"... 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.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२४५ टिप्पण्या:
245 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»I just don't see Romney doing angry well. We've seen him approach angry in past debates; he just gets flustered. He needs to focus on saying things like: "I'm not upset. I'm just disappointed."
"It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
Then maybe being "moderate" is not a good thing.
"It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
Were we playing poker, that would be a tell.
You are not a typical "moderate" [whatever you mean by that]. Some things require an elevated response. The failure so to do means something. Something bad.
I dunno; I used to be fairly "Meh, Romney." Not excited; it wasn't until the "Romney killed my wife" ad that I really came out punching for him.
So, going all in and making people protective of a candidate is a bad idea. It's why the coordinated attack on Ann Romney perplexed me. How was beating up on her (and accusing Mitt Romney of not caring about cancer survivors!) going to in any way make people DISLIKE the Romneys?
Romney has a confidence-inspiring temperance and moderation.
And you write this after you spent most of the previous posts defending an immoderate and intemperant statement by Romney.
You irony detector needs work.
Something's not right, not working.
Romney had a chance to set the record straight with the Press conference this morning, and should have taken some air out of the MSM narrative.
Arab Spring, No Marines, Dead Ambassador. What's so hard about that.
That's on Obama's watch, but he let the questioners spin all of the questions to the Romney response.
The fact that the media can spin this right in his face could mean he is not ready for prime time.
Why on earth would anyone listen to Sarah Palin after her brilliant VP run?
You can be aggressive without being angry or coming across unhinged in a Howard Dean, primal scream type of performance. You can be aggressive without being personal or attacking the 'man' on a personal level.
Aggressive in being relentless about exposing and reiterating how BAD Obama's performance as President has been. How BAD it is for the country. How TERRIBLE our foreign policy has been.
Aggressive in the sense of not letting up on the facts and holding accountable, Obama and the Democrats who control Congress.
Just don't be namby pamby. Don't give the benefit of the doubt. Don't say...Obama is a nice guy but.....
Obama is NOT a nice guy and we are fighting for our lives. State the FACTS and don't back down. That is aggressive.
I'm confused. Obama wasn't aggressive in attacking Bush's record?
Palin was trying to echo Romney's own language about being severely conservative.
He should be aggressive and adamant.
But not personal, nor patronizing.
PRESS CORPS CAUGHT ON OPEN MIC COORDINATING GANG-ATTACK ON MITT ROMNEY BEFORE PRESSER
Anne post this... We have to expose what the MSM are doing, this is worse then Pravda... At least the population knew the prava was the mouth piece of the Communist , too many stupid people in the US think the media is the gatekeepers for the public , when what they really are, just the gatekeepers of ensuring that democrats keep power.
Romney's comments were so intemperate that Obama agreed with them and the embassy ultimately did as he suggested by deleting the offending comment.
Hey, if you have to be a little intemperate to get your opponents to agree with you, who knows? Maybe he is on to something.
The Cairo Embassy apology tweet was an embarrassment. It was later disavowed by the WH. Another reflection of the amateurism and ineptness of this administration.
Romney had to say something. It would come across to independents that Romney was a feckless coward if he did not boldly state what was on the minds of everyone but the groupthink leftists and their bullshit purveyors in the media.
I do not agree. As long as the magical sexual smile emanates from Obama's face the cardboard nice man is going to lose the moderates' votes anyway. They are mesmerized by Obama and have deep feelings for him.
So what does Mr Nice Guy have to lose by proving that he is a street fighter? All Romney has to lose is his reputation as ineffective.
It's Ryan's job to be the aggressive attack dog.
I agree with you Althouse but Romney still needs to show us some glimpses of his solutions to our spending problems. Conservatives like me are on board with him but independents need some more persuasion.
And you write this after you spent most of the previous posts defending an immoderate and intemperant statement by Romney.
Keep on pimping the narrative, you mind-numbed sheep.
Apparently, the Resident's inaction is not an issue. Romney criticizing Obama is the story. Nice.
It's sad when I drastically prefer other world leaders over my own.
The interesting thing is that the "intemperate" thing Romney said is, essentially, the same thing the White House said. So much so that they basically listened to Romney and memory hole'd the offending comment.
Point, Romney.
Agressive doesn't have to mean angry. But he should push
Back with specificity on all the policies where he feels Obama is lacking. And even more importantly he needs to
Make sure that dems aren't allowed to control his narrative. I.e. any time they push the notion that he doesn't care about the middle class he needs to counter that his ideas are in fact the best way TO grow the middle class.
In that regard he should be aggressive. Always be on the attack, but there's no reason he has to be a jerk about it.
That's what I think Sarah means by aggressive and in that regard she's right.
I don't know how you can watch that empty response from Obama, and still feel PROTECTIVE of this pretentious, unqualified man-child.
You're right, though. That dynamic exists. Why?
It might make sense in some venues, but this man is in charge of the world's security - this idiocy is risking the entire world. .
A very good man is dead. The Ambassador. Where is the feeling of protection for HIM? And for all of our other citizens everywhere?
I'm not seeing how even None of the Above would not beat Obama. It seems like just under half are going to vote for him no matter what, making it impossible to do better than win by a nose. Voters unmoved by his record aren't going to be moved by Romney criticizing him - or by anything else. I've never seen an election more rooted in tribal identity. How can BO not be trailing by at least 15 points no matter who his opponent is? Which way to come at the bastard is an awful problem. The opposition might have started with a better candidate than one who looks like BO, the white version.
Palin is smart.
By telling us that Romney should be super aggressive, she's sending the message that he's not.
Everything the Dems are doing is to portray this super moderate fellow as an extreme firebrand. Scary!
Romney is far more willing to call Obama out than McCain was, but it's more normal. Nothing about how McCain treated Obama was normal.
So Palin calls out Romney to step it up, be aggressive in his attacks, to be adamant and attack, darn it!
No one sees her as being in Romney's pocket. It works.
Freder Frederson said...
Romney has a confidence-inspiring temperance and moderation.
And you write this after you spent most of the previous posts defending an immoderate and intemperant statement by Romney.
I was in the car and actually heard Romney speak. There was nothing immoderate or intemperant. Just good common sense and values. I liked it that he said we don't apologize for American values like free speech.
He also said, correctly, that we are few months from electing a President, and Americans want to know, and should know, what his view is compared to Zero[OKOK, I called him Zero].
Stop making up bullshit.
