Is the election really over? A.B. Stoddard seems to think so. As is usual in this cycle, I’m not so sure. Part of my reticence is cowardice – therefore I’ll brag now: In the past, election outcomes are always evident to me by this point. Even 2000. There simply was no way George W Bush would NOT be President. I wasn’t happy about it, but I knew it. In this cycle every time I feel close to gleaning the gestalt…my love affair with the gestalt gets rocky.
In early September I was 80% sure Obama had the thing won. In late October I’m 65% sure Romney will be sworn in next year. 80% is better than 65% but it’s late October. That matters. My hunch is that unless Romney commits the gaffe to end all gaffes on Monday night, he’ll win. Obama needs to conjure a reason for a 2nd term and sell it quickly. He seems to finally know this. Expect a hard sell starting Monday. I sense it’s too late however.
I saw what ought to be a succesful Obama ad tonight… a rare occurence in California. Morgan Freeman gives us a 30 second history lesson on the wonders of Obama’s first term. Then “more work to do” then “Forward”. Boilerplate, but solid. Yet, the ad is oddly flat. In so much as “Hope and Change” was effective in its enraging vagueness, “Forward” is just annoyingly vague. Obama’s listed “victories” in the ad have nothing to do with why he was really hired. Okay, he killed the bad guy. But all the implied promise of 2008 – the reason he won – is gone.
More than anything, Obama was hired to heal. He’s failed on that count on an epic scale. It’s the elephant in the room. Not even the soothing, lulling voice of Morgan Freeman makes one forget it. After the ad I wanted to write in Morgan Freeman’s voice for President. But vote for Obama? Not so much. Forward?….With him? Why? There just isn’t a reason to rehire the guy. He failed at his prime directive. For all the economic chaos, Obama’s true task was to rise above the anger and fear. He didn’t. He rarely tried. FDR understood his prime directive – to restore faith. That things were still bad in 1936 didn’t matter. People had faith in Roosevelt. Only blind partisans still have faith in Obama. On the other hand, Romney – almost by his engaged presence alone in the first debate – supplied myriad reasons to give him the job. In 90 minutes he became a president to those voters that matter. They – the herd of undecideds – always break for the challenger. Odd as this year is, that dynamic will probably hold.
Because of the verisimilitude of the electoral college and the potential for a real Romney gaffe I’ll remain a coward when it comes to calling this one. To my chagrin this means there will be no “Told ya so” post on election night.
I think it’s over. Obama’s finished. Not because of Benghazi, but because of the state of the economy and the (correct) perception that he’s lazy, disengaged, and couldn’t give a shite. The desire for cool has been overridden by the desire for some hope for security (false or otherwise).
Benghazi is simply the last straw — it symbolizes and crystallizes everything wrong with Obama…fantasy over reality on the ground, gross incompetence, lies and cover up to protect The One, criminally-dangerous PC, irresponsibility. Four people were hung out to dry, and they died.
He can’t overcome this.
very well said…
I am optimistic but still taking deep breaths…
Hope you’re right, NES.
Hey Senneth! I hope so too.
Obama has been losing the presidency for nearly four years. His inauguaration was his peak. The “stimulus” that was nothing but a waste of money was the beginning of the end, it was all downhill from there. Obamacare, “I won”, the endless bowing to foreign tinpots, the attention to stuff that was none of his business (“the police acted stupidly”) while ignoring the problems he was hired to fix, golf, golf and MORE golf, etc, etc. Barack Obama has basically spent the bulk of the last four years relentlessly killing any hope or confidence non-cultists had in him. He has proven his critics correct: he is not a genius, he is a lazy, feckless man of average (at best) intelligence who has gotten what he has gotten in life thru by people handing it to him. Chauncey Gardner or Gilligan as president woulda been an improvement, at least they are LIKABLE. Besides being somewhat thick, Barack Obama is also a jerk. If the country rehires this fool Nov 6, it REALLY needs a psychiatrist because it obviously has a death wish.
You couldn’t be more correct!
Oh my Buck, well said! Well said indeed!
Bull’s eye!
Lookee here: the LATimes is trying to confuse people and give the Admin./Obama a fig leaf. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020,0,95514.story
The whole thesis of the article is flimsy. The notion that al-Qaeda attacks can’t be “opportunistic” or carried out by (al-Qaeda-infiltrated, if not operated) “Libyan militias” is wrong. As we know, AQ doesn’t march under a banner or a uniform, it doesn’t have a particular national identity, it recruits among locals, and it often operates opportunistically, exploiting loopholes in security wherever it can find them in the enemy’s ranks. The perpetrators of the Benghazi attack were undoubtedly AQ-affiliated: it’s long been known that the primary rebel group in Benghazi is run by AQ members who returned home from the AfPak region after Qaddafi was toppled. I recall reading about this phenomenon back in March or April of 2011. It is also known that AQ’s new no. 1 (Ayman al-Zawahiri) recently called on the Libyan militias to avenge the drone-killing of a high-ranking Libyan-national officer of AQ in Northern Pak.; this attack followed in the wake of that call to arms. Moreover, the date/time of the attack couldn’t have been coincidental. The attack squads didn’t just happen to show up at the Consulate on the very day that Chris Stevens was visiting from Tripoli (the embassy is there) or very shortly after he returned to the Consulate’s compound following a meeting with a third party. How did the perps know of Stevens’ movements and plans? Seems pretty obvious: AQ had informants in the Libyan security force ‘guarding’ the facility. Who’s the security force comprised of? Members of a brigade with known ties to Islamist radicals. (The brigade and its top officer are mentioned in the article.)
The fact that so-called “witnesses” and security forces in Benghazi are now spinning all sorts of stories to the contrary is not surprising: they’re trying to stay off Obama’s kill-list (which is, no doubt, currently being finalized).
At bottom, the scandal is not that Obama initially tried to pin the attack on a mob reacting to a video; it is that the “normalization of Libya” foreign policy is utterly misplaced. Stevens and the other three were marked for death — sitting ducks — and the gross, reckless negligence of the Obama Admin. is to blame. It is truly infuriating.
