Electioin, Evil Polls, Santorum, Romney and the Media: Dishonest, Stupid People

The dishonest, stupid people of the headline are the "journaliss" of the media, including the unfair and unbalanced network. Notice how this blog was PROVEN RIGHT once again. Score (Updated): Blog 9857 lMedia 0.


What has this blog told you? Polls are meaningless, evil things. They do not tell anything about how people SHOULD vote (and it is an evil thing to suggest they should), and this election season has proven conclusively thqat polls do not even tell lyou who people WILL vote (especailly even as much as a week ahead). Yet, what was the immdeidate reactin of the cable TV people to Santorum's victories in Alabama and Mississippi? Their reactin was NOT to stop treating pols as "news", and the MAIN way to "report" on an eleciton. Forget that the Santorum victory in both states again showed that, as ti was NOT "predicted" by the polls. Bret Beaire, an awesomely STUPID man on a STUPID network, even said that Santroums vicotry was not expected from the polls. What was almost the next thing out of Baire's muth? Right. He cited the POLL in Illinois (next week's primary) as if it meant something.


It gets worse. You have all of the media citing pols about Obama in the fall as if they meant ANYTHING. You just don't get anyhy more DISHOENST and STUPID than that. hHere you have example after example this year about how the polls "change" 15% in a matter of a week or less, and the media still cites polls as to "mtch-ups" in November as if they actuallly mean somehting. They do not. This blog has told lyou that right along, and this blog is right.


Then you have Mitt Romney. The man is a weak candidate. He is unable to connect with people, as this blog has told you from day 1. The headline is not meant to apply to Romney. It is meant to apply to the media, who live and die by polls that change AS THEY TALK. (not to mentiion in the real poll taken on electin day). Am I saying that the media should pretty much IGNORE polls, and start really COVERING elections as "journalists". Yes, I am sayhintg that. But what am I saying???????????????!!!!!!!!!!!! I have already shown you, over more than 8 years, that these people are NOT "journalists". Why should I expect them to start acting like "journalists" now? Of course, I don't. But even though the headline is not meant for Romney, i do consider Romney very dishoenst (not personally, but in the political way typical of establishment politicians). Just look at Romney's MAIN argument for nominating him: now about his ONLY argument. It is that OLLS show that Romney does better against Obama--meaningless polls about match-ups that don't even exist yet, while CURRENT polls are not even right about NEXT WEEK., or about what would happen TODAY (as of yesterday). The unfair and unbalanced network is about the worst on this, and keep quoting those polls favoring Romney as if they mean anything Sure, you are entitled to an opinion that Romney is BLAND enough, with NO principles, that he might have a better chance of winning in November. You can also take the position that Santorm is taking: that if Romney cannot even beat Santourm with the MONEY and MEDIA behind him, along with thge entire establishment, then Romney is not going to be able to beat Obama in November. That is the positin I take, as lyou can't really LEARN to connect with people to overcome the ADVANTAGES that Obama will have in the fall (the same advantages that Romney hss now agaqisnt Santourm). The turth is that the "bet" oopponent for Obama is OBAMA. That is another way of saying that the eleciton will probably be about Obama a, and things like gas prices and that truly disastrous health care law, rather than about the "positoin" of the GOP candidate on "contraception" (unless the GOP candidate can turn that into the proper channel and connect it to the attack on FREEDOM represented by ObamaCare) and what Rush Limbuagh said about a Georgetown law student (lol).


