"... on Obama’s record, which is so dismal, his plan, or lack of a plan of Obama’s, to get his out of these woeful times.... He needs to be severely aggressive."
I disagree. Romney has a confidence-inspiring temperance and moderation. It seems to be the way he really is and yet many people still experience it as phony and plastic. Don't push him in a direction that's less genuine.
Severely aggressive Romney? That makes no sense. It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
245 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
I didn't catch that the first time I read this post as I was pretty busy at work. A sad statement. Obama's a grown man, he, and this country, don't need some maternalistic law professor protecting the poor baby Obama.
Every time I read a sentence like that I wonder if women really are so controlled by their emotions that they'll overlook any amount of evidence because they feel the need to mother someone.
I can't help but imagine that if Althouse read some other woman writing that line of pap that she would have jumped all over it just like we are. That's my hope. Also she doesn't actually say she feels that way, just that those like her will. Look, I'm trying - I like the lady's blog. What can I say?
DADvovate, we WUV him.
“And judging by how Romney has run his campaign, it will be much much worse with him at the helm. It's amazing just what a horrible candidate he turned out to be. Everything this guy touches turns into a rolling disaster, and he is a creep on top of it."
That's mostly just stupid.
But I was disappointed by Romney’s initial statements, which seemed ill conceived and uncharacteristically combative. He’s absolutely tanking on intrade, which suggests that there’s somewhat of a consensus that his criticism of the Presidents will not be well received by voters. No telling how all this will look a few days from now.
Oh, and BTW, can we all now dismiss for good the media-driven whopper that Hillary Clinton is anything but than a mediocre SoS?
Oh, and BTW, can we all now dismiss for good the media-driven whopper that Hillary Clinton is anything but than a mediocre SoS?
Why?
Palin has a symbiotic relationship with her critics. The more unfair and over the top they are towards her, the more she bonds with her supporters. There's no reason why a similar phenomenon would not occur with Obama.
Certainly no major accomplishments I can think of. She did have that cute little quip about killing Gadhafi, but that now ranks up there with “Mission Accomplished,” wouldn’t ya say?
Russia uncooperative, Iran closer to nukes, and the “Arab Spring” now unveiled as just another manifestation of Islamic fanaticism.
I’d say “mediocre” is a generous, gentleman’s “C.”
Tim said...
"I'm sorry. I'll never do that again."
It's not the mistake that kills; it's the inability to acknowledge the mistake, or to learn from the mistake.
I sincerely hope many Obama voters acknowledge and learn from their mistakes in '08.
================
Most people that voted for Obama in 2008 do not think it was a mistake. They do not believe we would have been vastly better off under "3 exciting new Neocon Wars I want to start" Johnny McCain.
Nor were people kicking themselves for voting for an awful 2nd term for Bush with the godawful fiscal mess he left and 3.5 million manufactiring jobs lost to China. Because John Kerry would have been worse.
2012 though, is when the performance review of Obama comes up and the decision should he stay or should he go??? - is not a matter of diehard loyalty (except to blacks, progressive Jews, stupider and younger women, and the gay militants.)
Well Althouse has it absolutely right...Obama needs protecting because sure as God made little green apples, he doesn'tknow what he's doing as President of the United States.
And it's an unfortunate choice of words for Althouse, as it was the Ambassor in Lybia who really needed protecting, and maybe average Americans as well.
Mittens is doing fine. I would be worried if he was strident at the end of the campaign (which generally means its all over and he has nothing to lose) I like how he has refused to play the sucker-McCain campaign of digging his own grave and lying in it while the MSM cheefully buries him.
Palin advises Romsters to throw hissy fits... while the Prez orders in the Marines and Drones.
Nice. Vote republican when you really need chest thumping second guessing noodleheads with namby-pamby voices throwing tantrums when shit is hanging fire.
If zero was snoozing, nail him in the debate. Or next week. Not while our dead are still warm.
Cedar
For a crazy f_ck, you are 100% right. I'll hold my nose and vote Zero because the last guy we need to have his finger on the chicken switch is a Mormon cult leader beholden to neocon retreads, tea party pipe-dreamers and evangelical retards.