Here’s a live link to the LA Times article I reference above.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-attack-20121020,0,95514.story
so they are going to go back to the original reason now? i love all the anonymous people speaking in this piece. they prove so much with all their heresay, not. so i am suspecting that this lie is how they are going to defend libya in tomorrow night’s debate. saying it really was a video or some dumb idea. like we would ever fall for the original reason being the real reason in the end. that is just plain stupid and if ob comes on with this excuse tomorrow night i will be so upset. this is all such a lie. when you learn new facts about something, you never go back to the original theory, it usually is some new reason instead. this article is a bunch of bolognie and if he comes on tomorrow night saying they were right from the beginning, i say it is a bunch of malarchy (
). and he and his team are a bunch of liars. they just refuse to accept that al queda still exists even if osama is dead. they really want the freedom spring to be this whole false narrative that lead to democracy and they refuse to believe that there are just still some extremists who want to kill americans no matter what and they plan to do it…. i am tired of the ob administrations lies and their outreach to bad guys in the middle east. it is sickening.
Those two LAT reporters are ‘outsourced’ — they aren’t Americans.
So, we have the CIA saying the story didn’t come from, them, State says it didn’t come from them — what “intelligence sources” are left as the origin of the story?
I wonder if Tamer will write one of his impeccably researched and searingly unvarnished blog pieces exposing the Benghazi clusterfark…. Hint, hint.
I’ve been collecting material for a timeline of sorts. I heard the House Gops were compiling a timeline for a Monday a.m. release.
I have a new horse in training, and stuff to do before it rains on Monday. Maybe something later next week.
That’ll be great. Thanks in advance.
The “normalization of Libya” is a foreign policy decision. It comes out of the White House, not Foggy Bottom. Just thought I’d say that before people start wondering if they have to start off-loading on Hillary; they don’t. I’m willing to bet my bottom-dollar that Hillary has documentary evidence of requesting more security for the Benghazi Consulate before 9/11/12, and having that request declined by the White House.
If the White House thinks that they can fake it till they make it or if loosing an election will end the investigation into the exact chain of events leading to the murder of four embassy employees they are crazy. Republicans smell blood. The arrogance and nastiness of this administration, not to mention the incompetence, will be spread out in detail for all to see. “I won” is going to be made “You’re humiliated” in short order. The shallowness, child like theories, and cultural ignorance coupled with unseemly arrogance emanating from the “I slept at a Holiday Inn last night” Middle East advisers attached to Obama’s elbow is at the root of the collapsing foreign policy nightmare. Just because someone taught at Harvard or lived in Iran until you were ten four decades ago does not make a middle east expert in the same way teaching night school at UCLS does not make a constitutional expert. I accidentally fixed a toilet once so can I call myself a plumber?
boutis, great points..remember the old “be careful who you insult on the way up, because you will meet them again on the way down.”
NES, read the LA times piece.. all I could smell was b.s., it was emanating through my laptop.
Glad to hear that, Connor. I’m hoping most people have the same reaction if and when they read it.
What’s also amazing is that it’s built on a false premise, ie, that if it wasn’t AQ, then the Admin.’s reaction was justified. But, that doesn’t follow: a terrorist act is not any less so because it’s supposedly carried out by a Libyan militia instead of AQ.
yeah, i smelled the b.s. too. and i think this is the story the one is going to try to sell tomorrow night hard so it will look like they were right all along and that he was still trying to get all the info and that he isn’t incompetent. but it is a pile of b.s. a lot of anonymous sources that go against the info that had been stated, journaled and video taped up until now. this story of going back to the original narrative doesn’t make any sense. they had to have planned this to make this work and just because osama is dead doesn’t mean al queda is dead. but the ob administration really believes al queda and terrorism is dead and so they make excuses and spin everything so that it doesn’t exist anymore. it is all a lie. and the more they try to cover it up, the more it stinks. it really can turn into a watergate if they continue to make the lie worse than they needed to make it. they could have told the truth from the beginning and this would not be an issue anymore. but they are making it worse and piling it on so that in the end this will be a true new watergate and hillary will have the evidence that this is all a lie because i believe she does journal everything. she is thorough especially when it comes to backing everything up with evidence.
Hi friends, how is all, and what you desire to say concerning this paragraph, in my view its truly awesome in favor of me.
domo eregato, Mr. Spamato.
I love this comment to distraction. I’ve repeated it out loud to my dog a number of times today. I want it to find new life as a song lyric in the next TreyParker/MattStone musical.
I am pulling for Mitt but do not think we need another round of one party rule…even though many of us feel it is already one party…but in fact, do not want to see either party officially running the whole show again…
the O camp is really just sinking lower with the infantile nonsense that they and the media are expressing…not only do they insult intelligent, thinking, worried, concerned and informed people with this shallow silliness…big bird, binders, the latest, ‘romnesia’ etc…but O looks very unpresidential on the camp trail..it looks like a frat party mentality gone amuck….to think this guy is currently ‘the most powerful person in the free world’ is shocking…
I’m not for one party rule either, S-Angel. I’m pulling for the Senate to stay Dem., and I think it will (by a hair).
I voted yesterday: Romney; Diane Feinstein for Senate.
yes, No Empty Suits, I am with you on that…would like the Senate to stay Dem…maybe that can be the beginning of rebuilding the Dems, post O’s rule and debacle…
What ‘Angeltour’ said:
And re ‘romnesia’ – being offensive not only to Romney! – can you imagine the outcry if the republicans came up with a term like, say … ‘obamalzheimer’ !
“Infantile nonsense” doesn’t even begin to characterize what’s coming from that crowd.
Up until debate #1, I was convinced (and said so here) that Obama was a shoo-in. Debate #1, however, was truly an “emperor has no clothes” moment. That, along with the Libya debacle, has changed everything it seems. It now feels like people have accepted that Obama might lose- might deserve to lose-, and that his defeat would be an acceptable outcome.
Just last month, Obama was reported to be cruising here in NC. Now it appears that he will be crushed by Romney. The O campaign is doing little advertising except in the urban areas down east and on black media. The few OFA rallies in Asheville at the start of early voting this week were sparsely attended and largely devoid of enthusiasm.
But still, I’m hesitant to bet against the guy who always gets a break when he needs one.
Also wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Obama “gets” the bad guys who killed Ambassador Stevens just in time for election day.
