Republicans are flailing wildly. You would think from Romney's background as a management consultant that he would be able to stay on message, but he just can't. Now that all the energy focused on "the economy ding ding ding" is paying out with poll after poll saying Obama is perceived as being an equivalent or even better manager of the economy, Romney wants to shift to foreign policy? Good luck convincing the American people that the guy who already got rebuked by China, embarrassed himself in England to the point where he's a point of ridicule, got his foot stuffed in the mouth on two unfolding crises (Chen Guangcheng and now this), and can only offer some platitude about "America needing a military that can't be tested" (I don't know what 50%+ of world military expenditures is, but I assume that's testable) is the better choice. Republicans need to focus more on what Romney the president would do---other than throw fire on the Special Relationship, get rebuked by China and Russia, inflame Middle Eastern tensions, and presumably spending trillions on the military (not that any of us would know because policy objectives are about as common in the Romney campaign as unicorns).
You see, you shape and reinforce your own worldview by choice. You choose to lend credence to people you know have an agenda and manipulative intent rather than seeking reasonable, earnest attempts at unbiased journalism. You wallow in confirmation bias because it is emotionally satisfying rather than living with the insecurity of looking for truth and unresolved ambiguity. It's the same human desire that makes people religious, or junkies.
you're still showing your face around here after you got turned out by esteban and wouldn't be a man and show up at the golf course?
The difference between these fools here like TJ and BigTexxx, Commodore, and tallanover and the crazies in the Middle East who chant "Death to America" really is only one which side of the luny line they are on. The radicals here and the radicals there have more in common with each other than they do with their the mainstream in each of their homelands. It's pretty ironic.
Iowan GOP Elector Resigns After She Says She Cannot Vote for Romney Even If He Wins Iowa http://news.yahoo.com/gop-elector-wont-vote-romney-resigns-074113894--election.html AMES, Iowa (AP) — A Republican appointed to the Electoral College, Melinda Wadsley was expected to cast her vote for Mitt Romney if he won the state of Iowa in the presidential election. Wadsley decided Thursday she couldn't in good conscience vote for Romney — she had backed Ron Paul during the GOP primary — and resigned to allow the Iowa GOP to choose someone else for that duty. "I have always been a straight-ticket Republican, and for the first time in my life I am an undecided voter, therefore, I need to resign my position as a Republican presidential elector," Wadsley said in an email exchange with The Associated Press. Iowa GOP Chairman A.J. Spiker said in a statement Thursday that the state party's central committee would begin the process of selecting a replacement, essentially allowing the party to confirm a die-hard Romney supporter. A mother of three in Ames, Wadsley was one of three electors featured in an AP story published early Thursday that noted some GOP electors were unsure they would vote for Romney if he won their states on Nov. 6. They had expressed frustration at how Republican leaders have worked to suppress Paul's conservative movement and his legion of loyal supporters. "They've never given Ron Paul a fair shot, and I'm disgusted with that," Wadsley told the AP for the story that preceded her resignation. "I'd like to show them how disgusted I am." Each party chooses people to serve as electors in the 50 states. In December, electors convene in each state capital to officially select the president and vice president. Occasionally a so-called faithless elector decides not to vote or to vote for someone other than the winner. The defection of multiple electors would be unprecedented in modern American politics.
For the Muslims of the Middle East, their Islamic perspective is their only reality they can know. They are indoctrinated from birth, their society is a total immersion in one myth, there is no such thing for freedom of speech or freedom of thought. Their self-image and self-worth of their families, tribes and nations is tied to the absolute validity of Islam. There is no crack for alternate thought to gain a toehold ..... yet. I think that's a link to why they respond to 'blasphemy' as violently as they do. Leadership consciously and followers subconsciously know that once the myth cracks a whole new society will flow though. One they are afraid of since Islam, Christianity and Conservatism assume the nature of men has to be controlled.
The debates are going to be interesting and may well be a trap game for Obama. Romney's stiff persona and occasional weird gaffes gives him an unusual edge in the debates. These debates could end up playing like the Gore GW Bush debates of 2000 where substantively Gore had the edge but his cold and condescending style alienated many. Romney may just need to hold his own without completely tripping himself up since it is excepted that Obama is the better debater. Obama though will not only need to decisively win on substance but avoid appearing like a lecturing law professor. Just to add Romney's statement ‘Well, am I going to spend my time correcting things that aren’t quite accurate? Or am I going to spend my time talking about the things I want to talk about?'” sounds to me like he is conceding a battle of specifics to counter Obama, and just issuing a blanket statement of "he's lying" without backing that up. Just heard on the NPR that Obama is using John Kerry as the stand in for Romney in his debate prep. Very interesting choice to use one cold out of touch Mass rich guy to sub for another cold out of touch Mass rich guy.
I believe Mr. Obama will feel like the course of the nation depends on him defeating corporatism, willful ignorance and intolerance. That it is up to him to stave off a new Dark Age. And Romney can only be Romney: stiff, unlikable, entitled, heartless and clueless for real substantive strategies beyond criticism and platitudes.
Judo, Romney is clearly attempting to make excuses ahead of the debates for not responding to questions with direct answers to those questions. "Am I going to spend my time correcting things that aren't accurate? Or am I going to spend my time talking about things I want to talk about?" What does that tell you? What is a debate? Here's a common format. You are asked questions by a moderator. One candidate answers, then the moderator asks the other candidate to respond. Romney is already saying that he will not respond, but will rather "talk about things I want to talk about." If the President says Romney said this when he was governor, that he said that a few years ago about an issue, and now he's saying something entirely different, Romney is already saying he will brush those questions aside and "talk about things I want to talk about" before we even have a debate. And when he's criticized after for not responding to questions, but rather spouting campaign talking points, he'll say that he's not "going to spend my time correcting things that aren't accurate." Romney either doesn't understand what a debate is, which I don't believe for a second, or he's already laying the groundwork for dealing with his failure in the debates. It's clear to me which of those two things he's addressing. Honestly, the more I hear from the man, the more he disgusts me.
Kind of like playing some spaz who doesn't know anything about basketball. They flail around and disrupt the whole flow of the game.
Problem is that if Romney doesn't get into specifics but Obama does it will look like a very drastic comparison - a man of substance vs. a man of nothing. Romney is going to be in trouble. Obama is very hard to put on the defensive and will likely force Romney to overstrecth in his attacks
I imagine this seems productive when compared to hanging out at his out-of-work friends' mothers' houses.
Obama is the strongest advocate of corporatism we've ever had in the Oval Office. Dukakis and Gary Hart were also advocates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism The collaboration of massive corporations, labor organizations, and government to control investment and economic activity is the foundation of Obama's economic philosophy. It's the same patronage system he learned in Chicago. Bailouts, guaranteed loans, subsidies, Solyndra-style corporate grants, he loves that stuff.
China to Mitt: I thought we were friends back when you shipped all these jobs here, so what's with the "currency manipulation" talk now? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-usa-campaign-romney-china-idUSBRE88D09G20120914