Although I agree this is true, it's very disappointing that so many have their instinct to protect directed toward Obama rather than the people of this country who have lost so much under him.
If I had a Democrat's sense of civility, I'd call you an Eva Braun.
but Romney still needs to show us some glimpses of his solutions to our spending problems. Conservatives like me are on board with him but independents need some more persuasion.
I would imagine the reason he is not sharing his "solutions" is because the vast majority of Americans would realize he and Ryan are batshit crazy and their plans will create severe hardship for many Americans (and the world) and destroy the economy--and to add insult to injury, increase rather than reduce the deficit.
Of course you and the likes of DBQ think that slashing spending and taxes at the same time when the economy is weak is a good idea, so you will take umbrage at the notion it is batshit crazy.
I think you nailed it, Synova. That was exactly the intent. I have no doubt that such tactics are discussed with Palin. They know that what she says always gets coverage, and so is an excellent route to manipulation of the media suckers.
It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
Feel being operative. Look for this word always.
Yeah, we wouldn't want any hurt feelings!
Would you ever feel protective towards a white politician?
When people have hurt feelings they break things and kill people. And elect idiots.
Eh, Ryan's budget plan will, eventually, balance the budget. The Democrats ah, have not suggested a plan. I'm afraid I have to go with a plan over no plan. Also, the last four years, every thing that has been done has failed to meet even the level of success the people who pushed for these policies said they would hit. So, if they're not meeting their own benchmarks, why should I think they know what they are doing? Romney may be hazy on the specifics, but his specifics have not utterly failed, as we've seen in practice over the last three years or so.
Maguro: I explained how I became protective of Mitt Romney. It is less "protective," I think and more "insisting on fairness." Most "protection" of high powered, rich people is that. We want them treated fairly (and as a proxy for treating our own ideas fairly.)
So Palin calls out Romney to step it up, be aggressive in his attacks, to be adamant and attack, darn it!
No one sees her as being in Romney's pocket. It works.
And this helps Romney how? Or are you and Crack still holding out for that Palin presidential run?
Matthew Sablan said...
I just don't see Romney doing angry well. We've seen him approach angry in past debates; he just gets flustered. He needs to focus on saying things like: "I'm not upset. I'm just disappointed."
The word that won the Bush elections was "credible". As Gore and Kerry waxed on about their intent to be responsible with our money, save medicare and social security, and other various efforts to run right Bush just said they weren't credible in a quite reasonable tone. We all knew he was right, and just enough cared. Romney should be doing to same. Now that we know the internet and housing bubble days can't go on forever far more people care about fiscal sanity.
There's not going to be any great change until the debates, so the lack of movement isn't indicative of anything. Romeny's speaking to people who aren't listening yet.
Romney needs to make it clear that he is different from Obama and tell us how he is different and what he is going to do that is different in clear direct language.
Ooh. Sort of like when Obama said he needed to know "whose ass to kick" over the BP oil spill. It was so fake it hurt. He could have told us the truth (I am reviewing the situation to find the course of action I feel is best), but he went with fake anger. It did not work.
Eh, Ryan's budget plan will, eventually, balance the budget.
Only because it assumes bullshit growth and employment numbers, and bullshit low growth in medical costs--and even then it can't manage to balance the budget until after 2030.
Severely aggressive Romney? That makes no sense. It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
Good Lord. We are supposed to be selecting a leader; not a special needs poster child.
I'm just curious. Why do you feel, or potentially feel, or imagine others might feel, protective of Obama? Who are you/they protecting, really?
I definitely want Sarah coordinating strategy for the Romney campaign.
Romney is in a tough spot. He doesn't look good getting all Rush Limbaugh, but it's understandable some in the GOP want him to be more aggressive. Seems like a really thin, even nonexistent line for him to straddle.
"Only because it assumes bullshit growth and employment numbers, and bullshit low growth in medical costs--and even then it can't manage to balance the budget until after 2030."
-- I'm glad you think that. Shame though, there's no other credible plan to compare it against. Per Geinther: They don't have their own, they just dislike Ryan's.
I definitely want Sarah coordinating strategy for the Romney campaign.
Romney is in a tough spot. He doesn't look good getting all Rush Limbaugh, but it's understandable some in the GOP want him to be more aggressive. Seems like a really thin, even nonexistent line for him to straddle.
No disrespect to the Divine Sarah.
Romney should fashion his own campaign style.
Of course Rush Limbaugh doesn't look good getting all Rush Limbaugh either.
voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama
The first short-bus president.
Apparently moderate voters are very sensitive to people being meanies. And I guess it's mean to be critical of your opponent. Very strange.
I repeat: "The soft bigotry of low expectations."
Great choice there, Althouse, but you're certainly not alone.
mama grizzly giving mittens advice.
You go girl! :-P
You bet'cha!
Needs fixing: It will make the moderate women voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
Every Romney answer should start with "Obama is a failure and its sad that you media people are desperate to prop him up."
Freder:
1- Few would even notice if a fed dept like Education was eviscareted and left only to compile stats on student testing results.
2- Even I could fix Soc Sec forever with a 1 page replacement outline that even librul commies like you would have to agree is fair & reasonable.
3- Being lumped with DBQ, a great, smart no-holds-barred thinker is quite a compliment. Thanks for that!
"And this helps Romney how? Or are you and Crack still holding out for that Palin presidential run?"
I know that I often skip actually saying what I thought I said.
So I'll try again.
It helps Romney by countering the Democrat strategy of portraying Romney as a dangerous, scary, far right radical instead of the profoundly moderate person he is (and how mild non-radical Ryan's budget plan is).
Romney is pretty much the definition of a moderate Republican. But Democrats can still make everyone believe that he's the biggest threat ever. Super conservative. Scary.
Palin (who actually isn't all that immoderate, herself, though certainly less so than Romney) benefits Romney by spiking the Democrat guns. She points out Romney's mild moderate truth by telling him to be more aggressive and less moderate.
"Severely aggressive Romney? That makes no sense. It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
Only if you've already infantilized Obama beyond any hope of him being a man.
Really? Protective ? Does it make you want to clutch him to your bosom and mutter soothing platitudes?
Reminds me of "Blazing Saddles" when Slim Pickens gets spooked and jumps up into the arms of Harvey Korman...'There, there....."
I was severely aggressive once. It wasn't pretty. Never again.
I think Ann is right, but just look at what's required to win this election: To be accepting and even protective of failure, while downplaying success and strength. To treat the leader of the free world like a child, and hide your passion for wanting to improve things.