I think so too, but unfortunately because Obama denied the request for increased security before Stevens et al were massacred, it would make it a moot point. Of course, he’ll call it “leading from behind”
Things in general, seem upside down, the R’s seem more youthful with the addition of Ryan. They also finally seem to have a few newer ideas..The D’s seem to be trying to hold on at all costs, are exhausted, bereft of Any ideas, and corrupt. Even if I were a single issue voter, I wouldn’t trust the D”s to give a damn, unless they could capitalize on my single issue, whatever that may be. I never thought O was a shoo in, I haven’t thought that since the midterms.
Is there a record for the most ‘seem’ words in a sentence? I think I just broke it.
IMO, there is no potential for a real Romney gaffe. The man has proven he’s competent and that all the Romney “gaffes” were MSM driven memes made up of half-truths & outright lies — Romney proved that at the first debate, and Obama’s ‘answers’ to that — Big Bird & Binders — shows Obama & his true believers have nothing else. But more than seeing the real Romney at the first debate, America saw the real Obama (and despite conventional wisdom they saw the same of the two men at the 2nd debate, hence Romney still going up in the polls). They’ve seen the man behind the curtain & know “The One” is myth. Obama can only be seen as “doing well” — even among his minions like Andrew Sullivan — when the MSM is there to give him an assist. Otherwise, he’s petulant, detached, & doesn’t take his job seriously, repeating memorized platitudes & word salads. There’s no going back for Obama. Romney made his plan & executed it despite all the hysteria over the summer & he’s peaking at the right time (just like he planned). Even at the Al Smith dinner — Romney looked like a winner. Obama didn’t. The only thing that saves Obama now is massive voting fraud.
“The only thing that saves Obama now is massive voting fraud.”
This is what my daughter is afraid of. And why I will probably vote for Romney no matter what the VA polls say on election day.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/19/documents-show-stevens-worried-about-libya-security-threats-al-qaeda-before/
Not to sully the reputation of a fine, upstanding gentleman like Issa, but the information is one-sided. There are quotes from several cables coming from Libya. Where are the response cables? There is no information about what went TO them from State. Did State say Tough–go with the army you have? Did they say, Then call the whole thing off?
I am weary of reading article after article with so little usable information. And it doesn’t help when all of the articles are partisan (either way).
My theory is that the CIA is at fault for every thing that went wrong and they probably classified the all of the information that would give the real picture.
“My theory is that the CIA is at fault for every thing that went wrong and they probably classified the all of the information that would give the real picture.”
Respectfully, Sophie, that’s a little too convenient, isn’t it? So, are you saying the truth will never be known because of some alleged black-hole of CIA information, and any criticism of the Admin. is partisan hackery? I trust not. What happened in Benghazi is serious — serious as a heart attack, and the O administration has treated it as anything but. Yes, Issa is not a great choice for investigator — I wish it could be someone with a more bipartisan reputation — but these hearings need to take place and the American people deserve to know whether geopolitical-PC-gone-crazy was to blame for the murder of four American diplomats. That seems to be the case, IMO. “Normalization of Libya” is a stupid and predictably lethal foreign policy, and needs to be publicly aired and examined. Issa has his information from whistleblowers — knowledgeable people who grew disgusted with the cover up and misinformation they saw in the wake of the incident. He has asked for materials from the State Dept. and the WH, but hasn’t received them yet. (I understand Hillary has said she’ll fully cooperate with the committee, and I think she will; I doubt O will let her produce materials before the election.) If there’re documents that show the Administration being responsive and on-the-ball with respect to the pleas for more security forces from our people in Benghazi, you can be quite sure they’ll surface soon. In the interim, all questions and requests for more information are entirely legitimate — frankly, there should be more of that.
If you object to Fox’s prurient interest in the story, here’s ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=17520543
So, are you saying the truth will never be known because of some alleged black-hole of CIA information, and any criticism of the Admin. is partisan hackery?
The CIA part is my theory and at this point, it’s as good as anyone else’s theory, and that’s all anyone else has–a theory.
I said the article you linked to was one-sided, not partisan. Where are the replies to the cables? Did the guys in Libya just send cable after cable never getting a response? I don’t think so and I don’t think anyone can make anything out of half of a conversation. That was the main question of my comment, which sadly went ignored.
I said I was weary of reading partisan articles and I said “either way” which means partisan from both the people making excuses for the administration and the people looking to stick it to the administration. Neither are helpful.
The ABC News article has a link embedded that seems to have the back and forth original cables.
Are these all the cables?
http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/DEI-to-BHO-10-19-2012-attachments.pdf
imust, if you mean this link as the ABC News link:
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/t/blogEntry?id=17520543
The documents link is now broken.
I don’t know if the PDF has the back and forth conversation. It appears to be a random collection of items. I don’t even know if the cables discussed in the Fox link are in there. It is not in order and not searchable. Nor can you play the videos. I suppose I could print it out and reorganize the 121 pages into a story… Or I could bake a pie. Your choice.
I posted the documents link and that appears to be working. But you are right, it is a lot to go through. It would be nice if there was just one truly impartial news organization we could trust to go through the docs and summarize. I’d be willing to throw in a pie too. Or throw a pie at the appropriate people.
Imust, I’m not clear on which documents link you’re talking about. If you mean the PDF, that worked for me, as you can probably tell by my comment on it. However, the ABC documents link, the one you referenced when you wrote:
The ABC News article has a link embedded that seems to have the back and forth original cables.
Is broken on the ABC link that NES posted.
If that’s not what you meant, then what other link did you post?
I posted a PDF link that was embedded in the original ABC link that NES posted. The PDF link has the original documents. That’s all. Sorry for the confusion. The ABC link is weird. It appears to not work but then does after a couple of seconds. Anyway, the point was the actual docs rather than the spin of the news agencies.
Those small donations from Gaza must be getting tight.
http://freebeacon.com/obama-campaign-borrows-15m-from-bank-of-america/
OFA had to borrow $15 from BOA.
Serious question
Why does Obama need to raise a dime? He can call a press conference anytime he wants. If he wasn’t trying to cover up what really happened in Libya he could have addressed the nation and looked very Presidential doing it. He can go on almost any tv show (look for him on Glee next week) and get handed softball after softball.
Hah! Indeed!
