October 5, 2012 - September 28, 2012
Friday, October 05, 2012
FIDES. I don't know who will win. I think Romney will, but part of that thought is
hope, because I continue to believe in the common sense of the
American people. If you don't believe in that sense, why would you
care? Why I've continually tweaked the determined pessimists. Their
position is suspiciously akin to the liberals who think they know
better what ordinary people need. If the pessimists are right and
the majority is so dumb as to reelect this utter disaster of a
president, then it will be time for new formulations. Until then,
pessimism seems a lot like vanity: "I know what no one else does,
and it breaks my heart that you're all so stupid. And doomed. And
The chief spokesman for the blackest perspective among commenters
has been Dirty Rotten Varmint, who lashed out a post ago thus:
Wait - because I am REALISTIC about
Obama's chances of winning, which are a salient THREAT: you're
accusing me of WANTING him to win?
As a "pessimist" who is simply being
realistic and examining factual evidence, who has consistently
since 2008 expressed my deep distrust and dislike of Obama, I
expect an apology, you asshole.
I'm disheartened by the fantasy-laden,
wishful-thinking, anti-factual turn taken by this blog. RL, you
have turned into a discredited, disreputable, DISHONEST hack. You
ought to be ashamed of yourself, and many of the commenters here
shamefully encourage you.
I'll come back after the election is
over when perhaps you can rejoin the real world and engage in
cogent, rational conversation.
I responded thus:
You want an apology? Sure. I apologize
if I have misinterpreted the core of your pessimism. At some level
I know you want Romney to win. At another level I think you are
heavily invested in your dark view of our future.
For example, in the scorching litany
of truths you recited in a recent comment, you repeated your
belief that debates never change anything. This year the first
debate DID change things. Romney immediately began moving toward a
lead in the polls. Or had you stopped paying attention by then? Or
does it just not fit into your received wisdom?
I'm not the only one feeling
optimistic. Such serious political experts as Michael Barone and
Jay Cost believe Romney may very well win. Are they hacks too?
I think you'd rather be right about
your nightmare vision than glad of a Romney victory. You tell me
I'm wrong about that. If I am, I'm sorry.
Which is the truth. But on this last day before the moment of
truth, I'd add a thought or two. Polls are not facts. They are
statistical arguments dressed up as facts. There are legitimate
reasons for questioning them, especially when so many of the
sponsoring organizations are outgrowths of political or media
organizations. Yes, they might be right. But they are not necessarily right and they
are certainly not facts. Accepting them at face value conforms to
no definition of "realism" I know of.
Furthermore, the Instapunk blog is not about you. It's about what
I care about, in this
case, the United States of America, which is in serious danger
from a combination of institutions hijacked by lefties and pouters
on the right who sit at home rather than vote because somebody
somewhere has offended them. If you're a sitter, using your own
words, Fuck You.
I'm giving you a pass on the "hack" remark. You're welcome back
anytime. But just a reminder. A hack is usually compensated for
his advocacy. I am not. I write what I think. Period. It's called
Lake found a New York Times critical path argument that daunted
him. Obama has hundreds of ways to win in the electoral
college, and Romney has less than a hundred. Lake wonders if there's
any flaw in the logic. Yes. This argument has been baked in the cake
for decades. Democrats have a few big states like California and New
York that give them a huge head start on the Electoral College.
Republicans always have to win many more states to win a
presidential election. Which means Democrats can hit the magic
number by picking off individual states. Hence, many more ways to
win. But not all ways to win are equal. Do Republicans win
presidential elections despite the apparent "ways to win" odds
against them? Yes. Is Ohio usually involved in the Republican
winning formula? Yes. But the truth of history is that Republicans
win Ohio when they win the election, not that Republicans win
elections only because they win Ohio. The Buckeye State is 19
electoral votes. That's all. Of the 270 needed for victory, 19 is a
shade above 5 percent. Why do Republicans need Ohio? Because Ohio is
only half part of the midwest union monolith. Apart from Indiana,
Democrat union influence has been delivering states like Illinois,
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa to Democrats. Pennsylvania, which is
very like Ohio except for Philadelphia, is the evil twin of Ohio, a
reliable Democratic checkbox. But western Pennsylvania all the way
to Philly is pretty much the same as Ohio excepting Cleveland and
Cuyahoga County. If Ohio amputated Cleveland and Pennsylvania
amputated Philadelphia and the remainder of these two states joined,
Democrats would never win the presidency. Accidents of
Electoral College geography.