Man, how bad do we suck as voters?
Sorun, I'm certain "moderate" male voters also feel protective of Obama too. I just want to understand why. The feelings seems to put the thinking on hold. And if you think about it, there is no good reason to feel protective of Obama.
Palin (who actually isn't all that immoderate, herself, though certainly less so than Romney) benefits Romney by spiking the Democrat guns. She points out Romney's mild moderate truth by telling him to be more aggressive and less moderate.
Genius! That is Karl Rove quality manipulation of the electorate.
You are quite mad!
The thing I don't understand: Romney continually goes in front of hostile audiences to answer questions with hidden assumptions and biases, but we never hear about his political courage. It is -rare- for politicians to willingly go into unfamiliar and unwelcoming arenas. John McCain often did the same thing; in fact, Republicans routinely have that sort of courage. Very, very rarely do people feel the need to protect those politicians unless they get attacked in a horribly over the top way (like saying Trig is not Palin's kid.)
It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
Make sure you are protective of this debt that he's brought upon us.
Every now and then, professor, you let the mask slip and show how you really are--the old 60s hippie chick. You go right on out and protect Mr Obama from those nasty republicans.
The feelings seems to put the thinking on hold. And if you think about it, there is no good reason to feel protective of Obama.
It isn't Obama who we need to be protective of. It's blacks.
This has been the logic of the quota system for 50 years.
Blacks cannot succeed because white racism makes them feel bad. The only solution is to wipe out white racism, and create a world where blacks' feelings are never hurt.
Blacks, according to this logic, will be devastated if Obama fails. In the interest of racial peace and the advancement of black people, we must make blacks feel good about themselves.
Assuming Palin is not being ironic, it's odd that she used the word "severe". Romney's claim to be a severe conservative didn't go over well.
I agree that Romney needs to be Romney, but he needs to show more intensity if he wants to win this. This may be starting to slip away from him. Obama has jumped over 60% at Intrade.
Though, I do give credit to McCain for one thing. After the Iseman slander, he has effectively frozen the New York Times out of any and all access. Kudos to him for that.
"Genius! That is Karl Rove quality manipulation of the electorate."
Huh?
It's only one level deep and one step long.
I don't think that Palin consulted with Romney, I just think that she (as Bill Clinton said) is no political dummy.
Very, very rarely do people feel the need to protect those politicians unless they get attacked in a horribly over the top way (like saying Trig is not Palin's kid.)
Romney's a white hetero man.
Tough shit if your a white hetero man.
However, I agree that Romney shouldn't go all Rambo all the time. That would make him look insane. But neither should he be everyone's "good friend". Look where that got McCain.
The average person feels angry and/or upset about the events in the ME yesterday and today. A mealy-mouthed response from Romney would have come across as out of touch with those emotions. I think he struck the right tone.
Matthew Sablan said...
The thing I don't understand: Romney continually goes in front of hostile audiences to answer questions with hidden assumptions and biases, but we never hear about his political courage.
Watch his speech to the NAACP. It was a hostile crowd and he came out great. He told them he was against Obamacare and even when they booed he handled it well. the audience even thought so. That's what convinced me he's not going to wilt like Perry.
Obama is our affirmative action / helpless child president.
And you write this after you spent most of the previous posts defending an immoderate and intemperant statement by Romney.
So I take it you are in agreement with the Cairo embassy's statement that religious sensibilities trump free speech.
Because that was what Romney denounced.
It nice when Athouse is feeling protective of Obama, while the governemnt Obama put into power kill a good man and 3 other the American representatives and drag his dead body around like gargage for the whole world to see.
It really touches the heart that who you feel protective of the most powerful person in the world who couldn't have bothered to make sure our Embassies were protected on the anniversary of 911, because all he does is campaign, who even thinks Obama does the JOB of President, instead of just enjoying the perks.
Great that a mantupilative media mission is working .
Romney continually goes in front of hostile audiences to answer questions...
...and Gov Palin hasn't since the train-wreck that was the Couric interview. She's stayed inside her comfort zone ('Hannity' and scripted events) and gifted us with general election disasters like O'Donnell and Angle.
Maybe there's something to the "spiking the Dem's guns" angle, but I keep hearing Crack's immortal characterization "witches and bitches".
Another thing: Romney seems to be ahead of the curve on -everything- compared to Obama. Teacher strike? Ryan stands with Rahm! Cairo/Libya debacle, Romney gets out an effective message that Obama chooses to counter BEFORE talking about the attacks. 9/11 remembrance? Romney's first tweet is about it; Obama's first is about volunteering. That "dirty but honest" jobs guy letter? Romney responded first.
I just don't get how Romney can be getting to places first every single time without it bothering Obama that his operation is -always- second.
Only because it assumes bullshit growth and employment numbers,..
Sounds an awful like Clinton's surpluses.
Freder, can you expound on how adding a trillion a year to the debt is going to help the economy? Care to surmise where the money is going to come from to pay for this unsustainable spending spree?
I'll never understand how Delaware tossed Castle over for O'Donnell. Castle would've won in a walk.
"I'm just curious. Why do you feel, or potentially feel, or imagine others might feel, protective of Obama? Who are you/they protecting, really?"
It's not about protecting Obama, it's just that they don't want to admit they made a mistake four years ago. They might be open to voting for Romney, they just don't want to be seen as fools (even though we know they all were). Insulting Obama is indirectly an insult against them.
In other words, a good part of the electorate is treating the policy debate as though it were middle school. We're being told not to tell the truth because it might hurt someone's feelings - and if we don't do what they say, they're going to vote the other way.
This is what politics looks like these days. Silly nonsense.
"I just don't get how Romney can be getting to places first every single time without it bothering Obama that his operation is -always- second."
You forgot the hurricane as well. Obama had to shift his schedule around, and Romney still beat him to the punch.
Our dear Ann: "It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
You really don't need encouragement for that, do you?. And is's OK to just admit it. We all know, anyway.
Vote for him again. You know you WANT to.
The soft bigoty of low expectations, is exactly right.
Take a long hard look at yourself, Althouse. Did you feel "protective" of Bush when Kerry was attacking him? No, you just thought Kerry was a dick, which he is, but you never once thought to be "protective" of Bush. Ins't Bush just as much a nice guy as Obama? Isn't he also a family man? No, the only reason your instincts tell you to "protect" Obama is because he's black. And that, no matter how you try to avoid is, is
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
Remember feelings,oh, oh, oh, feelings (singing it). That's what Obama wants this campaign to be all about.