Ground operations — to pay for campaign offices & sundry expenses.
MoveOn is feverishly trying to recruit volunteers to staff obama offices in swing states, by calling progs, union members, et al. These calls are yielding c. 3% commitment. It’s a bit late in the day for all that.
I know what the money is supposed to be going to by a sitting POTUS doing a good job shouldn’t even have to lift a finger. You know kinda how Obama has handled being POTUS. Seems he works harder to get elected that at the job once he “wins”.
Hey John, you could take my stance if you want. I think Romney will win, and have thought so for a long time. I’ve also openly admit to having been wrong about every election since Clinton. Both things are true, so on Nov. 7th I get an ‘I told you so’ no matter what!
yea… I could. I said I was afraid to..the whole truth is that I really, truly, deeply have no friggin idea who’ll win.
I have said for a while that I am voting for Romney, as is my partner – finally! (Who voted for Obama in 2008). I also believe he will win. But would not bet my life (or my dogs whom I hold dearer) on it. Anything can happen, but I do not believe this country will vote to continue the nightmare of Obama again. I know they are looking for a new way.
But, and it’s a big but – when Romney wins, all of us who voted for him need (no must) hold him to account with ferocity. He will get no quarter and no defense from me if he screws up. I won’t hold him perfect, but if he doesn’t end up being the super competent manager he needs to be, then I too will be looking for a new CEO in 2016.
While I’m not voting for Romney, I hope he’ll win just to get zero out of the WH. Good point about holding Romney accountable once he’s in office.
Senneth – sorry – if you are not voting for Romney and Obama wins, I’ll hold you accountable for Obama’s next 4 years. It’s not just the presidents who get held to account in my book. It’s also the people who make bad voting choices.
Fair enough Run. I live in a blue state and just can’t vote for Willard. So I’m voting for Stein. It’s pretty foregone conclusion the zeroman wins my state. His brother-in-law is one of the coaches at the university where I live, and Meeeechelle and her mother have been known to swan around town.
If Romney wins, the Washington and Wall Street we get the next four years will be thanks to you and the others who support and make excuses for this train wreck.
You’ll claim ignorance but it’ll be another lie. We’ve already seen Tim Pawlenty quit as co-chair of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to become one of Wall Street’s top lobbyists in Washington. As with Obama, there are plenty of clues for how this is going to go if Romney wins.
I am not contributing to this fiasco, I am not joining my voice or my vote to Romney any more than I did or will to Obama.
You are part of the problem. We who choose to vote third party may not see our candidate win but we are not contributing to anybody else’s win, that’s the point; we’re contributing our vote to an effort to have neither Romney nor Obama win.
ROFL!!! “to and effort to have neither Romney nor Obama win.” Haha! Sure! And after that we can do away with Wall Street altogether!!! Hillary Clinton had a great response for that kind of hopey/changey talk:
Voting 3rd party will not change anything. Working to rid the parties of their wacko fringe extremes just might make a difference.
I’d vote for Romney if I lived in a swing state. I’m voting for Stein in CA. Voting for a 3P in a solid blue or red state DOES NOT help obama. Voting for the obamney twins in a non-swing state, however, does help perpetuate the oppression of the Uni-Party.
“rid the parties of their wacko fringe extremes”
I don’t know how you propose to accomplish that, but it won’t make a bit of difference: the Dem & Gop Parties are corrupt through-and-through; every one of their candidates has to sell their soul to the plutocracy to make it; neither party adheres to their promises.
We must first acknowledge that our current political system actively recruits for office persons who are unethical and anti-social, egomaniacs, narcissists and often sociopaths. We need to start electing ordinary people.
Zal says that if Romney wins, we’ll get some kind of worse Wall St (although undefined) than the last 4 years where the Treasury dept. was run by a Goldman Sachs lapdog with a Chief of Staff who was a GS lobbyist and a CFTC run by a former GS partner, with Larry – hey, let’s work to overturn Glass-Steagall, cause that’s passe now – Summers as the lead WH economic advisor, and on and on and on . . . Umm. No word from him on what we’ll get if Obama wins from Wall St. even though all of the above was under Obama’s watch. And you all think he’s NOT an Obama supporter??? Evidentiary proof #8,672 that he is.
If Obama wins, he will inherit his own mess, there’s poetic justice in that.
But we live in that mess. Not just.
Connor if he wins it will still be Bush’s mess and it still will be in 16 when he runs again since it would be racist for him not to be able to run again.
“I am not contributing to this fiasco…”
It seems rather self centered to pretend somebody can capture the moral high ground by refusing to take a stand. As if the most important thing is to be able to avoid taking any personal responsibility for the government we have.
It doesn’t matter who people vote for or whether they vote at all, we all contribute to this “fiasco,” whether we like it or not. That’s the responsibility you bear living in a free country with the right to vote. It’s a small price to pay for being able to choose our leaders. People have fought and died, faced fire hoses and force feedings, to ensure that everybody has the right to participate. It strikes me as incredibly cowardly to sit back and revel in the alleged moral superiority of being able to claim you didn’t endorse any of the future problems the country may experience, because you’re just that awesome. The government is not perfect enough, the candidates are not magnificent enough, our problems are not solvable quickly enough, so as to not tarnish my almighty perfection, I’m not going to participate.
In the end all you gain is this false idea that none of the issues in this country are your problem, since it’s always going to be the other guy who caused them.
Good point. Sounds a lot like President Obama, the Voting Present King.
What do you mean not participating?
I’ll vote. I always vote. In addition, I’ve contributed both time and money to a candidate, as well I observe, I learn, I inform myself and passing along information.
How is that not participating?
“…we are not contributing to anybody else’s win, that’s the point; we’re contributing our vote to an effort to have neither Romney nor Obama win.”
You’re contributing alright, even by refusing to contribute. You know perfectly well that a third party candidate is not going to win, partially because of how the election rules have been written. Rather than infiltrating one of the two parties and changing the rules, people like you go right on voting third party as if you’re making some sort of noble statement that allows you to avoid ever taking responsibility for the state of our government.
The other reason no third party can ever win is because this is a democracy and the candidates have to appeal to the majority. Third parties always nominate somebody with a narrow focus on specific issues, who is too extreme in one direction or another. Ron
Paul for example, is good because he makes people think, but most of us would never
want Dr No leading the country.