You have herd me tell you that this blog is SUPERIOR to RUSH LIMBUAGH., even though I like Rush. That was proven again today. Limbaugh was GLOATING this morning on the new POLL showing that Obama sis in TROUBLE (with an "approval rating" of 41%). Now Rush will ATTACK polls almost as strongly as I do, EXCEPT when the polls fit into his partisan view. That is NOT what I do. Nope. That oll cited by Rush is MEANINGLESS, and really tells you notigng but what I have told you: The economy and people cannot stand gasoline prices to be thins high, or for the price of oil to be above $105 per barrel. It does nto matter what "spn" is ut on this by Obama and the media, the peopel believe their EYS (and their lighter pocketbooks). But this POLL still means NOTHIING (other than that Obama is fooling himself if the thinks he can get away with his usual rhetoric on gasoline prices). What matters is the situation in July, August, September and October. And July and August only mean anything because it is possible that they will set up a situation that cannot be reversed in September and October. Even then, the POLLS will mean little. But the way the ECONOMY is developing may mean a lot. Remember, as the meida people sometimes cite wiout seeming to realize it means they are callling themselves STUPID, thaqt John McCain was EVEN with Barack Obama in August of 2008. But teh economic collapse quickly doomed McCain (partly because he is McCain, and had only an "estalbishment" response to a "crisis" that required much more if he were gong to have a chance against Obama).


Nope. This blog IS superior to Rush Limbuagh, because I do not let partisan blindness blind me to reality (even though I am effectively blind). No, I don't "turn the other cheek", but I don't deceive you either. A poll showing Obama IN TROUBLE means NO MORE than a poll showing Obama "improving". Neither is owroth even mentioning. The real quesitgn is what the right POLICY is, and looking just at polls does not help you there. In fact, it probably HURTS you because you are not cfocusing on the right thing.


REaders of this blog know taht I don't favor Newt Gingrich, and am just as unwilling to vote for him as I am for Mitt Romney. However, Gingrich is RIGHT on so many things that I wish he were not WRONG on so many things so consistently. The GOP candidate SHOULD be taking on Obama on IDEAS, including the IDEA that we CAN get gasoline prices down to $2.50 a gallon. They weere about $1.90 a gallon when Obama took office. Yet, the "establishment" view is that the President can do NOTHING about gasoline grices. I heard Mitt Romney parrot this view, when asked about Gingrich, by saying that the President could nto control gasoline prices. And the unfair and unbalanced netowrk LIED about Gingrich after Super Tuesday by saying taht it was "wrong' to "guarantee" taht you can bring gasoline prices to $2.50 a gallon. gingrich, of course, did NOT gauarntee it. YES, FOX, YOU LIE ALL OF THE TIME, AND PEOPLE SHOULD PAY NO MORE ATTENTINO TO WHAT YOU SAY THAN TO CNN (momentraily breaking my policy of never mentioning the unfair and unbalanced network by name, as I recommend every thinkng person boycott the network). Gingrich--I heard the speech--said that he had a GOAL oof bringing gasoline prices to $2.50 a gallon: a perfectly reasonable goal, despite the LIARS of the unfair and unbalanced network (and the GOP establishment) . Further, Gingrich is right. He has almost singlehandedly taken on Obama on this issue, while the rest of the GOP has been unwilling to really go after Obama on gasoline prices ("leading from behind", as they act like cowarsds hooping the people will figure it out without any help, as they may). It is not too far a stretch to say that GINGRICH is responsible for Obama's newly sagging poll numbers. Remember, OBAMA was perfectly willng to PROMISE that unemplyment woulld not go above 8%. Did it bother Obama thqat unemplyment has essentially not been below 8% since? Not a chance. Yet, the GOP estalbishment worries about OVERPROMISING on gasoline prices!!!!!! What COWARDS. Yes, I do think Santourm could learn from Gingrich on this one. Of course you can't "guarantee" what gasoline prices will be. What if we go to war to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That does not change that Oama POLICIES are responsbile for the astronomical gasoline prices we now have, making it even WORSE if we have to go to war with Iran. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a GOAL of reducing gasoline prices to $2.50 a barrel, and this blog said the same thing when Michele Bachmann had that postion (to the ricdicule of the mainstream media and the unfair and unbalanced network).


No. We need candidates with PRINCIPOLES wo are willing to take on Obama like Gingrich is on gasoline prices. Santorum, I beleive, has the principles. He is not my perfect candidate, because he remains too much of a standard politician. This blog still endorses Santourm, eveven though you may have gotten the idea that it is "my way or the highway" as to a candidate with flaws. I can't endorse Romney because he has NEITHER principles nor the iwill to really take on Obama. Gingrich is willing to take on Obama (now, when he does not think he can win the nomination), but Gingirch is willing to argue every side of every issue, depedning on his whim at the time. Thus, Sntourm, is it, flawed as he may be, and I think he has as much chance in November as Romney (maybe more, as Santourm CAN connect with people, if he can only learn to take on the media like Gingrich).