To hell with the FACTS!
Because, you know, too many facts have to do with numbers and math and logical thinking and stuff. We can't have that from democrats because, you know, they are the CARING party. We, as democrats, will wipe your boo-boos off and tell you everything will be all right just like you were a child!
You know, before you were too mature to think for YOURSELF!
Sometimes, I don't know if Althouse does this kind of crap to see what kind of responses she'll get or if she really FEELS that way.
You are correct, Madame, asking a politician to be something he isn't usually ends in disaster, witness Albert Gore's run for the white house in '00.
Freder Frederson said...
Why on earth would anyone listen to Sarah Palin after her brilliant VP run?
After watching her clean Halo Joe's clock?
Matthew Sablan said...
I'll never understand how Delaware tossed Castle over for O'Donnell. Castle would've won in a walk.
They cared more about reducing spending and getting rid of Obamacare than they did about electing a Republican.
Ms. Althouse,
Gov. Romney was asked a series of coordinated questions by the media about the incident and his response.
Obama did not answer a single question.
Someone is already being protected.
I don't have a problem with the media taking on Romney. I think our leaders are better when they are challenged, whether unfairly or not. The hundreds, if not thousands, who sheparded Obama through his life did him and our nation a great disservice when they wouldn't let him experience his own failure.
Shaun Smith, the 31 year old father killed in Benghazi, was a high level techie for State. He was also an internet gamer under the name "Vile Rat." He was online last night while captive wondering if he would get out alive.
One of his friends, also a gamer, says this:
"So: Vile Rat, Sean Smith, my friend for over six years, both in real life and in internet spaceships, was the 'State Department Official' killed in Benghazi by a mob of religious lunatics, who had been incited to violence on this September 11th by a movie that was apparently made sometime in July," Smith's friend writes. "Obviously, given the combined attacks in Egypt and in Libya, this was a coordinated act designed for maximum media exposure; rile up a mob, point them at an embassy or consulate on 9/11 in particular, aim for the press. Many were injured in these pointless, reprehensible acts, and one of my closest friends was killed as a result."
If a gamer can figure out the coordinated and symbolic nature of this attack, might not the American media, or the leaders of the Executive Branch, figure this out too?
I'm a bit too much of a pragmatist; without the second (electing a Republican), you have zero chance of getting the first. Though, you may not get the first, even with the second. I guess it matters where you are willing to gamble; I'd rather have a sure vote for procedural things and have to work for other things (like Brown, et al.), then have a sure no vote.
"I'm a bit too much of a pragmatist; without the second (electing a Republican), you have zero chance of getting the first. Though, you may not get the first, even with the second. I guess it matters where you are willing to gamble; I'd rather have a sure vote for procedural things and have to work for other things (like Brown, et al.), then have a sure no vote."
Agreed. One has to pick their battles and some conservatives need to be happy that MA and DE can provide Scott Browns and Mike Castles, otherwise, we get Ted Kennedys and Joe Bidens.
So moderate voters are naive and easily swayed. I guess that explains 2008 - you would hope that they would be wise enough to use a built-in filter when listening to the news during a campaign.
You can form an opinion based on Politico's outtakes or you can watch the whole interview and form your own.
Palin on O'Reilly
Erik Robert Nelson,
Yeah, I kind of have the same suspicion. It's self-protection; don't fuck with my precious utopian fantasy world! But if not, I'd like some honesty on the motivation to feel protective of Obama. It makes no sense to me. This is our president. He has a job to do. Giving him affirmative action points is just insulting.
I'll be honest and say that I occasionally felt protective of Bush because he was hopelessly surrounded and outnumbered by a very hostile press/media and academic-government machine. It was odd how what I originally viewed as his Achilles heel, the inability to get a sentence out without pausing unexpectedly awkwardly, ended up making him sympathetic to a lot of people. Obama doesn't have that sort of sympathy going for him. He's always been supported by the media, and the lifers in the government and the academy. And he's so arrogant and perfect in his own Dunning Kruger mind that he could never admit to a human failing.
So again I ask, why the protective feeling?
Curious....Did you feel protective of the previous President when he was under attack?
And then there is this ...
I want my President to be protective of me not the other way around.
It's time to stop pretending, as even the President seems to be doing, that the two attacks were some sort of spontaneous uprising against an obnoxious film. They were not.
The film had been out for 8 weeks and did not "just" become known in the Middle East. Our enemies used the film as a pretext for coordinated and centrally planned attacks on two American embassies on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Likely this planning was known at some level in governments in Egypt and Libya.
Whether they intended to kill Americans going in is not clear. But they set in motion events that surely might result in murder.
Our Embassies are American territory. The fact is that we were again attacked on September 11, by assassins who once again targeted government installations and government employees.
Enough of the bullshit.
And enough of the infantile media who either can not see this or dare not report it.
I'd rather have a sure vote for procedural things and have to work for other things (like Brown, et al.), then have a sure no vote.
I'd rather have a sure vote for someone else other than Harry Reid for Sen. Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House.
Not to mention the GOOOALLL! of defeating the Senate Majority Leader (Angle) and taking the current Vice President's former Senate seat (O'Donnell).
We can't help it if some women and feminized men feel "protective" toward this lousy president. It's that sort of emotional nonsense that caused you to vote for him to begin with. Clearly, you've learned little - despite your protests to the contrary.
"If a gamer can figure out the coordinated and symbolic nature of this attack, might not the American media, or the leaders of the Executive Branch, figure this out too?"
Gamers are pretty sophisticated. Maybe these guys were playing Eve? In any case, a three month lead to coordinate sudden outrage and uncontrollable attacks on 9-11 is incredible and convoluted manipulation worthy of Karl Rove.
It will never occur to the media or the administration.
Oh, I almost forgot: Marry me, Sarah.
I hope the Romney campaign, or a conservative PAC buys air time during CBS news, or on CNN to broadcast a commercial containing today's open mic bit:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/press-coordinates-question-ask-romney_652241.html
The press is partisan, and should be treated as such.
P.S. Professor Althouse probably will disagree, since she seems to buy into the myth that men and women are not different by nature, but I suspect that Romney's moderate demeanor appeals more to women than to men in times like this.
I believe that the people out there that sort of like Obama enough as a person that they would rally if he was attacked would do so if he was strongly attacked as a person, not on his record.