” Rather than infiltrating one of the two parties and changing the rules,”
Lay out for us how that’d work, would ya?
” Third parties always nominate somebody with a narrow focus on specific issues”
Jill Stein’s New Green Deal is a broad, comprehensive plan to resolve all of our nation’s pressing problems. It’s the kind of plan the Democrats used to put forth.
P.S. Uncloak from ‘anonymous’. You’re nothing but a Romney concern troll.
Ok I have a question about Jill Stein – what makes voting for her any different than voting for the completely under-qualified Obama in 2008?
This is her political office resume (from her site): “She has twice been elected to town meeting in Lexington, Massachusetts. She is the founder and past co-chair of a local recycling committee appointed by the Lexington Board of Selectmen.”
What makes her more qualified than a community organizer/part time state legislator/one- year Senator running for president? Rocky Anderson, a former mayor also leaves me scratching my head how anyone would think he’s ready to lead this country out of our current economic crisis. Gary Johnson as a former governor appears to have leadership experience.
Yes, I understand a third party is a “protest” vote against the R and D. I also believe we need a viable third party to break up the money-party masquerading as R and D that we have now. But if you are voting Jill Stein I don’t see how you can put forward that Obama wasn’t qualified to be president. Even his crummy qualifications have it all over Jill Stein. And look at what a disaster he turned out to be.
So Anonymous, your position is that if you know your candidate cannot win, you are shirking your responsibility as a citizen by voting for them anyway? Following your logic, anyone living in a blue state who plans to vote for Romney is a coward, reveling in their alleged moral superiority. Likewise for anyone who lives in a red state and plans on voting for Obama.
Ok I have a question about Jill Stein – what makes voting for her any different than voting for the completely under-qualified Obama in 2008?
Ann, it’s not about who’s qualified anymore. It’s about not barfing in the voting booth. By the way, George W. Bush was more “qualified” than Obama.
obama wasn’t a disaster because he was inexperienced, rather because he is a Chicago mafioso.
To do something about the corruption in politics, we will need to start electing ordinary people to offices they’ve never held before. Under Ann’s formula, our only options will ever be Dems or Gops, who rig the system so only their candidates get experience.
Further, what makes Jill Stein’s or Anderson’s ‘inexperience’ any worse than Arnold’s, Meg Whitman’s, Perot’s, Trump’s, Bloomfield’s?
Anonymous and Imust – completely agree with your comments. And, Tamer – how does Anonymous just using Anonymous make him a Romney troll when Zal has been a completely obvious Obama troll for months upon months here and everyone defends him in the face of laughably non-neutral rantings from him?
Ann, it’s not about who’s qualified anymore. It’s about not barfing in the voting booth. By the way, George W. Bush was more “qualified” than Obama.
I sure didn’t vote for W either, SophieCT . That would definitely have induced vomiting in the voting booth.
Under Ann’s formula, our only options will ever be Dems or Gops, who rig the system so only their candidates get experience.
Tamerlane there are/have been independent governors, congress critters, state level representatives, etc. There are non Rs and Ds who have been elected to higher political offices, Jill Stein isn’t one of them, however.
This election is not about ideals, those left the room in 2008. Rather this year is all about pragmatism. More people should ask themselves “who would I hire to clean out my garage?”, because it seems at some level, our country’s garage needs a massive clean up.
Problem is, to fix the problem, we’re being offered a choice between the two parties that conspired to create the problem.
The two parties are an ever evolving group made up of we the people. For example, prior to 2008 the Dem party used to have some ideals, before it was hijacked by Obots who seem to believe that best way to get things done is to promote divisiveness. The R party was once the party of civil rights and actually promoted the Equal Rights Amendment for women in their platform. At one point, the D’s were actually wearing pointed hoods and holding Klanbakes.
Tamer – yes. That is the choice we are being offered. And, life isn’t fair. And, everyone can’t have candy. Ok. Still need to man and woman up and make the tough, hard choice we might not want to make. I would love to leave my job and go run a surfing shack in St. John. Can’t do it. And, I can’t have the perfect candidate or party that I want. So, I’ll deal with life as it’s handed to me. And, as it’s handed to me, there’s no question who is massively better b/n the 2.
I prefer Charlotte Amelie to anywhere on St. John’s. Too many damned goats.
I’ve been very clear that, this year, Romney is less bad than more obama, who I view as a n extremely dangerous tyrant. But in the long run, we need to break free of the Dem/Gop stranglehold, or our nation will die.
It’s not tough or hard going along with the crowd, that’s the easy way.
But easy or tough isn’t the point any more than nice or good is. The choice we have to make is right or wrong. And both Obama and Romney are wrong. They’re wrong for our economy, our energy policy, our environment, our foreign policy, war, education, you name it. We are not just headed in the wrong direction any more, we’re in a very bad situation and the way out is not to stay in it. It’s that simple.
Who’s going along with the crowd, Zal??! You’ve pretty conveniently self-defined what the crowd is to make yourself some kind of maverick. But, the fact is that the vast majority of people on this site are voting – oh so bravely – 3rd party. The ones who are the outliers are the ones voting for Romney. So – we are the one’s bucking the conventional wisdom here. Except for the people who are voting for Obama, but just won’t admit it – sound familiar??
Those voting Democratic or Republican.
Yeah – this from someone who declared that Obama “won” last week’s debate. Talk about a sychopant.
“Those voting Democratic or Republican.”
Who’s voting for the Democratic candidate? Just curious.
There are 6 candidates for president on the California ballot. I plan to vote for Jill Stein because she is not solely concerned with Green issues but holds opinions consistent with traditional liberal values on the other issues. She is my idea of what someone with a D after her name should stand for. I cannot and will not vote for a so-called Democratic president who has a kill list. I won’t vote for Romney because he holds values antithetical to my own, among them that wealth=virtue. Those of you saying we must vote for Romney or Obama for pragmatic reasons are missing the point of what democracy means and what voting is about. If we voters resort to pragmatics, then why shouldn’t our leaders do the same? Why not just kill enemies and why bother holding messy elections at all — why not just take the presidency via the most expedient means available, as dictators do? If we become solely pragmatic why shouldn’t our leaders be too?
