lose.
What I HOPE happens, regardless of that outcome, is that this blog continues to be a place where we can all meet and share our ideas, thoughts and theories and continue the ongoing conversation to the benefit and betterment of all involved.
Everyone should vote for whomever they’d like, of course. I continue to believe a vote for a 3rd party is a waste. That’s my opinion. What is not opinion, however, is that not one of the 3rd parties is currently viable – or even on the road to viability. That’s becoming even more the case over the years. 3rd party support right now is at it’s nadir (Nader?). Not one of the people even heading a 3rd party currently has the name recognition of a Perot or Nader or Anderson let alone a hope of getting a fraction of their votes.
That’s the fault of the majority of the American people who don’t have the brass to let go of the two corrupt parties – voters who are so conformist they don’t dare break out of their little boxes and vote third party. There are candidates who are at least as competent as Obama and Romney, but the big parties and their surrogates keep most Americans in their little boxes doing what they’re told to do.
The notion of a vote for third party being wasted is ridiculous but the two big parties market the lie and as far as most people are concerned that’s that. In the state I’ll vote in, Obama will win no matter how my husband and I vote. Most states are, similarly, not swing states. And in every state that’s not up for grabs a vote for Romney or Obama is a vote that makes the voter a spokesperson for the two big parties remaining in power. Enough votes for third party would provide a psychological boost to common belief that you can step outside the little boxes. Voting third party is the opposite of a waste, it’s the only vote on election day that’s an act of rebellion and genuine independent thinking.
And I’ll remind you that those who voted for Abraham Lincoln were voting third party.
” I continue to believe a vote for a 3rd party is a waste. ”
How much more time can we afford to waste on letting the incompetent, corrupt douchebags of the Dem & Gop wreck our economy, weaken our power internationally, destroy our environment, and bring us all to ruin?
RDMC, I think that by voting, you’re validating a candidate/party platform.
A few of the most common gripes I hear are “I’d rather vote for the devil I know than the devil I don’t”, “I’m suppose I’m going to have to vote for the lesser of two evils” and “These guys might not be perfect, but they’re not as bad as the other guys”.
In what other part of one’s life is that OK? If you’re vote is essentially buying into something why wouldn’t you buy into the best possible thing you could? When you go out to dinner you don’t think “well this restaurant sucks, but the other one over there is even worse so I guess we will just suck it up and eat here”…but for some reason, we’ve been conditioned to think that in politics it’s ok.
If every undecided vote was assumed to go Green Party, just for example, what the Democrats and Republicans ultimately would have to do is look at why that party was getting undecided votes and try to bring some of their platform goals into their own in order to woo those voters back into the fold. As long as both parties can write off the third/fourth/fifth parties as a waste of time, then we’re stuck in a continual feedback loop of the same bullshit every 2 or 4 years.
Right now, you’ve got a race between two men of negligibly different pedigrees trying to blow smoke up the collective asses of enough undecideds to tip the scales in their favor…and if thats the best we are ever going to be able to do then IMO it’s pretty abhorrent… we should either A) give up right now or B) revolt… because I just really can’t believe that our country was set up to have a choice between column A and column B and we should all just suck it up and be OK with that.
Again, that’s just my opinion.. I respect your right to vote for whoever you like… but the whole “3rd party is a garbage vote” meme really just flies in the face of the whole idea of the inherent value of each individual’s right to vote and if we value nothing else, we should value that.
Hearing “Voting for a third party candidate is a waste” can be as offensive as hearing others say “If you’re voting for Romney, you’re an ill-informed asshole”. Each of those statements is a bit condescending. We vote based on our informed opinions, and nobody has the right to tell anyone else that they are wrong in their choice.
WTF, people? We ALL have the right to vote for whom we wish. To be honest, run_dmc’s comment is a lot LESS offensive than some of the other crap I’ve seen hurled around here at those of us who won’t vote for Stein.
Dan, I get your restaurant analogy, but I also remember that the “meal” my vote will buy is not going to be eaten alone. It is going to be shared with many others that have different tastes. Its like choosing a wine – when I’m choosing a bottle for myself, I know what I like, right down to the brand and the year. When I’m entertaining or hosting an event, I will select something that is likable to most people, and not necessarily my personal favorite (which is why there’s always Chardonnay in the house).
And I say that because I think the issues that I see most people effected by are the economy and what’s happening to seniors because of Obamacare. None of the TP candidates are qualified (imo) to be able to actually do something about those two issues.
Just to keep it clear -for those who are capable of clarity- I do not say, nor do I believe, everybody should vote for Jill Stein. Or anyone else in particular. Each of us should vote for the candidate who best represents what we believe will be best for our nation. If you’re a Wall Street banker who’s making millions and wants to continue making millions in this corrupted capitalism, of course you must vote for Romney or Obama; you’d be a fool to vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or any other third party candidate.