But there's nothing I will say to alleviate Lake's fears about Ohio.
Right now, everyone gets into the mindset he needs to withstand the
suspense. For DRV it's rage. For Lake it's guarded pessimism. He's
living in Connecticut. Who can fault him?
I'm going to cite age again. Which I'm well aware may be as much
delusion as wisdom. Honestly. I know that. But I remember what
most of you do not. 1980. So many things are similar in terms of
feel, anecdote, and news. The polls had Carter ahead of Reagan to
the very end. And Reagan the candidate was in some ways even less
prepossessing than Romney, because even his admirers were concerned
he was too old, had missed his window. He looked old, he sounded like a voice from the past.
His sheer ebullience appeared an anachronism. The press had been
drumming into us for years that the presidency was no longer a
doable job -- they were touting a "New Normal" in which America
would have to settle for less. It's true that not even the press
liked Carter, but they hated Reagan far more than they despised the
micro-manager peanut farmer. Reagan's "There you go again" riposte
in the one debate was reported as a folksy anachronism, not a
deathblow to Carter. But there was also a lingering mideast issue
about which Reagan was curiously mum and the country was disturbed:
the Iran Hostage Crisis.
Why am I thinking of all this now? Carter was still smarting from
the helicopter crash that doomed his hostage rescue plan, badly
planned and ill supported. His policy of negotiation regardless,
even to the dismissal of our friends in favor of our enemies, made
him look weak. His economic record was atrocious. High unemployment,
higher inflation, and a response that seemed to blame Americans
rather than his own policies for what was wrong.
But that's not all. In unexpected ways, Romney is reminding me of
Reagan, and Obama is reminding me of Carter. In the political
cartoons, Carter kept getting smaller, until he was a kind of raisin
sitting on top of issues he couldn't control. In the same way, Obama
keeps getting smaller. He has no second term agenda. He has only a
duffel bag full of nasty. Everything about him is permanent -- his
sneer, his certainty, his sense of superiority, his sense of
entitlement to the perks of office, his determination to rule around
the legislative branch like an omniscient polymath. In the same way,
Carter managed the schedule of the White House tennis court. Only
Carter did it himself. Obama has "peeps" to do it for him. Romney on
the other hand is at least physically Reaganesque. He has great
hair. He is tall, obviously handsome, and somehow impervious to
slime. He's not as eloquent as Reagan. But he might be a permutation of
Reagan. The man on the white horse who doesn't know there's even a
In recent days, Romney has equaled Obama's likeability rating, after
months and months of negative ads from the Obama campaign. All that
slander, swept away in a single debate.
What I remember. Three things.
1. Reagan had a more difficult wife
than Romney. Ann Romney will not shut down New York City fto
attend an off-Broadway play, spend millions on state dinners, or
endlessly redecorate the White House. We'll prefer to protect and
cherish her instead.
2. Romney has a much better Harvard education than Obama, a law
degree plus a business
degree. The fact that he can listen to others where Obama cannot
is a proof of the difference between the executive and the
community organizer. One listens. The other dictates terms.
3. Yeah. There was that afternoon of Tuesday, November, 1980. The
polls closed. The networks were ready to polish off Ronald Regan
once and forever. Then the returns started coming in. You cannot
know what it felt like to see the major networks dying on the air
as the full impact of the catastrophe hit them. One of the great
moments of my life. I can remember the room, the TV, the faces,
the horror on their faces, and the joy I felt at the time.
Landslide for Reagan. To me, this election feels like that one.
It can happen. The polls can be wrong. Not saying they are or will
be. But they can be. But
if, like me, you distrust the polls, here's what you look to:
-- Nobody's reporting Obama signs.
Lots of people are reporting Romney signs. What are you seeing?
-- Romney and Ryan are consistently outdrawing Obama and Biden
throughout the battleground midwest, frequently 10 to 1.