Leadership requires a certain amount of pragmatism. You can’t be a leader of the entire country without the ability to compromise and consider the opinions of those who disagree with you. If you try to stick to a rigid ideology of I’m right and everybody else is racist, you wind up with the clusterfu$k that is the Obama administration.
“wealth=virtue”
LOL, as a poor person I can tell you, there is nothing virtuous or noble about poverty. It pretty much just sucks. But that is exactly the ideology that has been presented lately, that poverty is noble, virtuous, and that wealth is evil, greedy. The problem with this idea is that it simply creates more poor people. For evidence look at how Obama has increased the gap between the rich and the poor, actually caused the poor and working class to have declining incomes, higher unemployment, higher costs for goods and services, more misery.
It’s time to cut the crap. There is nothing virtuous and noble about poverty and wealth is not a great evil that we must all avoid.
Well-stated, Sally!
I could quote the New Testament on wealth but instead I will say that the problem with wealth is that one usually must teat others badly to acquire it. When acquiring wealth is made a higher value than other values it becomes an evil. I never said being poor was a virtue. I doubt many people pursue poverty for its own sake other than religious orders. However eschewing wealth to create art or serve others reflect values that are more important than acquiring money. Being filthy rich while others are suffering is indefensible.
“I doubt many people pursue poverty for its own sake…”
They have to when their ability to provide for themselves is taken away. We trap people in poverty in this country. Why work or even bother to try when you can’t afford to pay for your own medical insurance, housing, groceries? What if you have a chronic illness and working will end your qualification for medicaid? At that point you are forced to pursue poverty for it’s own sake, indeed, for your very survival.
“Being filthy rich while others are suffering is indefensible.”
That depends. Is the suffering due to alcoholism or other assorted forms of personal misery? Is no one ever allowed to be wealthy (or happy) because some people are suffering? Do we really make people’s lives better by taking away another’s right to wealth? I just watched the government spend 16 trillion dollars and I have not seen one single poor person’s life improve. If anything the poor are now suffering more than ever.
This President has made popular the idea that the rich create poverty and misery. If you ain’t got, it’s because somebody else is hogging it all. There’s another ideal, and that’s the belief that there is more than enough to go around and that everybody deserves the opportunity to pursue it. Wealth, rather then creating poverty, actually creates more wealth.
You might be able to *quote* the New Testament on wealth, but what you’ve written shows you would not understand it. The passage from Matthew 19:24:
has so long been isolated & misinterpreted as a knock *against* wealth that it has reached urban legend proportion among the secular. The rest of the teaching (Mathew 19:25-26) is
The teaching is NOT as you suggest that being wealthy automatically means you are not Godly; the teaching is a warning to not to think of wealth as the chief good in your life & to remember that the most important thing is God.
Furthermore, your judgment that the *mere fact* that Romney is wealthy automatically means that he thinks wealth is a VIRTUE (instead of say, a reward for hard work), especially given his well known charity — not only monetarily but with his time — shows a lot more about you than his wealth does about him.
One has to ask: WTF is up with this rumor of US-Iran direct talks circulated by the NYTimes and denied by both the Admin. and Iran. Is Obama so desperate for some illusion of a foreign policy accomplishment on the eve of the trial? Or, is he so desperate for a distraction from the Benghazi clusterfark? I guess we’ll find out at the debate.
My initial reaction: it looks terrible. Anyone have a different view?
Erratum: “…the eve of the debate…”
(Freudian slip.)
a trial balloon, perhaps?
Yep, Tamer, that’s a possibility. I wonder if it’s worth the ‘leaking’ charge that followed (from Rob Portman) — the Admon already has a bad reputation on the leaking front.
NES..When I read that Valjar was one of the envoys, I knew it was a joke. She probably found a great spa in Bahrain, and needed some cover for the free transportation and her entourage..
At bottom she’s likely the most corrupt of the bunch, and also wields the most power.
Sophie, she grew up in Shiraz, Iran, and supposedly has family friends in high places there.
Sometiimes it is the little things that start to add up..to somethhing…
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OHIO_ELECTIONS_RESIGNATION?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-10-20-13-02-28
I hope all the horses in Ohio still have their heads..
Please explain how this could happen: http://nation.foxnews.com/us-drone-over-benghazi-attack/2012/10/21/us-drone-watched-libya-attack-unfold-washington-did-nothing
Well, I hate to sound too cynical, but you know how everything is surveilled now? They frequntly only review the tape when something happens (eg, a burglary, etc.). Maybe no one was manning the unmanned drone info until it was too late. Crap sucks.
Yeah, I did think of that, except DC knew the attack was underway because they got calls from the consulate and could monitor the vid cams on the perimeter. I don’t think most people know (YET) that the attack on the consulate (where the Ambass. and Sean Smith died) and on the nearby Annex (where 2 ex-SEALS died) took a little over 7 hours! That’s a lot of time for nothing to happen. It’s appalling, truly. It’s also why whistleblowers are filling Issa’s ears — people at State obviously feel their guys were made sitting ducks and then abandoned when they could’ve been saved. I always wondered why Obama did his (nott) cutesy ‘video dance’ — it was to cover up the virtual lack of security in the face of a known threat and the lack of a rescue effort, and not to cover up a AQ-affiliated attack on 9/11. In this case, the ‘crime’ is worse than the cover up.
Those are all good points and, sadly, quite plausible. The presence of whistleblowers is heartening, however, despite the tragedy of their necessity.
woops, missing an “e”
The issue we face today isn’t whether or not wealth is virtuous, it’s whether or not greed is virtuous.
Wealth is not used, today, to widen prosperity or invent new tools to address our pressing needs, or to create or even maintain our infrastructure, it’s used to indulge greed and frivolity and narcissism, and mendacity. We are living in a time wherein the worst tales of what wealth and power can do to men is the new normal. Today –as exemplified by Mitt Romney– wealth is dividing and separating, dismantling rather than building, squeezing the life out of our natural resources and turning them toxic; those with wealth ought to be using it to nourish our assets back to robust growth. But they’re not. If today’s super rich were using their wealth in ways that make a better, healthier, more prosperous society, that’s what we’d have.