I turn on BBC and CNN- which I haven't watched in ages- in the hopes of finding news about what is currently going on in the ME; and not some "news analysis" crap. I should have known better. Instead, it is some British guy on BBC, and then Wolf Blitzer on CNN asking their correspondents/guests something along the lines of, "So, how much do you hate what Romney said?"
Guiliani was on with Blitzer, and deftly refusing to follow the Left-wing narrative of Romney-bashing, he criticized some of O's mixed-signal ME policies. Blitzer actually replied - "Well, in defense of the President, he used more drones than Bush..."
First, regarding the drones... well yes, great... but that's a meaningless statement since the effectiveness of that policy can be questioned in light of the current events. More importantly, who the hell is paying Blitzer, a news reporter, to defend the President? Like Althouse, does he feel protective of Obama ? Why?! Did Blitzer ever feel the need to defend a GOP President?
Blitzer & Co. will not question whether the drone assassination policy is effective. Instead, they'd all rather talk about how awful Romney is, who while campaigning for the presidency, dared to say something critical about our special needs President- he who must be protected and defended at all times.
"Palin has a symbiotic relationship with her critics. The more unfair and over the top they are towards her, the more she bonds with her supporters. There's no reason why a similar phenomenon would not occur with Obama."
By George, I think you've got it.
It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
Oh, puke.
Oops, that's me above, d.
"For a crazy f_ck, you are 100% right. I'll hold my nose and vote Zero because the last guy we need to have his finger on the chicken switch is a Mormon cult leader beholden to neocon retreads, tea party pipe-dreamers and evangelical retards."
lol McCainizing Romney. I like the cut of your jib.
"Don't push him in a direction that's less genuine ."
Obama cravenly flip-flops on gay marriage and yet it's Romney who gets lectured about authenticity.
"Blitzer & Co. will not question whether the drone assassination policy is effective. Instead, they'd all rather talk about how awful Romney is, who while campaigning for the presidency, dared to say something critical about our special needs President- he who must be protected and defended at all times."
It's freedom of the press coupled with free market capitalism, that is, group selection. I'm guessing mid-century objectivity, or what passed for it, was an anomaly. After all, freedom of the press was instituted so points of views could be expressed.
"moderate voter" = "good German" 2012-style...
So the thinking then is that in the midst of a manifestly pathetic economy and an increasingly violent and anti-American world, the leader of the opposition oughtn't call out the incumbent for his serial wrongheadedness and dangereous inneptitude.
That really seem like a lot ask in service of . . .what? Politeness. . .
I'm guessing mid-century objectivity, or what passed for it, was an anomaly. After all, freedom of the press was instituted so points of views could be expressed.
Yes; the days of "news" being "who what when where and why", and POVs being relegated to the op-ed sections are a relic of the past. "News" is now all spin all the time. Like the man says, it's soap opera.
lol JL? That's assuming that "the man", rhhardin, isn't Vicki's human pet.
Don't you ever wonder exactly who is training who at that house?
Althouse: "It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
In this race, every "moderate" is on Romney's side. Anybody who even THINKS about voting to re-elect the WORST president in history isn't a moderate.
Althouse, we all make mistakes. OK, we don't all make ENORMOUS screwups like voting for a zero without a past like Obama, Mr. Hopenchange, the stealth candidate. Yeah, that was a whopper. But that's OK, we all make mistakes.
But we LEARN from our mistakes, and we DON'T SCREW UP THE SAME WAY AGAIN NEXT TIME.
"But we LEARN from our mistakes, and we DON'T SCREW UP THE SAME WAY AGAIN NEXT TIME."
Hoping you're right, Ken.
That was supposed to be funny?
Did it FEEL funny?
Not "HA HA" funny.
So maybe I should have said "humorous"?
Not that there's anything "humorous" about politics these days.
Maybe I should have said "hummingbird" instead of humorous?
"How is anything he said about this event wrong? If you actually bother to read it? He even agreed to answer questions which Obama refuses to do. Someone saying that he made a mess of those questions doesn't make it true. I read the questions and the answers. There is no there, there. It's pretty darn normal plain stuff. "
My view is...a terrible tragedy happens and a US diplomat is killed. Romney's instinct is to make political hay of the incident and accuse Obama of sympathizing with the attackers...even though the statement was put out by the embassy in Egypt with a mob baying for their blood outside. Yes, I think Romney's statement was completely shameful. You really think accusing the President of sympathizing with people who killed a US ambassador is fine?
Its 100% accurate. The administration and its diplomatic corps did this. Screw the "don't be MEAN to Obama" brigade. He has no qualms about it.
@Minzo,
a terrible tragedy happens and a US diplomat is killed. Romney's instinct is to make political hay of the incident and accuse Obama of sympathizing with the attackers.
This statement is completely false.
Romney's statement was made before news of the Ambassador's murder.
And he didn't accuse Obama of sympathizing with the attackers. He held President Obama accountable for a counter-productive apology made by his administration.
Why are you against accountability?
Howard said...
Cedar
For a crazy f_ck, you are 100% right. I'll hold my nose and vote Zero because the last guy we need to have his finger on the chicken switch is a Mormon cult leader beholden to neocon retreads, tea party pipe-dreamers and evangelical retards.
Whoa!
That's a lotta ropes you have dragging around. Where you gonna find a big enough tree to lynch all those people?
"It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
A truly weird and creepy comment, but thanks for being honest, I think.
DADvocate, don't lump all woman together like that! I don't feel at all protective of any politician. They should be criticized on their actions and not mollycoddled as it seems "moderates" are doing with Obama.
Poor, dear Obama. If he really was the man of the world he likes to say he is, he would know that people in the middle east don't respect weak people. Constant apologies appear weak to them and like sharks, they go into a feeding frenzy at the smell of blood.
The "sympathy" was expressed not by someone in the administration, but by a tweeter in the embassy in Cairo as the embassy was under threat. The Obama administration then distanced itself from it and Romney doubled down on his original statement about Obama showing sympathy for the attackers. I'll go out on a limb here and say if roles were reversed and a Democrat challenger had made the comments of a Republican president, the Right would be frothing at the mouth about it.
Mizo, the huge difference in your analogy is, the media would be in full throttle support of the democrat challenger. How often were outrageous statements made against Bush, practically on a daily basis? How often did democrats drag dead American soldiers through the streets, figuratively speaking, for political gain?
How often was Bush punished for the action of others? Abu Ghraib comes to mind. That was Bush's fault, remember that? So don't give me the crap that this was some low level flunky. The embassies represent America and is under the authority of the President. That would be end of story if this was a republican President.
Kelly those are two different things. Even if there is a bias in favour of Obama in the media, how does that make Romney's behaviour any less disgraceful? But you know the right would be outraged at this politicization of a tragedy (before even addressing the sheer inaccuracy of his statements)
Mind you, Bush made some pretty controversial statements during the Mohammad cartoons furore( basically saying showing such disrespect for another religion was wrong). Media didn't drag him over hot coals because of it.
Heaven forbid that we might upset the "feelings" of Anne Althouse.
A more civilized society rises when voting preferences are determined by the use of more brain and less emotion.
mama grizzly giving mittens advice.
You go girl! :-P
You bet'cha!
Keep wasting zeroes and ones.
Even if there is a bias in favour of Obama in the media, how does that make Romney's behaviour any less disgraceful?
You and the biased media say Romney's behaviour was disgraceful. Many others disagree with that assessment; and for us the media bias is the issue.
Yesterday no other "news" existed except Romney's statement. That makes the media not only biased, but worthless.
I don't see how agressive means angry. Romnet should put his message through as agressively as he can. Basically he has to do media's job on Obama, i.e. factcheck both Obamas on their priorities as they appear in records, not in the media and brings to public attention facts that media does not want public to know. One does not have to show anger to do so.
You mean the vicious attacks on Romney by the Obama people don't make you feel protective for Mitt!
O's the President! He has Secret Service protection! He can take it!
Well, no, not with his thinner-than-thin skin.
Post a Comment