Ann is right, and Palin is wrong - this election will not be won by a fire-breathing Tea Party extremist to the right of most Tea Party people even sort of approach..
Romney can still do strong criticism from the standpoint of Obama as our employee not working hard and also having wrong ideas and not getting the job done.
Example:
Right - We should have had far more participation by President Obama in the Presidential Daily Briefings. Bill Clinton and George Bush put monitoring national secirity near the top of their daily priorities. But we learn that Obama has only attended 38% of them in the last 6 months..spending far more time on fundraisers and leisure activities like golf. If I am elected President, I will return to the diligence of Bush and Clinton. It would be my duty as President to do so.
Wrong: I hope the public understands what a lazy, shiftless leader they elected. Not surprising because he rarely put in more than 10 hours a week at his so-called law lecturer job. Not attending the PDB shows he hates Americans and doesn't care if they die.
I think the Professor has explained her original Obama vote in detail so that's not the issue here. It's the ongoing feeling, or potential feeling, that Obama should somehow be exempt from the same sort of politics to which other politicians, especially and particularly conservatives, are subject. Also, I see no evidence whatsoever that it's a "feminine" thing, this feeling. I know a Viet Nam vet (a real one not a Kerryier) who feels the same way. I think it's generational and I'd like to know the real motivation so I can speak to it.
Gov. Romney was asked a series of coordinated questions by the media about the incident and his response. Obama did not answer a single question. Someone is already being protected.
Bears repeating.
The left side of the media- which makes up the majority of journalists today- has become a sick joke.
Do I sound annoyed? It's because I am. How dare the media conspire to give Obama a pass on this? How dare they insult my intelligence by questioning Romney about a comment, rather then questioning Obama about his ME foreign policy?
I get a tingle in my leg every time I read that their ratings are dropping and their newspaper circulations are drying up.
@Matthew Sablan,
re: Romney being first.
More for your grist mill:
Romney spoke to the VFW and to NAACP, Obama just sent a video (too busy raising money?)
Romney was the first to go to Louisiana after the hurricane. Obama wasn't even going to go until after Romney announced he would go...
Romney is acting, Obama is reacting.
It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
Ha! You are not a moderate.
I actually had a friend complain to me the other day that the press has been really beating up on President Obama. I had no adequate response. But there are some people who really do feel like Obama is somehow the underdog. They simply don't know that any of this stuff ever happens. This is exactly what the professional newsreaders were trying to do, yet again, at the Romney presser.
Romney has the white male vote sewn up. He needs to pick his spots to keep driving home the point to college-educated white women and Latinos that Obama is weak but Romney can't be a flame-thrower.
So far, Romney's done a good job striking the right tone here. He's hit Obama hard but clean a few times and will continue to do so.
"mama grizzly giving mittens advice.
You go girl! :-P
You bet'cha!"
LOL, har, nuf said,pithypithypithy lol. Har. My sides are splitting. Lol rotffl. Har.
@Matthew Sablan,
O'Donnell over Castle was a short-term loss, but a long-term gain.
If you constantly choose an "electable" RINO who wins 50% of the time over a liberal, you end up with conservative values in the office 0% of the time.
But if you derail some RINO fatcat from what he thinks is his rightful sinecure by dint of being a RINO, then suddenly all the other RINOs sit up and pay attention.
And sometimes the Tea Partier wins.
So the guy in Utah (I think it was) who had been a RINO all his political life and never met an earmark he didn't like, suddenly starts to make "cut the spending" promises when it looks like he's going to get primaried by an effective Tea Party candidate.
I believe you must stand on principle. If your principle is just getting someone elected, you end up like the Democrats. If your principle is cutting excessive govt, you will sometimes lose when there doesn't seem to be a need to fix financial problems, but it comes through in spades when people start to realize we need austerity measures.
Which is why I think we are going to end up with a second consecutive GOP wave election in 2 months.
Nathan,
You are correct about the Utah's of the country. The majority of states in this nation can get a converative elected much of the time. Proof is Ron Johnson taking out Russ Feingold.
However, MA and DE are not those states. In MA, Warren is a horrible candidate, but the only reason the race is close is because Scott Brown fits his state. The MA version of Ron Johnson wouldn't be within 15 points.
Pick your battles wisely.
I actually had a friend complain to me the other day that the press has been really beating up on President Obama.
It's always awkward when an Affirmative Action hire doesn't work out...for the hiring manager, for the impacted employee, for everyone in the office.
O'Donnell over Castle was a short-term loss, but a long-term gain.
...in other words...
We'll CHOKE their rivers with our dead!
Dick Lugar going away is a good thing. Bennett of Utah going away is a good thing. John McCain getting a reminder in AZ is a good thing. Beating Charlie Crist to the point he runs to the DNC convention is a good thing.
Giving up a slamdunk GOP seat in a liberal state.....stupid.
Letting the sitting senate majority leader keep his seat.....stupid.
Letting the Dems pick your candidate trusting that he will self-implode and then he promptly does so.....stupid.
Pick your battles
Matthew Sablan said...
I'm a bit too much of a pragmatist; without the second (electing a Republican), you have zero chance of getting the first. Though, you may not get the first, even with the second. I guess it matters where you are willing to gamble; I'd rather have a sure vote for procedural things and have to work for other things (like Brown, et al.), then have a sure no vote.
From Castle's point of view, he could have won easily if he had spent even the barest amount of time reinforcing his agreements with fiscal conservatives. Instead he believed the far left's scare campaign and spent his time criticizing them, usually while misstating their beliefs. So he found out when you treat people with disdain they don't vote for you.
Essentially he did exactly what Hillary Clinton did in her primary. She ran a general election campaign thinking she had the primary in the bag. And the party base rejected her in return. The only difference is that in Hillary's case the nutty candidate won the general.
Why would you be protective of a president who didn’t know telephone number of the House Minority leader until almost two years after he assumed office; or the name of the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee? And this is a president who promised to end the partisan bickering in Washington.
Ann, I think you've nailed it. Romney can be critical if he remains calm, focused on the true issues and facts, commited to seeing law and justice done,remains unapologetic for our political system and forthright about the protections or retailiations he would employ.
Becoming emotional would only reinforce the Obama meme that Romney is not ready for this role of POTUS.
He should act like Ocatavius Ceaser and humble address the country recounting th e'trail of tears' that Democratic policy has brought to us. The failed initatives in all fields of US Middle Eastern diplomacy and the sorry results of Obama's administration.