What I’ve said is there is nothing for a genuine liberal to support in Romney’s history or plans for the future. What I’ve said is people who say our current system is corrupted and needs to change should not vote for Romney or Obama because that’s a vote for the continuation of our current corrupted system. I’ve said people who understood in 2008 the damage done to our economy by the corporate commercial banking system, or the damage heavy participation in war is doing to us and others, should not vote for Romney because he’s all in for not only continuing that system but for amping it up.
I will vote for the candidate who has demonstrated she will represent and lead our country the way I believe it should be led, the way that comports with the opinions I’ve written in my comments for years. If you’re doing that, then I respect your commitment to your beliefs even though we may disagree about what will make our country strong and prosperous. If, however, you’re voting for someone who has demonstrated they’ll lead us into more of the same, and you’ve been criticizing Obama and Bush and others who got us into this mess, I say you’re either uninformed, tricked into another bad movement, foolish or stupid, or so completely conformist you can’t help yourself. But then, really, stop bitching about the way things are if you’re unable to stop yourself from helping them be the way they are. Now, if you live in Florida, Colorado, North Carolina, a swing state, and believe Obama would be worse than Romney, again though we disagree I respect voting for what you believe is the lesser evil because those votes might well impact which way the election goes.
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it’s time to pause and reflect.” –Mark Twain
If you truly believe that, then there is no need to cast judgement upon others’ choices. It all comes down to personal opinion and “what we believe would be best for our nation”. In other words, we’re all entitled to our own opinion. You claim to believe Stein is the best choice – I don’t. I could spend a few paragraphs trying to cast aspersions on your character (as you do with others) and talk about why I think you’re wrong, but instead respect your right to formulate your own opinion, no matter how lame I think it might be.
Anthony, stop being such a putz. If you were one of those sweetzie people who go around smiling at everything and saying to everyone hey live and let live, that’d be one thing. But you’re not. You cast harsh judgment on people who voted for Obama and those who defend and support him now. This post of yours reeks of hypocrisy.
Now go back to your wake and bake.
Once again, Zal, your innate douchebaggery has trumped your ability to be as magnanimous as you try to pretend you are. If you want to discuss hypocrisy, I’m happy to point out your own.
On one hand, you say that we all “should vote for the candidate who best represents what would be best for our nation”, and then go on to slam anyone who doesn’t agree with your choice. Can you not see your own hypocrisy? Are you that narcissistic? (that was a rhetorical question – many of us can see that you are). When your own bullshit is pointed out, you resort to personal insults. And then you wonder why so many here call you ‘troll’….
I’ve made no secret that at this time, my choice for POTUS is Mitt Romney. What I don’t do is castigate anyone who doesn’t agree with me, as you are so predictably prone to do. Your claim that we should all vote for whom we believe in reeks of bullshit, Zal, because it seems you only believe that when someone is in agreement with your choices. The jig is up, your slip is showing, and it would be a good time for you to just take stock of your shortcomings and try to improve a seriously flawed character.
What I wrote says nothing of the kind. In fact I, twice, say I respect those who believe what will be best for our nation is different from what I believe. And the rest of my post supports that. What I slam are people who have said we need a change and yet vote for more of the same.
You can’t see what I wrote because it’s over your head, Anthony.
There you go again, Zal, with the personal attacks……
The only thing I believe that’s over your head is your nose. Your usually amusing sanctimony has now become sad. I don’t think you’ll ever ‘get it’, so I give up. Carry on.
“Now, look, this is how it’s going to be for a Republican in this stage of a general election campaign. The media is not going to help the Republican, broadly speaking. …”
I think this is only true for Obama. The same MSM had a love fest with George W until Katrina. The only Republican who has had to face this prior to Romney was McCain.
djmm
NES yes Romney’s rallies are huge …surprisingly big. Again polls make little sense as other indicators say just the opposite such as those large crowds and Romney winning Independents and now Middle Class voters . Read an interesting site on skewed polls and I am thinking the POLLS will become the biggest story when this election is over. Right now they seem to be coming from another planet. Also this is about money. If Obama was behind in polls it would be more difficult for him to raise money as people prefer donating to winning causes not losing ones and if you noticed since polls indicated Obama has pulled ahead in virtually every swing state, for first time in months he out raised Romney.
I am still sticking to my gut feeling on this. Romney is in great shape. One thing is for sure, this will be an extremely interesting outcome.
Yeah, keep mind mind that the polls were way off on the Scott Walker recall election in WI.
I agree with you, Sirr. I trust the boobs on the ground a lot more than the rigged polls.