-- The monstrous bias of the MSM raises legitimate questions about
all polls because polls rather than issues have become headline
-- 2012 isn't like 2008 in media terms. There;'s not just an
incremental change but an order of magnitude change. Corruption
has run so apace that the MSM is like nothing so much as
helicopter parents protecting their incompetent child from
accountability for anything and everything. The list of scandals
is endless. All we get is happy pats on the back from newspapers,
network news, and cable apologists. Which raises even more
questions about the polls. Are they trophies for showing up, a la
soccer kids who don the uniform but can't kick the ball into the
-- The math for Obama just doesn't add up. Not anywhere. You can't
lose most of the independents and suffer declines in enthusiasm
among every single one of your constituencies and still think
you're going to keep from losing the 3 1/2 percent of the vote
that defeated McCain last time. Worse, you can't cite win the
election by confabulating polls that show you with more
energetic turnout than you had in 2008. It doesn't pass the laugh
test. For one, the kids are just hooking up and doing meth, not,
uh, voting. Sad for Obama. Disaster for the nation.
Math. Which includes statistics. Any of you know that only 9 percent
of those contacted by polling organizations anymore agree to be
polled? Way down from previous years. Imagine all the hangups.
Anyone doubt that all polling organizations are struggling with how
to weight land lines versus cell phones? Who's more likely to
answer, and what does it say about the whole population? Anyone know
that party identity listed in polls is not determined by
registration or history but who answers the phone? Lots of current
polls are assuming Democrat party identities beyond levels that
secured Obama's victory in 2008.
Polling is politics and influence, not science.
My common answer to DRV and Lake.
Standard disclaimer. Obama could still win. Standard disclaimer. If
he does, I partially blame everyone who was too superior to
participate in the vote.
Yeah. Girls. They care about is condoms and abortions. And bubbles.
Her name was Camille Paglia, yes, a lefty icon. Here's something
What in the world has happened to
the Democratic Party? Its passivity towards this awful takeover of
our lives by a know-it-all government, as shown by the way Obama
has governed by constantly going around Congress — appointing
czars and one new layer of bureaucracy after another. And hardly a
peep of protest from liberals. It’s like the movie of H.G. Wells’
“The Time Machine” -- Democrats have turned into the Eloi; they’re
like sheep. They hear a signal, and it’s like pre-programmed spin
in their heads — they just trot like sheep in one direction. I am
voting Green in protest against the systemic corruption of my
Who's she talking about specifically? Was that a typo? No. Obama.
I was very excited about him. I
thought he was a moderate. I thought that his election would
promote racial healing in the country.
It would be a tremendous transformation of attitudes. And instead:
one thing after another. Not least: I consider him, now, one of
the most racially divisive and polarizing figures ever. I think
it's going to take years to undo the damage to relationships
between the races.
Standard Disclaimer. My original plan was to show you all how to
avoid confronting the news for 36 hours. Go ahead. Grapple with the
news. Two days from now we'll have a country or we won't. DRV can
continue demanding an apology, and I will give just as much of a
fuck about that as I do now about that, win or lose.
On the other hand... thank you Lady Barbara. It's always a privilege
to get an invitation from a lady. Friends of my grandmother were
interned in Japan during WWII. They used the same coffee grounds for
a week or two. I suspect the china made all the difference.
Something few understand anymore. I'd love to serve you from my
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Ryan vs. Biden
replay? Or prediction about next Thursday? See, I'm guessing Biden will try
to plagiarize Lloyd Bentsen's
1984 putdown of Dan Quayle. Won't work.
THE CHAMP'S HIGHLIGHTS REEL. The next Romney-Obama debate will
be a townhall with undecideds selected by Gallup. You can count on a
couple of things. There will be gotcha questions aimed at Romney,
and Obama will be far more aggressive against Romney. The outcome
can't be taken for granted. Still, there will be no teleprompter and
when Obama gets aggressive, he also has a way of looking and
sounding mean. Plus, Romney has been a CEO and is therefore
experienced in shareholder meetings where tough questions are asked. Obama not so much with his cherry-picked audiences. Chances are, after the
Ryan-Biden debate, the Obama-Biden ticket will already be 0 for 2.
Worse, ratings for debates tend to decline after the first one.
Obama needs more than a draw in Debate 2, and he can no longer count
on a victory in the final foreign policy debate. The Benghazi mess
is a mess indeed.
As I said before, be patient. Wait. It's not over till it's over.
But something has happened to the myth of Obama inevitability.
Yeah, it hurts
to get busted in the gut when you haven't trained for years.
Cross your fingers. Rocky didn't win that fight. And we still have to win this one.
My wife thinks I should take a bow for this remark from the previous
post: "Nobody knows what voters are looking for in the Romney vs.
Obama event. Not you, not me. Nobody.