The American people can judge for themselves about Obama's leadership
Well, it's a gamble. Soft peddle it and attract the (at this late date) undecideds, the independents. But at the margin, are you actually gaining more votes than you are losing in your base, due to their disaffection with your timidity?
Yeah, don't want any aggressive Alpha males at Althouse-city. Only needy, compliant beta males need apply.
re: Castle vs O'Donnell,
Well, to be sure, I don't vote in Delaware.
So to a certain extent, Senate races outside of one's resident state are just cheerleading.
I'd rather cheerlead for the fiscally sane than for an electable RINO.
And look what's happening in Missouri: Akin is gaining ground. Assume the unthinkable and Akin actually wins: what kind of message does that send to the Culture of Death Party, that even someone as reviled as Akin can win?
But we have to have Akin actually win, which is still up in the air...but I can't help but point out: the fact that he is still up in the air instead of dead in the water is a victory over the Culture of Death, Taxes, and Spending party.
So palin was persona non grata at the Rep convention and fixednoise may be giving her the boot, but many Althouse cons still love her!
❤ ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤
"It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
Unfair and incorrect attacks, like the Joe Soptic/Romney killed my wife attack, would make a moderate voter protective. Speaking the truth about Obama's lack of leadership should not.
Althouse takes "agressive" in its pitbull sense, and that probably is loser all right. Also generally not very enlightening.
But Romney can also be agressive in the sense of working hard criss-crossing the country and early and late telling the voters exactly what he wants to do and why.
"our country is stronger, safer and more respected in the world."
Barack Obama, Saturday Weekly Radio Address, 8 September 2012.
It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama seems whiny. Is he a widdle baby? Does he need a schnuffy oodlums?
He's the President of the United States. He's behaving like like a widdle baby, and I hate him for that.
Shaun Smith noted on a gaming site that he saw the Libyan police casing the joint, taking photos, the night before the attack.
God Bless Shaun Smith and Christopher Stevens and their families and loved ones.
And what he wants to do needs to be in tune with the America we know, which is sharply different from the course of the Obama administration.
TosaGuy said...
Ms. Althouse,
Gov. Romney was asked a series of coordinated questions by the media about the incident and his response.
Obama did not answer a single question.
Someone is already being protected.
For those who haven't heard, they were on open mic co-ordinating their questions.
shiloh said...
So palin was persona non grata at the Rep convention and fixednoise may be giving her the boot, but many Althouse cons still love her!
No, moron, she was on O'Really last night
Better her than Biker Biden.
Such a stellar choice.
"It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
This makes sense if you eliminate "the moderate voters (like" and substitute "Obama" with "my retarded son that works at Burger King".
Sarah and my fellow Republicans:
Don't let the Democrat media get under your skin with polls wildly overcounting Democrats over Republicans.
Even those polls show Independents support Romney over Obama by Reaganesque double digit figures.
When those polls are corrected with historical partisan weightings, Romney is actually lead with about 53% of the vote.
So calm down and be of good cheer.
As you were in 2008, Paul Ryan as the VP candidate is the designated attack dog.
Romney needs to be seen as a presidential alternative and the current referendum on Obama will run its natural course.
What the hell does it mean to be "Moderate"? A little bit of fiscal insolvency is an OK thing? Each baby has $50K as its share of the debt. Each household has $180,000 of debt when average household income is $50K. Is that not enough shared debt? You want more?
What do you want? Gays to get married? Transvestites to get transgender operations while they are in prison at the expense of medical care that might save a life? (Hell, that already happens anyway).
What do you want? To force people to buy more solar panels from China? When China is the largest C02 producer, will dwarf US and EU C02 contributions by 2050, and "Global Warming" hasn't even been proven? You want the US to continue to send $500B a year to the Middle East in trade deficit for oil we have right here in the US?
Maybe you want to call "Muslim Terrorists" Terrorists?
Perhaps you want MORE social security? The one that returns less than 50 cents on the real dollar to top contributors?
Maybe you want MORE healing by Obama, in which he plays the race card against cops?
You want to bring in MORE 18th century workers from Latin America?
You want to pay for "country club" wages to union firefighters like they do here in CA (San Jose, $150K average salary, work till 55 @ 90% pension for the rest of your life, whereas median household income is $88K).
I really don't understand what moderates want.
Liberals, I get it. They want to remake age old institutions for a theory of fairness that doesn't exist in practice, and don't mind breaking all the eggs, and the basket along the way.
Shiloh doesn't understand that worshiping political leaders isn't necessary. So when someone doesn't hate Palin they must worship her.
I suppose this is why he can't criticize Obama even when Obama is wrong.
Freder Frederson said...
I would imagine the reason he is not sharing his "solutions" is because the vast majority of Americans would realize he and Ryan are batshit crazy
Poll after poll confirms Americans want the federal government to spend less and that they are worried about the debt.
Not only are you "batshit crazy" you're an idiot living in a bubble of ignorance.
Obama has also been aggressive with al Qaeda. He has killed hundreds of people, if not thousands as commander in chief.
Attacking him as weak doesn't make much sense.
Attacking progressives for wanting Obama to become more weak is something to criticize and be wary of.
For your reading pleasure, some of the byplay between reporters co-ordinating their questions at the Romster's presser:
CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?
CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*
CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..
**Later**
CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?
You are such a wimp Ann. Lay down and let the Muslims take over you, as for me and mine, we will fight!
". It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
Wait - I thought it was the Media's job to protect Obama? What, his manifest failures are making that too tough?
It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama..
This is the closest the professor will come to admitting why she voted for a candidate completely unprepared to be president.
"Don't let the Democrat media get under your skin with polls wildly overcounting Democrats over Republicans."
Bartles, long time, no chat. As always, keep hope alive my old friend. btw, when Obama is easily re-elected, I'll drop by your ((( I hate Obama w/every inch of my body ))) blog and say hi!
Maybe sooner ...
edutcher wrote:
or your reading pleasure, some of the byplay between reporters co-ordinating their questions at the Romster's presser:
CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?
.....
Has Andy seen this yet? Because he was on earlier touting how somehow Romney screwed up by questioning the One's tepid response. Turns out it was simply the latest meme coordinated by the news which is in the tank for Obama. And Andy should note, that Obama was able to make a statement and take absolutely ZERO questions even though HE'S the president at the moment.
The degree to which the media are whores never cesases to amaze.