The problem with Mitt Romney and his cronies is not that they’re rich, it’s that they’re greedy and ungenerous, and that shrivels a society rather than expanding it. And don’t cite tithing to LDS as generosity because it’s not, it’s a requirement to belong to a cult. The Romneys and their ilk don’t make anything, they merely acquire and hoard and pull the ladder up. This is exactly the opposite of what will get us out of this mess.
Blah, blah, blah. And – we finally have come to the nub of it. Not only are you an Obama full-on supporter (oh, yeah – Romney is the only rich person running in the election right now; Obama is a poor black homeless man, and I’m sure Stein is a pauper too) but a complete Mormon hater too. Mormonism is now a cult, unlike than any other religious sect? Wow – you are a real tool, aren’t you?
You miss the point.
Wealth isn’t the issue. Greed is.
And, no, Jill Stein cannot fairly be characterized as a greed monger.
You’re not even comprehending your own point. You didn’t explain anything in that long-winded, mostly unintelligble (per usual) rant that explains how Romney is greedy – you just talked about his wealth as if that is synonymous with greed. How much of her wealth does Stein give away every year? How much does Obama? How much do you? How much of their – or your – own time do you give to others for free? I’d like to see that up against Romney any day.
Much more disturbingly (although not suprisingly) you fail to address why you went off on a Mormon-hating rant at the end of this latest missive of yours. I’ve been wondering what was at the bottom of your Romney hatred/Obama support and now I understand – hatred of a religion. How so like I’ve pictured you.
My line, “And don’t cite tithing to LDS as generosity because it’s not, it’s a requirement to belong to a cult” was a response to angienc’s line, above:
I discount tithing as generosity because it’s compulsory.
As for LDS, the Romneys are free to practice any religion or cult they want, as are the Ryans and the Obamas. And as a voter I’m free to draw conclusions about the kinds of decisions a candidate will make as an elected official based on his previous choices and associations. I did that with Bush and with Obama and I do it with Romney and Stein.
Name one time you’ve referred to ANY other candidate’s chosen religion as a cult. I’m an atheist, but I don’t pick and choose whose religion I will malign. You are just a plain ole bigot, through and through.
That’s because you’re so good.
Maybe one day my lord and master, Satan, will answer my deepest desire and I’ll be as fair minded and nonjudgemental as you.
Zal – I understand you’re a weirdo; you don’t have to prove it to me. Just answer the question: Name one time you’ve referred to ANY other candidate’s chosen religion as a cult.
Wow — a vicious attack on the LDS church here. Finally, the allegedly “neutral” zal shows his allegiance to the Messiah. Given the vicious nature of the attack, one can smell the sweet smell of desperation.
My goodness – how much history have you read? Perhaps you should read about the great robber barons not only how they acquired their wealth or how they spent their monies while others lived in great misery. What about European royalty?
Since you have brag about your own wealth how much do you give to charity or are you like the Bidens hoarding their monies giving about several hundred dollars yearly in donations. Tell us how the Obamas acquired $10 million being only activists for us poor slobs.
As much as I disliked Mouse comments, she was honest in her loyalty and feelings to the great savior, Obama. She ranted against you because she recognized phoniness.
Clutch the pearls! Alert the brigade!! A liberal has called Mormons a cult!!!
Neutral? I’m not neutral. Switzerland is neutral. I support voting third party. Not only that, I think voting third party this year is our last hope for the people to reclaim power. So, although I don’t proselytize, I’ve become strongly aligned with voting third party.
Just as I predicted Obama would ruin our last chance to have a seat at the Major Party table, here’s my prediction this election year: the emergence of the Super PAC power machine will make this our last chance to vote in a candidate who isn’t 100% bought and paid for. And it could’ve been done but for people like you.
Desperate? Nah. I’m actually pretty mellow these days, tending our little farm, hiking with our dogs, writing, and battening the hatches for New England winter. I know that no matter who wins, Obama or Romney, we’re screwed and the American people, people like you, helped make that happen. I get sad about it at times, like this weekend with McGovern’s death, remembering what we worked for and believed could happen, but desperate? Nah.
I’ve many times pointed out that this has happened before. Details change but the story remains the same, and it keeps getting worse as long as the People let greedy power brokers run the show. The amazing thing about where we are now is that the People are actively electing the greedy ilk into power. Repeatedly. Bush/Obama/Romney supporters and defenders are not victims, they’re making it happen! This generation of Americans is, indeed, historic.
In cash we give away everything we calculate that we won’t need, and that includes a lot that most Americans would put in their “need” category. But I see nothing particularly virtuous about giving away cash one doesn’t need to charity; cash donations are by no means the only way to measure generosity.
I don’t hoard anything; I’m spartan by nature. As for the Bidens and Obamas, they’re horrible people.
Zal – you are not neutral between Obama and Romney. You’ve called Romney’s chosen religion a cult. You have failed to answer a simple question – bizarrely bringing up Satan of all things – when have you EVER called any other candidate’s religion a cult?
I think it’s a testament to human optimism and patience, that there’re still people here trying to influence others’s votes. I wish you all success, but I predict you won’t have much, if any.
Can’t wait for this election to be over. (Although I’m already dreading the sermons against the wealthy Zal will be giving, on a daily basis, when Romney’s elected.)
NES – there’s always going to be another election. And, as polarized as we’ve become – which Obama and his ilk have intensified, every election from here on end will be awful.
I’ve never said anything against wealth; the point I make is about greed and entitlement and waste as opposed to generosity and earned achievement and growth.
And if you have any memory you’ll recall I criticize the poor and middle class just as harshly for the same failings, and was attacked by Mouse and her buds for doing so.
You do little else BUT inveigh against wealth and the wealthy. That’s at least 50% of what you do. The other 50% is try to convince people that you really dislike Obama and Romney equally while only talking (not very smart) smack against Romney. Explain how, exactly Romney is “greedy and ungenerous” if that was your “main point.” You don’t give any specifics at all. And, also explain why you chose to end that rant with such casual Mormon hatred. Never heard you say anything about Obama’s religion . . . .
I’ve explained it at length, specifically and with links, before.
Go back and look for it or wait for the dreaded sermons NES groaned about.
I said plenty about Reverend Wright and the Obama’s 20 year association with the Trinity United Church of Christ, and the way Barack Obama shrugged all that under the bus for political expediency, back in 2008.