Attacks and deft lines? Policy specifics? A new Reagan? Maybe. Or
maybe not. Maybe they're looking for Obama's Mussolini jaw, his
stutters, his constant droning reliance on the pronouns "I" and
"me." Maybe Romney's blandness and unwillingness to get personal are
exactly what an electorate tired of hateful invective wants."
Yeah, the debate was a perfect storm of all those things. But I
didn't guess that would happen. Didn't.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
in monster screw-ups. Be patient. Wait. Keep breathing.
PEOPLE NOT PUNDITS DECIDE. Watch the debate or don't. Watch
the pundits afterwards or don't. Stay up for the flash polls or
don't. Nothing that happens tonight can be understood tonight. And it probably won't be understood for days or weeks.
Nobody knows what voters are looking for in the Romney vs. Obama
event. Not you, not me. Nobody. Attacks and
deft lines? Policy specifics? A new Reagan? Maybe. Or maybe not.
Maybe they're looking for Obama's Mussolini jaw, his stutters, his
constant droning reliance on the pronouns "I" and "me." Maybe
Romney's blandness and unwillingness to get personal are exactly
what an electorate tired of hateful invective wants. Maybe they've
already made up their minds and are just lying low, not answering
pollsters' calls and waiting for Election Day to send their message.
Yes, the debates may be critical, but exactly how...? Impossible to
How I've been preparing. Not listening to conservative talk radio.
Not watching Fox News. Emptying my own head of all expectations,
preferred strategies, and wishful thinking.
The American people either get the calamitous circumstance they find
themselves in or they don't. What will be will be.
From The Man
Who Knew Too Much. Take it from a prime offender...
From here on in, we're in the lap of the gods. Not to offend the
religious right in any way. It's a figure of speech. Calm down. Keep
Regardless, it's an absolutely brilliant piece of work. Allen
Iverson is the most interesting of all 1990s-to-present NBA
superstars, including Michael Jordan. Why? Because he was probably
as talented as Jordan, but much smaller -- except in the realm of
personality, where he represented a giant mystery no fan or friend or foe
has ever been able to penetrate. In the nation's (possibly) toughest
sports town, Philadelphia, the fans
soooo wanted to love him but had to endure such a seesaw
battle between love returned and love rebuffed that they are still
exhausted by his legacy. They called him "AI," which I always found
hilarious, because there was never anything artificial about
Iverson's intelligence. It was natural, spontaneous, impossible to
debug as a program, and continuously mesmerizing in a way no
computer could hope to emulate. At rest and at peace, he had the eyes
of a doe, and despite his being such a star he made people want to
protect him the way they would an unruly child. Yet he also became
the trailblazing poster child for hip hop style and attitude. In
this context he was dubbed "The Answer."
Yeah, he made
Jordan look clumsy more than once.
But what is "The Question?" How about, who the hell is and was Allen
Iverson? But this is only one
of the questions filmmaker Steve James (Hoop Dreams) set out to
answer in "No Crossover: The Trial of Allen Iverson."
Steve James is from Allen Iverson's hometown, Hampton, Virginia.
This is also the town where the controversy that has always
surrounded Iverson began. There was a brawl at a bowling alley.
Iverson, already a nationally famous high school football and
basketball star, was arrested for hitting a woman with a chair in a
racially charged incident in a racially charged southern
jurisdiction. That's what this film is about.
It's said, and repeated by multiple interviewees in the film, that
we can't talk about race in America. But James somehow manages to do
it. Why you absolutely have to see it. If you made the plot up, it
would be a yawn penned by dutifully liberal scriptwriters who would
choose a villain and expose him in the end so justice could be
served or thwarted according to prevailing movie conventions.
That's not what we have here. Because the center of the drama is a
character so complex that nobody, black or white, is sure to this
day what happened or why. Was there racism? Yes. Institutional
racism? Yes. Was there a distortion created by a brilliantly
talented athlete on whom the hopes of a poor community were pinned?
Yes. Was there legitimate reason to try and punish a 17-year-old boy
for a malevolent act? Yes. Was there media distortion and big media
piling on? Yes. Were black people unanimous in support of a black
youth being taken down by The Man? No. Were all white people engaged
in a racist exercise in lynching? No. Did the whole case somehow
stink to high heaven? Yes. Did the outcome prove that race relations
can never be improved and that white southerners are always unfair
and bigoted? No. Did it prove that black activists are always of one
mind about what, why, and how they do their thing in the attempt to redress
injustice? No. Were politics and political correctness responsible for
an artificial "fix" that papered over the real problems? No.
At the end we're left with ambiguities, few answers, and virtually
no animus toward anyone involved. It was a mess. The community dealt
with it as best it could, and there are still wounds, not all of
them racial. How could this be? The premise seems so stereotyped,
so, well, open and shut. There are two answers. First, there's the
startling honesty and personal participation of the filmmaker, who
interviewed his own mother, who said she thought Iverson needed to
be punished and her admission that her (dead) husband saw things
differently. Steve James allowed himself to be interviewed on camera
and spoke honestly about the racial context in his hometown at the
time, acknowledging that he accepted a status quo most people would
think expired with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Second and much more significant is the character of Allen Iverson
himself. He is absolutely not a symbol but an individual of such
striking contradictions that one is left with the conviction that he
is two completely different people. One is endearing, tender, even
sweet, oddly humble and by no means a racist. One is selfish,
grandiose, careless, oblivious, dark, manipulative, sometimes
violent, and ambitious to the extreme.
The film does a lot to show how both personas were created. The doe
eyes are not a fraud. The perpetual truant and sports star also grew
up with no father and an absentee mother, getting his older sister
ready for school in a house with such shocking plumbing problems
that they wore rubber boots because they were traipsing around in
human sewage. Various latter-day clips show how readily the thug can be reduced
to tears by others' gratitude or appreciation. Yet the people of his
hometown who fought for his release from a grotesque prison sentence
on a charge designed to prevent Jim Crow lynchings are still waiting
for a thank you. The rest of the world has seen the selfish hip hop
The sum? People all trying to do their best as they saw by their
lights good should be. White people are not sure how they feel all
these years later. But neither are black people. With regard to
Iverson, we are left with an interview he gave Stephen A. Smith in
which AI said every time he's been in jail, all four times, he's
deserved it. And he said the reasons are not racial, but personal.
At times, he suggested, God has said, "Go through this." And he
accepts that direction in his life. But there's a sense of sadness
too. He's bankrupt now, with few prospects of a second life. He went
to Georgetown, a great university, yet he still speaks the street
language of his hometown, which btw is the first place African
slaves were unloaded in America. Is life ever poetry? Unfortunately,
yes. Maybe that's "The Answer" to the question no one asked.
So. Connection to the election? Not really. Unless it's this. Obama
sometimes seems like two people too. You know. The Harvard Law
know-it-all. And the southern preacher Sunday sermonizer. But he's
not really two people, is he? Unless both of them are cold,
calculating, and even more thin-skinned than Allen Iverson.
Truth is, Obama's upbringing, his life experience, his identity,
have absolutely nothing to do with that of the brilliantly talented
and permanently tortured Allen Iverson. Then again, Allen Iverson is
an African-American. Which Obama absolutely and definitively isn't.
Monday, October 01, 2012
have to fly right into the annihilation of the sun...
CONTINUUM. Yeah, we might lose. Which puts everyone who knows
better on a path they'd rather not have to take. Privation,
persecution, maybe even prosecution and the end of everything we know.
But what have we all been here for? Perhaps for nothing more or
admirably higher than prepping Brizoni for the real fight to come.
After those of us who remember are dead and gone. That's worthwhile.
There are times when the best of us have to go through the very
worst to become revitalized. Brizoni has all my faith.
that Eli is as tall, handsome or brilliant as Brizoni. The
by the way would be our own Joe.Brave and rockheaded as they come. But note whose head is up and whose is down when the lights go out.
We all die. The world is left to those who will fight for it.
Friday, September 28, 2012
The simple case
isn't all that smart,
folks. But don't tell that to the MSM or Hollywood...
William H. Macy is surely old enough to
remember back to JFK, who did
have an air of grace.
Meaning, it wasn't always about him. (No
YOU AT THE START. Conservatives and their brethren piss and
moan that it's not enough for Romney to be NOT OBAMA. Poppycock.
There's a very simple case to be made against Obama that I urge you
all to press on your liberal friends. Reasons no one should vote to reelect
The man and his surrogates lie continuously about almost
everything. He promised to cut the deficit. He doubled
it. He promised that ObamaCare wouldn't raise health insurance
premiums or force people to give up insurance plans they liked.