Probably Althouse means that the contrarian in her will seek an argument against Obama's detractors. Or something.
She is a UW-Madison professor.
Reality is seen on TV (sometimes).
The vote is going to come down to approximately 8% of undecided voters.
Any severely aggressive wingnuts or moonbats will not help.
But bouncing large tits could help.
"It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
"Moderate Voter" does not equal "Undecided Voter".
Well, I don't want Romney screaming but I want him to talk about why Obama's ideology produces bad results and why his would produce good results!
I want a Reagan type aggression, not an Obama Chicago style aggression.
Heck... go after Obama for every stupid mistake he as made (and Lord knows he as made a pile of them.)
Mitt... don't let that little shit get away with all the damage he has done to this country. EXPOSE HIM for the fraud he is.
Is it possible that America will decide to commit suicide simply because Obama is black? Reading Althouse's protective nonsense I'd say yes, it's possible. Not that Althouse in herself is powerful, just that she is representative of the kind of respectable bien pensant types who have internalized the commandment, "Thou shalt not say, hell, thou shalt not think anything less than complimentary about a black." Tragically, their number is legion. So tread very very softly, Mitt, or you'll stampede them back into the condescending column and we'll all be toast.
It's not in his nature. That's why I've said he's Milquetoast.
I agree with Althouse: Palin is a dunce and Romney is genuinely phony and plastic.
Probably Althouse means that the contrarian in her will seek an argument against Obama's detractors. Or something.
Is the "protection" of Obama worth tossing the Cruel Neutrality?
Freder: Why on earth would anyone listen to Sarah Palin after her brilliant VP run?
Anyone who voted for Bumblefuck Biden should really just STFU.
Is the "protection" of Obama worth tossing the Cruel Neutrality?
Diversity trumps all.
I wonder how many students she passed because of their skin color.
Althouse wrote Severely aggressive Romney? That makes no sense. It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
Althouse always gets Mama Grizzly defensive when it comes to protecting her list of aggrieved pet minorities. Obama is no exception.
Now back to my regularly scheduled fabulous vacation.
Never mind moderate voters feeling protective of Obama, the media is his guardian. Good luck to the Romney campaign getting through them
It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama
Tags: lameness
I wonder how many students she passed because of their skin color.
No.. I wouldn't go that far.
Moderate voters like you should go on Drudge Report ((only media that would show that picture) and look at the Ameican Diplomat being carried around like dead carcass , that that was allowed to happened, Obama didn't have Marines securing the Embassy all they had was locked doors and foreign Secruity guards....
That's what you should feel protective about, that good man, representing America died with little dignity and for no reason, not for Obama , who by the way is in Las Vegas tonight for another fundraiser.
Anyone who voted for Bumblefuck Bush should really just STFU.
If things get nasty in the foreign affairs arena, then being a nice guy is not gonna resonate with enough voters either.
I disagree with Palin, too. However, Romney does need to remind everyone of the obvious.
Like.. obama claims that Romney will take us "backwards".
OK Let’s explore backwards, shall we?
--I think a lot of people would love to return to $2.00/gallon gas, I think many folks would love to not be underwater on their mortgage, many folks would like a job, or perhaps a better paying full-time job.
Shall we go backwards to 4-5% unemployment? I think everyone would love that.
Shall we feel confidence about the future... Obama doesn’t inspire confidence.
This is what Romney needs to hammer.
That and point out all of Obama's many broken promises. Obama promised to cut the debt in half.
I agree with Althouse: Palin is a dunce and Romney is genuinely phony and plastic.
Simple minds make simplistic arguments.
OK Let’s explore backwards, shall we?
--I think a lot of people would love to return to $2.00/gallon gas,
It's a shame that so many Althouse readers are disconnected from reality.
Simple minds make simplistic arguments.
Ergo, EMD is a simpleton.
It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama.
This is ridiculous. If I didn't know your credentials, I would think you were a nutcase. Protective!!?
Romney is fine as he is. It is the Obama lapdogs (and nutcases like you) that are the problem.
John McCain was a good loser, I guess.
Losing sucks.
You win presidential campaigns by getting the voters to vote FOR you not by getting voters to vote AGAINST the other guy.
This is one of the golden rules of campaigning. Palin doesn't understand that. But neither do many people from all political stripes. Going negative can only help with smaller campaigns [for House and sometimes Senate]. Otherwise it just seems cheap. The bigger the campaign the more candidates need to get voters excited about them and about their promises, their vision [no matter how lame].
The reasoning is obvious.
Kerry failed at this. Romney may as well.
Matt said...
You win presidential campaigns by getting the voters to vote FOR you not by getting voters to vote AGAINST the other guy.
Althouse (and many others here), have always maintained that she voted against McCain in the last election, and not for Obama.
Mara Liasson of NPR on Fox News tonight: "The problem is that if Mitt Romney wants to make an argument against the way the President has handled the Arab Spring, he needs to make it. And he wasn't making it today. ... It's risky, when you inject yourself into a fast-moving foreign crisis-- he learned this through the Chinese dissident story, where he got involved, and then the next thing you know, he was criticizing the administration, we're not getting the guy out, and then you know, and then the guy gets out...these things have to be thought through..."
Nice try shadowing the talking points, Mara.
Why would you feel protective of Obama?
People should just STFU about the president.
It's not polite to disturb someone in the middle of his backswing.
PatCA, he's a widdle baby. So cute. We wuv him.
Could we get even one lefty in here with either a good argument, a point, or who would like to defend their guy in anyway whatsoever? Tell us why we should vote for the guy, based on his record or ability. Just once, maybe? I assume you have at least a half-assed argument for your vote that's better than just that he's not a Republican. You do have one, right?
Anyone who voted for the affirmative action hire should really just STFU.
FIFY.
Tim, I voted for Obama. I'm sorry. I'll never do that again.
Jake Diamond said...
Anyone who voted for Bumblefuck Bush should really just STFU.
Why would someone with only this to offer even post here? It seems an admission there is literally nothing productive they could possibly do with their lives.
The pro-Obama argument has been made quite succinctly by Larry David: It could have been worse!
It's deployed here in its less clever form by the Althouse lefties as "Bush!"
"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.
"Feel(ing) protective toward Obama" is not a promising sign.
It's not about him.
It's about America.
"It's deployed here in its less clever form by the Althouse lefties as "Bush!"
Where "Bush" = "Squirrel."
"I'm sorry. I'll never do that again."