This blog has told you, since Michigan, that Santurm's problem is DLEGATES. Sanotrum MUST stop bleedig delegates by not getting the delegates he should. Santrum is not, agian, on the ballot in four districts in Illionois (which evidently has pretty complicated rules), and lost delegates in Ohio for that reason. Thiink of where Santorum might be if he had been ON THE BALLOT IN VIRGINIA. At some pont, and that pont is yesterday, Santourm has to start contesting EVERY delegate he can, like a basketball team contesting every shot. Unless he stops bleeding delegates to Romney, it will not matter how many states he wins. "But, Skip, Santourmm has had to worry about survival, because he has not had the MONEY.'. That is true enough. Without the money OR the establishment on your side, it is hard. Reagan found that out in 1976. However, Reagan LOST in 1976 to a GOP estalbishment that LOST the November electino with a NOTHING candidate. Romney may well end up being just as bad a candidate as Geral Ford (or George H. W. Bush in 1992 or Bob Dole in 1996). But Romney may win the nomination anyway, unless Santourm can figure out a way to stop bleeding delegates (or totally catches fire and strats defeating Romney even in states like Illinois, which you get the feeling is what Santorum is really hopng for, and ALMOST got in Michigan and Ohio).


Romney is still the likely nominee. Too bad. And that does NOT mean you should vote for him, or regard him as the GOP's best shot against Obama. I will vote for Santorum, in Texas, if the contest is still going on. He si a solid, consistent conservative, despite his falws (of the standard Washington politican kind, which Mitt Romney has IN SPADES, even though he has not been in Washington).


P.S. No proofreading or sepell checkng (bad eyesight). Yet, I can SEE better than the media (easily) or Rush Limbaugh (more difficult, and mainly because of Rush's hyper-partisan nature). Santourm again faces MONEY and the ENTIRE establishment in Illinois next Tuesday. It does nto matter what the polls say, and don't be deceived if the media says Romney has made an "amazing comeback" if the polls "show" that Santourm omentariy "leads" in Illinois. Tose polls woould be MEANINGLESS. Ropmney is the HEAVY favorite in Illinois, for the reasons I sate, and it will be something of a miracle for him to "win" Illinois. That is the kind of "miracle" Santorum needs to really SHAKE the GOP establishment about Romney--not to mentin the voters. I have said that there is NO one state, after Michigan, where Santorum can really "knock out" Romney. That is true, and Romney would not be "knocked out" by a close loss in Illinois. But Romney could nto stand too many losses like that. At some pont, EVERYONE will perceive thaqt Romney is a terrible candidate (bercause of his inabililty to connect--not because he is untalented in an unprincipled way). The odds are, unfortunately, that Romney will win Illinoiis, and the media will LIE to you if they report a "poll" that purports to make Santrum the 'favorite" in Illinois. More reason to vote for Santorum in Illinois, and more reoson that such a miracle victory would, perhaps, be the beginning of the end for Romney. With his advantages in money and support of the establishment, and the fact that Illinois is a mroe liberal state than most 9even as to the GOP voters), Romney SHOULD win Illinois by at least 10 percentage ponts, if not more. Santurm's "sweep" this Tuesday night will not mean much once he is faced with the ROMNEY BLITZ that is coming in Ilinois, and perahps a MEDIA BLITZ as well (although the mainstream media sort of goes back and forth between favoring Romney as the more liberal GOP candidate, and trying to WEAKEN Romney, depending on whether they start to worry that Santorum might actually become President). The GOP establishment is in much the same position, even though Santourm is hardly outside of the establishment to the extent Ronald Reagan was. The GOP establishment, like the media would nodo almost AnYTHING to stop a conservative from being elected President. The feeling is, of course, mutual., as I left the GOP (Grand, Outdated Party) in my rear view mirror long ago. . I have notw moved on to leaving the Tea Party pOLITICIANS in that same place, as they continue to betray.