As I’ve said before, I’m sick and tired of the Obamas and don’t feel motivated to write much about them right now. If he’s re-elected I’m sure I’ll start up again. If Romney’s elected, I’ll probably focus on him. And no matter who or what I write about, you’ll bitch about it. And so it goes.
“‘Said plenty about Rev. Wright . . ” yeah, right. Just like you claimed many times that you were going to vote for Romney or a republican. You can’t even keep your mendacity straight any longer. And, I’ve seen you go on and on about Wall st sins and apparently by some weird 11th dimensional implication that’s supposed to be all Romney’s fault, but nothing specific about Romney’s personal greediness. Oh – and again – still haven’t heard why you randomly decided to call Mormons – out of all the religions represented in the race – a cult or how Stein or Obama are the Mother Teresa’s of giving back in this race even though both are fabulously well off by any standards.
I love too the “oh, i just don’t feel Mooootivated to write about the Obamas right now. But, I feel motivated to find and post a misogynistic video of a groteseque Ann Romney impersonator, rant incessantly about Mitt Romney, including things that are not true and then label all Mormons a cult, but I just am oh, way toooooo tired to do the same for the Obamas. But trust me, I really do dislike them both equally . . . .” As your hero would say, Zal – what malarky.
An ex Hillary supporter turned Romney supporter here. One has to love how zal keeps attacking Romney, as well as his religion, while pretending to be against both Obama an Romney. He is just a bigoted Obamabot.
“I know that no matter who wins, Obama or Romney, we’re screwed and the American people, people like you, helped make that happen….”
I guess we can’t all walk in the purity of our own detached moral superiority, like Zal does. The rest of us have a country to screw up.
Zal, thank you for making the distinction between greed and wealth. At heart here is fear. The wealthy hoard and denigrate the poor because they are afraid of becoming poor. The greater the instability in today’s markets the greater the threat to everyone’s wealth, the greater the need to make it clear that the wealthy are not like the poor. It is ironic that by attacking the institutions that protect middle class people from becoming poor, the more likely the rich are to destabilize our country and make it more likely they too may lose their wealth. Poverty is a security issue for us all. The people who are poor lack security. But the people who are middle class and rich lack security too when the number of poor increases because those espousing violence find a haven where there is more poverty. Further, when people have nothing to lose, they act out in ways that harm random bystanders, not just themselves. Think about what “going postal” means. The route to greater security for those who are wealthy is to help the poor, not denigrate and marginalize them in order to keep the very idea of poverty at emotional arm’s length. To do that, the wealthy need to use their money to do something that will actually protect them by building stronger communities (as the robber barons did). Instead they are hunkering down and doing everything they can to destabilize the economy for everyone but themselves. It is not just morally wrong but self-defeating of the wealthy to do this. The wealthy don’t understand that we are all in the same boat, together. If the poor sink, so will the wealthy.
Sally, you’re a riot!
Actually a lot of people aren’t.
Unfortunately the majority are. And you’re doing a mighty thorough job of it, too.
Spot on, Sally.
Further, in the same vein, the contempt the wealthy have for the poor and lower income, even the middle class, is stunning. You could throw up listening to the denigrating things they say. And what they’re doing is worse. Romney and his ilk have no interest in helping anybody get out of poverty or gain wealth. Rank and file Romney supporters are only fooling themselves. George Carlin explained it all several years ago, it’s much much worse today and still most people keep giving them power.
You’re also spot on about the wealthy today destroying their own futures, and about the difference between them and robber barons. Travel throughout parts of this country and you can still see the housing and community gathering places like libraries the robber barons built for the people they were exploiting. Today’s robber barons don’t even do that, and in addition they’re stealing the lower- and middle-income population’s retirement money.
Your sanity and clarity is a bright spot in my day!
Sally – not sure who you are referring to in making the distinction b/n wealth and greed. If, for some reason, you are taking up Zal’s mantra – I wonder how you think Romney – specifically as a person – is greedy? He gives much of his wealth away. More than most people I know and more than others running for office, including Stein. He also has worked in all of his public service jobs for no pay. Certainly, certainly can’t say that about either Obama who are as grasping as they come.
Yes; he’s wealthy. But, they live relatively simply for a wealthy family and he has taken little to no money from the public trust directly. Who in this race is greedy by any definition and who is not?
Sandra Fluke showed up for a ‘lady parts’ rally in Nev. yesterday. Ten people attended, and that may have included the press. This gives me hope.
However, Cutter and Axelrod would stab their mothers’ for one vote, and the fact that they keep talking about Big Bird and binders, seems to indicate it’s working, at least somewhere, maybe with the Fluke camp.
After the donnybrook that ensued following last week’s debate, I’m looking for Shieffer to lob softballs tonight. Nobody wants to upset the folks in faculty lounges across the country, and the teen mommies, trust me, don’t care. So Zero may survive til Election Day. Pity, isn’t it ? Anony ‘we’ aren’t shafting the country, we are not the problem.
Connor: Axe and Cutter are revving up the base, and Big Bird, binders, and the like are working for that limited purpose. But, the base is not sufficient for them to win. Keep the faith.
Conner and NES…
…with Cutter going on about ‘how important Big Bird is’ and O on the trail, as the current Prez of the US’ actually uttering all this stuff…should, in fact, wake everyone but the O base up to how immature and unfocused the O camp is as they rely on the most superficial, unimportant distractions…barely anything that is coming out of the O camp has anything to do with policy that will make things better…it comes across as one big bluff…and attack on the other guy…
…today’s latest poll form NBC, of all places, even states that 62% or the public want to see major changes from O if he is re-elected…
ultimately the O camp and the O Presidency is all about O…it is fixated on O as opposed to electing a president…again the cult of O…the popular, cool O…not the hardcore serious issues ahead in the next four years…
it is so telling to see the national media falling all over themselves to sell O and explain what he himself cannot explain or communicate…to see them actually campaign for him on their shows…their constant protection and apologizing for O only serves to shrink and reduce what the O Presidency actually is and has been…
NES..The Base + Cheating + court battles Could get it done..Fingers crossed, I really believe our country is at stake here. Well that, and I’m sick of looking at Mo’s armpits.