Premiums have gone up and people are already losing their employee
health insurance plans. He said he would end the partisan
bickering that paralyzes Washington. It's never been more
vitriolic and poisonous, and he's the one leading the way. This
past week, his administration has also been shown to be
deliberately lying about the attack that slew a U.S. ambassador in
Libya. It wasn't about a video. It was about al qaeda launching a
commemorative 9/11 attack on the 11th anniversary of the WTC
strike. Are we fools? The press may be covering for him, but even
liberals should be able to detect that their candidate has a fast
and loose relationship with the truth that is almost unparalleled
in U.S. history. If the press is ever to be functional again, we
need a change.
2. Obama is at most a part-time
president. He was elected as a celebrity, and a celebrity
is what he would prefer to be. He doesn't have time to meet with
members of congress, not even his own Democratic leaders in the
house and senate. What he has time for is golf, fundraisers,
sports teams at the White House, The View, Beyonce and Jay-Z, but
none for intelligence briefings or meetings with foreign leaders
at the U.N. Shouldn't this make everyone
squeamish? And while he routinely ducks press conferences and
appears on the ass-kissing Letterman program instead, he still commits a gaffe by
failing to remember the size of the federal debt. Ask yourself:
fon't you want the man in the Oval Office to be working his butt
off for us? There isn't anybody who can say Obama's
3. The president doesn't like the
people he was elected to serve, namely, Americans. Maybe
they find him likeable,
for no reason I can detect, but unless you're a demographic
minority he can exploit at the polls, he has no time for you.
There's little sign that he visits wounded troops. After throwing
his Liberation Theology preacher under the bus in 2008, he seems
to have given up going to church altogether. There's no indication
that he regards women as anything more than horny babymaking
machines who need to be strapped into a federal barn like milk
cows. He doesn't bother to learn the names of the cities he
visits. He panders to Hispanics but can't even name their big
holiday. He apologizes and bows to our enemies, defends muslims
intrepidly and wishes them a happy Ramadan every year, and either
slights or ignores our foreign allies and the working people
(entrepreneurs) of this country, who don't belong to unions and
are, btw, responsible for creating at least half the jobs in the
private economy. He doesn't even think they matter. Liberal or
otherwise, tell that to your plumber, electrician, roofer,
mechanic, tire dealer, candle shop, dollar store, diner, gas
station, hardware store, and garden center. You know. None of them
has an ass like Beyonce or a dunk like LeBron. Who's the elitist
here? And who wants to be in that category? Liberals...???
4. He's done a crappy job by any measure. If you're a good
Democrat, a good liberal, the best thing you can do for yourself
is to put the onus on Republicans to fix the gigantic economic and
international mess we're in. The Arab Spring alone is akin to ten Carter-sponsored Iranian
Revolutions. Israel is in serious danger of getting nuked while
Obama fiddles and hides.Foreign policy's an even bigger
disaster than the U.S. economy, which is absolutely catastrophic.
Real unemployment is over ten percent and not declining.We're
headed for another deep recession, as all the indicators suggest
if any media outlet would report them. It's probable that no one
can undo the damage Obama has done in four short years. Four more
years will gurantee a Republican resurgence the likes of which you
have never seen or envisioned. Cut your losses. Bail for the good
of your own idiotic notions of how government should be run. Bail
for the more than 50 percent probability that your own Democratic
senators will be forced, at some point, in a second term, to
impeach this corrupt little con-man and throw him out of of office
to save the nation. Benghazi carries that risk all by itself. Then
there's Fast & Furious. Solyndra. And more, much more, to
come. Election law violations, dirty bargains with the SEIU and
ACORN, administration ties under the table with the Occupy
movement, numerous legal violations by the most nakedly political
DOJ in history. Even the MSM will have to pounce on one of the
hundred simmering scandals they've been ignoring when a big enough
stink erupts in the endlessly expanding new media. And when the
economy plunges, yet again, any excuse will do. Why Biden was
retained on the ticket. Obama's insurance policy. Is that what
libs want? Really? Is that how you like to view your mission and
destiny, O, ye liberals?
Four points. Is Romney qualified? Sure. Far more than Obama was four
years ago. The rest is, as I said, simple, Who would vote for a guy
who has contempt for practically everyone, hasn't even tried to do
his job from Day One, and would obviously be much much happier on
the speech circuit explaining -- like Carter -- how he hasn't
totally screwed up the world for the next 50 years?
Quit being polite. Talk to your lib friends. Be prepared to lose
them. The alternative is losing our country.