PS: Bob, my comment was directed to Jake Diamond at 5:58 p.m.
Peace.
Tim, it's all good. I understood your comment as rather like a recognition by a priest at confession. I'm not Catholic, but it works for me.
Obviously, the smart strategy for Romney is to say nice things about Obama and let the pit bulls of the media ask the tough questions, investigate malfeasance, and expose coverups and abuse of executive power.
I've seen All the President's Men, so I know all about the role of the press in a free society.
The pro-Obama argument has been made quite succinctly by Larry David: It could have been worse!
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.
1. American embassy gets attacked
2. Attack POTUS
3. Find facts out later
4. ???????
Similar to:
1. Shower Bill Clinton with praise
2. Find out later who Clinton is supporting
3. NOT ROMNEY
4. ?????
The professor has set-up a strawman and all of the commenters have fallen for it. So I'll ask the question.
Professor, do you regard yourself as an "independent" voter?
I've known dyed-in-the-wool Republicans and Democrats. Many of them have been "moderate" in their views. But they've generally voted the party-line. Whether they grew-up in party-line households or developed their political predilection along the path of life, they tend to stick with their party.
The independents I've known have been stridently "independent". They tend not to fall for unctuous candidates (and their surrogates) or for false-flag operations conducted by biased media.
It's hard, sometimes to differentiate between moderates and true independents. If you need a test, I offer this.
Crack Emcee is an independent. He may be the only genuine independent to comment on this blog.
So I ask again, Professor. Are you an independent?
Ok, garage smartly passes on the defend your guy question. Anyone else?
This thread just wasn't complete w/o garage recycling the same shit that's been debunked multiple times in another thread.
That's a wrap!
Anyone who complains about Romney "attacking" Obama, just remember: Obama ultimately agreed with him and made the embassy delete the response Romney said was done badly. Obama AGREED with Romney. Why is this instance of bipartisanship being ignored?
Also, remember: Romney only metaphorically attacked Obama. The real attack we should be caring about is the one that left FOUR PEOPLE DEAD.
"It will make the moderate voters (like me) feel protective toward Obama."
(rolling my eyes)
This thread just wasn't complete w/o garage recycling the same shit that's been debunked multiple times in another thread.
1. Republican says something asinine and outrageous
2. Circle troops, present alternate fantasy reality diverting attention away
3. Keep circling!
Crack is independent solely because he sees the conservative as a cult member and that overpowers all else. He would refuse a kidney from a cultist even if it would save his life, but remove Mormonism from the equation and he's a conservative.
Garage: So, what do you say about Obama basically agreeing that the embassy's initial response was incorrect?
The Professor is not an independent, she's a protectent.
Crack Emcee, Party of one.
My only argument with Crack is his constant aggressive insistence that everyone else benighted and blinded by wrongthink. It sounds like something a cult leader would say.
US Median Income Lowest Since 1995.
&
Survey: One-Third Of Americans In ‘Lower Classes’ Since Obama Took Office
Bagoh20 (@9/12/12 7:14 PM)
You could well be correct about Crack. But his stridency in his feelings about both Obama and Romney is characterisitc of what I've known about independent voters.
I believe I am "moderate" in my opinions but I admit that I'm a Republican. I even know the exact moment when I made that personal commitment.
It was December of 1972. I was in the Air Force, on duty when Nixon ordered the B52 strikes against North Vietnam. That executive action coincided with my world view. And while I want my President to be temperate in his responses to provocations, I want him to act when required.
Obama needs to act. He is President, not Romney. But if he does not act decisively (and I understand that word has many permutations) then he should be replaced by Romney.
I can take all sorts of political abuse. I endured 8 years of Clinton's "triangulations". But I voted for Bush in 2004 primarily because he acted decisively. And I admit that I'm not an independent. Bit I would hope that true independents value true decisiveness and vote accordingly.
no when I made that
"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."
Saying that doesn't make it true.
Romney breathes and some newsie explains how he "offended" someone. Doesn't make it true.
How is he not a nice guy?
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.
Romney could save a baby from drowning and he'd be criticized for doing it so ineptly or self-servingly.
Without all the information, and without knowing what was happening in Libya, Romney got it *right*. His response was clarity about our principles. And it's still right knowing what happened in Libya. Someone deliberately set out to murder the Ambassador, is what it looks like, and on 9-11. Romney's initial statements are still right. His entirely normal and ordinary answers to the reporter's slanted questions were just fine. He didn't make a mess of his campaign, no matter how much everyone wants to talk about HIM instead of Obama.
Who has done what? Issued what statement of clarity? He's sad? He's saying nice things about not offending religions and how we've always been so *respectful* of religions, which is utter bull shit.
Does he have our national *answer* to this attack figured out yet? Or is he going to figure out what our response will be sometime after he hangs out with Beyonce in Vegas? Or did he think giving a little speech to some reporters and not taking questions was ALL?
Romney is not the one who's *campaign* is a mess.
What I don't get is, how did Obama, if he had been getting reports throughout the day, get beat to the punch on releasing a statement? He should have had one ready in 5, 10 minutes tops as soon as he heard the news.
Obama is propped by pravda.
That is a mess.
Severely aggressive Romney? That makes no sense.
But "severely conservative" did?
My goodness, but this - and you, Ann - are becoming pathetic.
Where is your brain, woman? Did you sell it to the Romney campaign? First with the bogus and highly-selective calls of "bigotry" whenever someone wants Mr. Mormon to explain himself, and now you forget Romney started this "severely" bullshit when he's never been anything of the kind (and did you call him on it when he first coined it? Did you say it made no sense then)?
God, wars and elections make you people crazy.
Ann, ultimately, all you have is your integrity,...
Back to this protective vibe and "moderates." There's a certain demographic, and it's a big demographic, that always protects the Democrat, always. Republicans always have to fight an uphill battle for these people. When they're thinking, they vote more conservatively. Voting for a conservative occasionally allows them to label themselves "moderate." The rest of the time they vote their feelings, for liberals. But why?
I think it goes back to Watergate and the liberal superiority complex that emerged from that (even and despite liberals had committed the same or worse crimes before and since), and also maybe retrospective Kennedy youth worship (and the worship of replacement leaders since). Add in clean, articulate black guy appreciation and there's your trifecta for protective feelings.
The myth of superiority must be protected. Republicans are just there to clean up the mess and take the blame so they can get back to their myth.
This has to be the dullest election ever. Even Dole-Clinton was more interesting.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा