We know that Barack Obama is NOT a Christian (as professed agnostics Bill Maher and teh author of this blog agree). Is Bill O'Reilly really Catholic? I dno't thinks so (as an outsied observer: now aganostic and raised Presbyterian, with an admitted suspicion of the Catholic religion coming fro both my upbringing and knowledge of the HSTORY of what led to the Reformation). Whny do I say that? O'Reilly BRAGGED about "getting" an interview with Rick Santorum ,tonight, and then DISHONEST HYPOCRITE O'Reilly proceeded to basically take the HIT PIECE" mainstream media na narrative to do one of the wort interviews I have everf seen.
Is the "news" here really the potential SMEARS that the mainstream media will bring against Santorum? Those are NEGATIE ADS, and have noathing to do with whether Ricmk Santorum should be President. I assure you, I am not exaggerating. O'Reilly went through tthe litany of possible SMEARS against Snatorum, knowing full well that this is a way of DESTROYONG Santorum. If all Santorum gets is q2uestionis about possible SMEARS, tehn Santourm has no chance to get into the question of why he shouyld actually be President (as distinguished from defending against every STUPID possibl esmear there is. Doubt me? Never do that. Look at this list of subjeccts O'Reilly spent MOST of this PROMOTED interview talking about, in the context of Santorum being to extreme":
1. Contraceptioin (again, is O'Reilly really a Caholic--a believing one?). I could never make this up. Is this one of the burning issues of our time? Not a chance. Does Rick Santroum support making CAONTRACEPTION illegal? Not a chance. Waht Santorum said, in answer to a question once, is that states have a RIGHT to make contraception illegal. That happens to be my positoin. It goes back to the much criticized Supreme Court decision--a decsion lthat was then EXTENDED to justify Roe v. Wadae on the mocuh more seriouis issue of abortgion--that it violated a "right of privacy" for states to have a law against sale of contraceptives. Now no one was ENFORCING such a law, in terms of individuals and maybe in terms of sales, but this was a deliberately manufactured case to try to lead in to an atttack on abortion. There were one or two states ONLY that had such a law still on the books, and the law was unlikely to stay on the books. Notice how ESOTERIC this "issue" is. Do you CARE whether states have the "right" to prohibit sales of contraceptives? This is a DELIBERATE, DISHONEST attempt to imply that Santourm would like to "take away" your "right" to use contraceptives. It is a SMEAR, pure and simple, and O'RFeilly knows it. O'Reily; YOU ARE A DHSHOENST HYPOCRITE. This is what leftists do: confuse the policy issue of conhtraception with the issue of whether the Constitution has anything to say on the matter, and then confuse contraception with the l\ife and death issue of abortion. It is obviously also what O'Reilly does, and I will never foregive him for it. This is the LAST time I will even SRUF a single minute of an O'Reilly program, or any program he is on, and the LAST time I will see a single minute of the "prime time' lineup of the unfair and unbalanced network. I will continue to SURF no more than two minues a day as to the daytime propaganda of the unfair and unbalanced network, and to listen to EVENTS like debates, but I am again confirmed in my BOYCOTT of the unfair and unbalanced network, and beg you to do the same.
2. Gay marriage and gays in the military. I kid you not. In the entire HISTORY of human civilization, prior to the 21st Century, marriage has been between a man and a woman. We have had INCEST mar\riages (Egypt, including Cleopatra). We have had MANY times and cultures, including some continuing to this day in some Muslim countries, where OLYGAMY is not recognized. NEVER homosexual marriage, at ANY TIEM, or in ANY CULTURE, until this recent insantiy. Ye O'Reilly, with a straight face, suggested to Santorum that his position on gay marriage is "extreme". O'REILLY< YOU ARE A DHISHONEST HYPOCRITGE. Again, this is a SMER of Santroum, not because it "hurts' him directly, but because it sends the MESSAGE that Santorum is ONY about this kind of "social issue'. As Santourm said, his SEPEECH in Iowa said NOTHING about "bay rights" issues. O'Reilly ignored the speech, and went with the SMEAR.
3. Gays in the military. See 2 above.
4. This is from O'Reilly DISHONEST HYPOCRITE, who has often said how HURTFUL it has been when the left has accused him of RACISM based on an intterpretation of what he said. This one is totally absurd. Santorum is "accused" of saying: "you do not help blacks when you give them welfare." First, this statement is TRUE, especially in the context of Santorum talking about welfare merely creating a "dependent class". Second, Santorum probably DID NOT SAY IT. The "criticism" is that Santorum implied that ONLY blacks are on welfare. Say what? If I were asked, for examle, whether the GOP should not reach out to African-Americans by MORE welfare probrams, or whether the GOP is not HURTING minorites and the poor by CUTTING welfare--with special emphaiss on black people, I would be likely to say something like what Santroum DENIES that he said (with an ambiguous tape). This blog, of course, has correctly told ou that LEFITST DEMOCRATS are RACISTS because THEY keep talking aobut how Afircan-Americans and Hispanics should VOTE for Democrats because Democrats supposedly "helip" them by giving them "benefits'. THAT is RACIST. To say that it does NOT help blakcs to be looked uypon as a dependent, wellfare class is NOT racist. Now if Santorum were out there continually talking about "blacks' on welfare, you might see the "criticism". But, ONE SENTENCE, that he may not have even said? Give me a break. This is a SMEAR. And, O'Reilly, you are a DISHONEST HYPOCCRITE. Yep. It is BEING a hypocrite to have an interview with Santorum and ONLY bring up SMEARS, based on the assertion that OTHERS are going to attack him that way. So, O'Reillly, you are jsut as BAD as CNN, MSNBC and the rest, by your own admission. Well, I AGREE with you. You, and your network, ARE just as bad.
I think there were more, but you get the point, O'Reilly just brought up SEMAR after SMEAR, as if that is what Santorum's campaign will be all about. If Santorum LETS his campaign be about that, then Santorum will lose, and the SEMARS will win. That is their purpose: to simply make the campaign all about the SMEARS and not about why you should vote for Santroum
Now Santorum was fine in terms of his answwers to O'reilly--EXCEPT, Santourm is going to have to STOP answering those questonis--attakcing the question--and go on to the IMPROTANT things he wants people to know about himn. It is probably too much to ask him to have handled O'Reilly that way, at this point. But he MUST start doing that. If he lets himself be DEFINED as someone ONLY interested in "social issues', and someone who has to keep "defending" himself on allegedly "extrem" positions, then Santorum will never have a chance. That is the INTENT.
The unfair and unbalanced network has become CNN light, and is beoming more so every single day. The u;nfair and unbalanced network more and more presents the mainstream media narrative as the way this election should be "covered". FACTS? Don't be silly? IMPORTANT issues? Don't be silly. Get away from the SEMARS? Don't be silly. The unfair and unbalanced netowrk LIVES for those, especailly since they are ALL IN for Romney (I guarantee you on this).
Nope. Unless by accident, or on another program, tonight represented the last time I will see O'Reilly's face on televisonis. It was a disgraceful interview, and I am convinced O'Reilly was fully aware of what he was doing. NO light. Only HEAT (and propaganda, smear heat at that).
B y the way, the CORRECT thing for Santorum is to IGNORE tghe smears (not go out of his way to "answer them). Santourm needs to keep to HIS MESDSAGE. And if the attempt is made to FORCE him into a bos by onlly asking him about these smears, then Santourm MUST ATTACK THE QUESION (whether as harshly as I do or not).
P.S, No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Romney, Gingrich, Liars and the Unfair and Unbalanced Network
The unfair and unbalanced network jumped all over Newt Gingrich today for (correctly) calling Mitt Romney a liear (apparently because Romney disclaimed responsibility for the vicioius negative ad campaign against Gingrich, when the Ropmney campaing was obviusly behind it, even if the "dirty work" was done by a "Supter PAC" supposedly outside of any Romney control).
What is my problem with this, such that it again confirms my continually more unfavorable view of the unfair and unbalanced network? My problem is how MUCH teh unfair and unbalanced network made of the word "liar". Romney called Gingrich "zany", among other pretty vicious things (directly out of Romney's mouth, and NOT just in negative ads).
In what universe does the unfair and unbalanced network regard "liar" as WORSE than "zany"? Not in my universe, or any universe I know about. But the unfair and unbalanced network--hpocrites that they are--merely sort of chuckled over 'zany", but regarded "liar" as some sort of crime against civility. This is also the same network which hardly blinked an eye--just like CNN, as this is "CNN light"--at the really vicioius Romney negative ad campaign against Gingrich.
See my previous article, where I sugggest that the ost significant thing to come out of Iowa, beyond Santourm being in positon to becomine the conservative alternative to Romney, is a pssible GingrichVENDETTA (blood feud) against Romney. The unfair and unbalanced network idea that Romney has destroyed Gingrich without consequences to himself, just shows how stupid the peole of that network really are. Gngrich, of course, made the same mistake as to Ron Paul, as has the GOP estalbishment, but Gingrich at least had the excuse that Paul also conducted a visous negative ad campaign against Gingrich in Iowa.
Nope. You should contiue to BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. It is not worth watching. No insight. No intelligence. No facts. No "journalism". No honesty. No worth. Hey, you should be proud of me. I did not even use the word "LIAR" to describve them, although I was tempted. And n yes, I picked up this "liar' hypocrisy from my usual BRIEF SURFING. I did, however, exceed my alotted daily total of two minues because I wanted to get a mroe extensive view of the reaction of the farious networks to the Iowa electin, even though the exact result of the election (especailly as to the "winner") had NO MEANING. I watched CNN at least as much, as usual these days, and rally saw no differnce in coverage (excpet CNN may have been slightly BETER in avoiding things like sugggesting that the WINNER had any meaning, even when we are only talking aobut a few votes either way).
What is my problem with this, such that it again confirms my continually more unfavorable view of the unfair and unbalanced network? My problem is how MUCH teh unfair and unbalanced network made of the word "liar". Romney called Gingrich "zany", among other pretty vicious things (directly out of Romney's mouth, and NOT just in negative ads).
In what universe does the unfair and unbalanced network regard "liar" as WORSE than "zany"? Not in my universe, or any universe I know about. But the unfair and unbalanced network--hpocrites that they are--merely sort of chuckled over 'zany", but regarded "liar" as some sort of crime against civility. This is also the same network which hardly blinked an eye--just like CNN, as this is "CNN light"--at the really vicioius Romney negative ad campaign against Gingrich.
See my previous article, where I sugggest that the ost significant thing to come out of Iowa, beyond Santourm being in positon to becomine the conservative alternative to Romney, is a pssible GingrichVENDETTA (blood feud) against Romney. The unfair and unbalanced network idea that Romney has destroyed Gingrich without consequences to himself, just shows how stupid the peole of that network really are. Gngrich, of course, made the same mistake as to Ron Paul, as has the GOP estalbishment, but Gingrich at least had the excuse that Paul also conducted a visous negative ad campaign against Gingrich in Iowa.
Nope. You should contiue to BOYCOTT the unfair and unbalanced network. It is not worth watching. No insight. No intelligence. No facts. No "journalism". No honesty. No worth. Hey, you should be proud of me. I did not even use the word "LIAR" to describve them, although I was tempted. And n yes, I picked up this "liar' hypocrisy from my usual BRIEF SURFING. I did, however, exceed my alotted daily total of two minues because I wanted to get a mroe extensive view of the reaction of the farious networks to the Iowa electin, even though the exact result of the election (especailly as to the "winner") had NO MEANING. I watched CNN at least as much, as usual these days, and rally saw no differnce in coverage (excpet CNN may have been slightly BETER in avoiding things like sugggesting that the WINNER had any meaning, even when we are only talking aobut a few votes either way).
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Rick Santorum: Winnner (Blog Right Again)
No, I don't know whether Rick Santorum "beat" Mitt Romney in Iowa by a few votes or "lost" by a few votes. As this blog told you, the Rick Santorum story was the BIG story coming out of Iowa before the vote counting ever started on Tuesday night. It is IRRELEVANT who "won" Iowa. Unlike the Presidential election, NOTHING is at stake on determining the winner (which is why there is NO RECOUNT). No delegates. As it has turned out, the election is a TIE (from any realistic point of view) between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum.
But look at what athis blog told you IN ADVANCE. This blog told you that Rick Santourm was already the winner, no matter what the actual votre count between Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, IN ADVANCE (in foresight, as usual). However, this blog did not stop there. Before New Year's, this blgo told RUSM LIMBAUGH that he needed to SUPPORT RICK SANTORUM, or else make the same mistake he did in 2008 (when Limbaugh BETRAYED conservatives by failing to come out AGAINST McCain in time to make a difference--ironicallly , of course, by failing to endorse Romney when this blog endorsed Romney in late 2007).
What this blog told you, in foresight, was that Rick Santorum was the ONLY conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, and worth suporting on that basis (even if not the "perfect" conservative candidate). This blgo endorsed Rick Santorumm for that reason.,
This blog was only SLIGHTLY off in one respect: Gingrich and Perry did SLIGHTLY worse than I thought they might. I had their POSITIONS right. I jsut did not know whether they could get up close to 15%. Newt Gingrich did, at about 13%, but Rick Perry was right at 10%. That meanst that Iowa acutally MEWANT a little more than I thought it might. Michele Bacmann did not even reach 10%, or even close, and Rick Perry did so badly that he is "reassessing" his campaign (almost always a death signal). Perry and Bachmann are therefore OUT (whether they make it official or not), and the Iowa vote has MAYBE narrowed the field to Santorum and Romney (Ron Paul never having any chance for the nomination, and still having no chance, even though his percentage of the vote in Iowa was respectable enough to keep him in the race if he actaully ever was in the race).
Gingrich has not been eliminated. McCain got the same percentage of the vote as Gingrich in Iowa in 2008, butMcCain had put NO effort into Iowa. The other thing that Iowa accomplished was to make GINGRICH a mortal ENEMY of Romney. Everyone hwo listented to Gingrich's speech on election night recognized that Gingrich is ANGRY at Romney (deep anger, and not just irritation). There is no doubt that Gingrich is right that Romney ENCOURAGED a massively negative campaign against Gingrich in Iowa,. This, in fact, is perhaps the most meaningful thing to come out of Iowa. It AMYU cost Romney dearly in the end. Gingrich seems to have developed a MISSION to TAKE ROMNEY DOWN (even if Gingrich hurts his own eleciton prospects--now slim--in the process). This is one of the downsides of really massive NETATIVE CAMPAIGNING in the nomination fight, and Romney may rue his decision to go so massively negative agaaisnt Gingrich., Make no mitske here. Romney DID make such a decision, even if the worst "negative ads" were from a Suerp PAC not directly under Romney's contgrol (although supporting Romney, and pretty much established by Romney).
Yep. This blog supported Romney in 20008, although that had a lot to do with McCain. However, my opinion of Romney has gone DOWN almost every day of this electin season, as Romney has made it clearer every day that he is all about "politics as usual", and not abut any conservative principles. Thus, I am no longer sure that Romney is ANY better than McCain (who is set to ENDORSE Romney this week--a fitting epitaph for Romney as a "conservative"). If Romney is any better than McCain, it iis not by much. Further, as my older daughter (who lives in Boston) told me while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, Romney is anobvious ELITIST, patrician establishment figure with almost NO ability to connect with the "common man". That is why I discount the idea that Romney is the best bet to DEFEAT Obvama.
In his speech tonight, Santorum showed more ability to CNNECAT with people than Romney ever has. Sure, if the election were held TODAY, Ropmney would probably have a better chance to defeat Obama than Santorum (who is hardly known) . But the Presidential election will NOT be held today, and will not be held until next November. Is Romney really able to run a better CAMPAIGN agaiinst Obama than Santorum? I don't think so, although it is up to Santourm to SHOW this to be true now that he will be getting attention.
What people who say Romney is more "electable" really mean is that they think Romney is "politics as usual" enough (slick enough, in otehr words), that he will not be easy for Obama to TARGET. Those peop;le think Obama will be the ISSUE, and they just want an establishment nominee who the media will have trouble making the issue (instead of Obama). Problem: This has NEVER really worked. Dole failed. McCain failed. George H. W. Bush failed (after winning once, based on Reagan's legacy). Gerald Ford failed. Even George W. Bush LOST the popula vote to that stiff, Al Gore (George W. Bush NOT being a conservative, although he had a more conservative image than Romney or McCain). The ONLY GOP candidates to be really successful were Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Nixon was a special case, winning a landslide over the wort Democrat candidate of all time (George McGovern), after being handed victory over Hubert Humphrey by the Vietnam War and Democrat division In other words, the Democrastes self-destructed with Nixon. The ONLY GOP candidate who has gone out and actuallyWON a Presidential election substantially, on his own merits, was Ronald Reagan (in my lifetime). And Reagan was NOT supposed to be "electable". George H.W. Bush was supposed to be the "electable",, establishment candidate. Now I have said I don't think Santorum is another Reagan, but this idea that a "politics as usual", estalbishment GOP candidate is automatically the most "electable" is not supported by history. Yes, Barry Goldwater got swamped, but that was mainly because of the Kennedy Assassination, helped by GOP estalbishment SABOTAGE. Absent such sabotage, Santorum is probably at least as likely to beat Obama as Romney, and probably more likely. Again, Romney fails to CNNECT with people.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). As this P.S. is being typed (a later edit, after Ityped the main body of this article, it appears that Romney was declared the "winner" of the Iowa caucuses. That does not change a single word of the above article, or the headline. Indeed, I think it confirms that the media are composed of The Stupidest People on Earth that they kept their "live coverage" going to the MEANINGLESS "bitter end", long after it was obvious that the result wsa effectively a TIE. If this had been a "rfeal" election, as distinguished from these caucuses where the "winner" gains nothing over the person finish;ing second, then there would be recounts, controversy and uncertainty extending over WEEKS,. But it simply does not matter who the technical "winer" is, since the only real thing at stake here is WHO is going to be the conservative who challenges Mitt Romney. That is now most likely to be Rick Santorum, although it is always possible that Santorum will "falme out" like Cain, Bachmann and Perry. I don't include Gingrich, both because he is not QUITE out, and because he is NOT really a conservative (althuogh WHAT he is I am not sure--Gingrich sort of being an unprincipled man of ideas, which is a very strrange kind of politician).
But look at what athis blog told you IN ADVANCE. This blog told you that Rick Santourm was already the winner, no matter what the actual votre count between Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, IN ADVANCE (in foresight, as usual). However, this blog did not stop there. Before New Year's, this blgo told RUSM LIMBAUGH that he needed to SUPPORT RICK SANTORUM, or else make the same mistake he did in 2008 (when Limbaugh BETRAYED conservatives by failing to come out AGAINST McCain in time to make a difference--ironicallly , of course, by failing to endorse Romney when this blog endorsed Romney in late 2007).
What this blog told you, in foresight, was that Rick Santorum was the ONLY conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, and worth suporting on that basis (even if not the "perfect" conservative candidate). This blgo endorsed Rick Santorumm for that reason.,
This blog was only SLIGHTLY off in one respect: Gingrich and Perry did SLIGHTLY worse than I thought they might. I had their POSITIONS right. I jsut did not know whether they could get up close to 15%. Newt Gingrich did, at about 13%, but Rick Perry was right at 10%. That meanst that Iowa acutally MEWANT a little more than I thought it might. Michele Bacmann did not even reach 10%, or even close, and Rick Perry did so badly that he is "reassessing" his campaign (almost always a death signal). Perry and Bachmann are therefore OUT (whether they make it official or not), and the Iowa vote has MAYBE narrowed the field to Santorum and Romney (Ron Paul never having any chance for the nomination, and still having no chance, even though his percentage of the vote in Iowa was respectable enough to keep him in the race if he actaully ever was in the race).
Gingrich has not been eliminated. McCain got the same percentage of the vote as Gingrich in Iowa in 2008, butMcCain had put NO effort into Iowa. The other thing that Iowa accomplished was to make GINGRICH a mortal ENEMY of Romney. Everyone hwo listented to Gingrich's speech on election night recognized that Gingrich is ANGRY at Romney (deep anger, and not just irritation). There is no doubt that Gingrich is right that Romney ENCOURAGED a massively negative campaign against Gingrich in Iowa,. This, in fact, is perhaps the most meaningful thing to come out of Iowa. It AMYU cost Romney dearly in the end. Gingrich seems to have developed a MISSION to TAKE ROMNEY DOWN (even if Gingrich hurts his own eleciton prospects--now slim--in the process). This is one of the downsides of really massive NETATIVE CAMPAIGNING in the nomination fight, and Romney may rue his decision to go so massively negative agaaisnt Gingrich., Make no mitske here. Romney DID make such a decision, even if the worst "negative ads" were from a Suerp PAC not directly under Romney's contgrol (although supporting Romney, and pretty much established by Romney).
Yep. This blog supported Romney in 20008, although that had a lot to do with McCain. However, my opinion of Romney has gone DOWN almost every day of this electin season, as Romney has made it clearer every day that he is all about "politics as usual", and not abut any conservative principles. Thus, I am no longer sure that Romney is ANY better than McCain (who is set to ENDORSE Romney this week--a fitting epitaph for Romney as a "conservative"). If Romney is any better than McCain, it iis not by much. Further, as my older daughter (who lives in Boston) told me while Romney was governor of Massachusetts, Romney is anobvious ELITIST, patrician establishment figure with almost NO ability to connect with the "common man". That is why I discount the idea that Romney is the best bet to DEFEAT Obvama.
In his speech tonight, Santorum showed more ability to CNNECAT with people than Romney ever has. Sure, if the election were held TODAY, Ropmney would probably have a better chance to defeat Obama than Santorum (who is hardly known) . But the Presidential election will NOT be held today, and will not be held until next November. Is Romney really able to run a better CAMPAIGN agaiinst Obama than Santorum? I don't think so, although it is up to Santourm to SHOW this to be true now that he will be getting attention.
What people who say Romney is more "electable" really mean is that they think Romney is "politics as usual" enough (slick enough, in otehr words), that he will not be easy for Obama to TARGET. Those peop;le think Obama will be the ISSUE, and they just want an establishment nominee who the media will have trouble making the issue (instead of Obama). Problem: This has NEVER really worked. Dole failed. McCain failed. George H. W. Bush failed (after winning once, based on Reagan's legacy). Gerald Ford failed. Even George W. Bush LOST the popula vote to that stiff, Al Gore (George W. Bush NOT being a conservative, although he had a more conservative image than Romney or McCain). The ONLY GOP candidates to be really successful were Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Nixon was a special case, winning a landslide over the wort Democrat candidate of all time (George McGovern), after being handed victory over Hubert Humphrey by the Vietnam War and Democrat division In other words, the Democrastes self-destructed with Nixon. The ONLY GOP candidate who has gone out and actuallyWON a Presidential election substantially, on his own merits, was Ronald Reagan (in my lifetime). And Reagan was NOT supposed to be "electable". George H.W. Bush was supposed to be the "electable",, establishment candidate. Now I have said I don't think Santorum is another Reagan, but this idea that a "politics as usual", estalbishment GOP candidate is automatically the most "electable" is not supported by history. Yes, Barry Goldwater got swamped, but that was mainly because of the Kennedy Assassination, helped by GOP estalbishment SABOTAGE. Absent such sabotage, Santorum is probably at least as likely to beat Obama as Romney, and probably more likely. Again, Romney fails to CNNECT with people.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). As this P.S. is being typed (a later edit, after Ityped the main body of this article, it appears that Romney was declared the "winner" of the Iowa caucuses. That does not change a single word of the above article, or the headline. Indeed, I think it confirms that the media are composed of The Stupidest People on Earth that they kept their "live coverage" going to the MEANINGLESS "bitter end", long after it was obvious that the result wsa effectively a TIE. If this had been a "rfeal" election, as distinguished from these caucuses where the "winner" gains nothing over the person finish;ing second, then there would be recounts, controversy and uncertainty extending over WEEKS,. But it simply does not matter who the technical "winer" is, since the only real thing at stake here is WHO is going to be the conservative who challenges Mitt Romney. That is now most likely to be Rick Santorum, although it is always possible that Santorum will "falme out" like Cain, Bachmann and Perry. I don't include Gingrich, both because he is not QUITE out, and because he is NOT really a conservative (althuogh WHAT he is I am not sure--Gingrich sort of being an unprincipled man of ideas, which is a very strrange kind of politician).
Monday, January 2, 2012
Sean Hannity and Ron Paul: Cable TV Mentality on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network
This is my long-stated problem with Sean Hannity: his cable-TV mentality that looks for the REPETIVE SMEAR becaues he is TOO LAZY to actaully present facts and issues. No, I have no problem acknowledging that Hannity is a conservative--one of the FEW on the unfair and unbalanced network. But I can hardly bear to listen to him because of his love of the SMEAR and "negative ad viw" of politics.
Example? Hannity is now, in his usual REPETIVE and annnoying way, tring to SMEAR Ron Paul with those 15 or 20 year old newletters under Paul's name. I have no problem with the FACTS of those newsletter being reported. Btu what Hannity clearly wants si for the media to HAMMER Ron Paul with those newletters around the clock, until Paul cries uncle. This is ABSURD, as this blog has informed you (Hannity not being interested in INFORMATION, but only in PARTISAN smears--Hannity not favoring Ron Paul, as can be said of the entire network).
What this blog has told you is accurate: those old Ron Paul newsletters are pretty despicable--racist and anti-Semitic. However, they were no actually written by Ron Paul, and it is absurd to suggest that they have much to do with whether Ron Paul should be Prfeisdent. Doubt me? Don't. Is it really a S:URPRISE to you thaqt Ron Paul would not pay too much attentino to what is said in a newsletter under his name. ? And do you REALLY think that slurs of Israel in a NEWSLETTER is the reasn people should not vorte for Ron Paul? Nope. I do NOT believe that Sean Hannity thinks that.. Hannity decided he opposes Paul, and THEN looked around for a SMEAR he could use against Paul. That is what the OVERHYPE of these newletters is al aobut. Yet, Hanity suggests that Paul is NOAT BEING HAMMERED ENOUGH over those newsletters--as if they have any MAJOR effect on whether Pual should be President.
Paul, IN THIS CAMPAIGN, has said that the USA is responsible for 9/11. He has said that Iran has a RIGHT to have nuclear weapons, if Iran wnats them. He would LEGALIZE drugs like COCAINE (to some degree or another). He would DISMANTLE the Federal Government (where I agree with him). The idea that some stupid old newsletters weigh heavlily, in cmparison to what Paul is ASSERTING NOW as his positions, is really more than absurd.
I have said I would vote for Ron aul for President, against Barack Obama, while I will NOT vote for Mitt Romney against Barack Obama. And I mean it. But I have also said that Ron Paul is NUTS (figuratively and politically speaking), and cannot win the nomination (much less the Presidency). Waht sense does it make to keep quoting OLD NEWSLETTERS to Ron Paul (which Hannity evidently wants tthe media to do every tie they ask Paul any questons)? Again, if youLIKE Paul because he would SHAKE up the Federal Goverfnment, adn actually try to bring it under control, and are willing to put up with his CRAZINESS, what do a few old newsletters matrter? Not a thing. They don't have anything to do with what kind of Preisdent Ron Paul would make. Explaining THAT would take a real journalist" so much time that there would be NO TIME for the newsletters. Just reportt them an dforget it. ABUSING pual about them makes no sense at all. Really, if you LIKE Ron Paul because he is an anti-war ISOLATIONIST< who would pull ALL Aemrican ctoops out of ALL foreign countries, should ti really matter to you what was printed in a few newsletters under Paul's name? Don't be silly!!!!!! Paul is the ONLY candidate who is saing he will BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW, AND FROM EVERYWHERE, and not take us to war unless we DECLARE WAR. after an attack on us. If you WANT that kind of President (as I don't, but I feel it is LESS DANGEROUS than Romney or going along like we are domestically), then Ron Paul is YOUR ONLY VOTE. What could a few newsletters possibliy matter? Using myself as an example, I actualy think Paul MEANS IT when he says he wants to dismantle the Federal Government,a nd reduce spending by ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in the FIRST YER. No one else does mean it--not even Rick Santorum, who I have endorsed. I don't even think Michele Bachmann MEANS IT, although she probably comes coser than anyone besides Paul.
No, Hannity, you have a cable-TV mind, and I don't mean that in a good way. I am GLAD I do not have to make the choice of whether to actually vote for Ron Paul for President, since he will not win the nomination. Voting for Ron Paul is not a thing I would be proud of. But, on balance, it would give me ENUGH of what I want---things NO ONE else would do--that I would hold my nose and do it. What I would NOT do is the LAZY, Hannity cable-TV device of SMERING Ron Paul for reasons that have little or nothing to do with why I am reluctant to vote for Ron Paul (at least without holding my nose)., I repeat what I have accurately told you before: A SMEAR is NOT defined by whether it is TRUE. A SMEAR is defined by OVEREMPASIZING things that are really not that important (in perspective). For example, Gingrich's adultery and his credit account at Tiffany's are SMEARS, having really NOTHING to do with the kind of Presient Gingrich would be. Gingrich's INCONSISTENCY on ISSUES is NOT a smear, beccause that has a lot to do with what kind of Preisdent Gingrich would be (and whether we can KNOW what kind of Presdient Gingrich will be).
It would be nice if our media would REPORT FACTS--as many of them as they can--and let US decide what facts are IMPORTANT (even, perhaps, deciding for themselves that a candidate's personal lief should NOT be the subject of media "scrutiny" in the absence of an actual crime). "We report, you cdcide" is the LIE of the unfair and unbalanced network. If they actually did that, I would not advoacate you BOYCOTT them, as I do advocatge. That includes Hannity, even if i do agree with him on almost every POLICY issue (as much as I do with almost any conservative).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Example? Hannity is now, in his usual REPETIVE and annnoying way, tring to SMEAR Ron Paul with those 15 or 20 year old newletters under Paul's name. I have no problem with the FACTS of those newsletter being reported. Btu what Hannity clearly wants si for the media to HAMMER Ron Paul with those newletters around the clock, until Paul cries uncle. This is ABSURD, as this blog has informed you (Hannity not being interested in INFORMATION, but only in PARTISAN smears--Hannity not favoring Ron Paul, as can be said of the entire network).
What this blog has told you is accurate: those old Ron Paul newsletters are pretty despicable--racist and anti-Semitic. However, they were no actually written by Ron Paul, and it is absurd to suggest that they have much to do with whether Ron Paul should be Prfeisdent. Doubt me? Don't. Is it really a S:URPRISE to you thaqt Ron Paul would not pay too much attentino to what is said in a newsletter under his name. ? And do you REALLY think that slurs of Israel in a NEWSLETTER is the reasn people should not vorte for Ron Paul? Nope. I do NOT believe that Sean Hannity thinks that.. Hannity decided he opposes Paul, and THEN looked around for a SMEAR he could use against Paul. That is what the OVERHYPE of these newletters is al aobut. Yet, Hanity suggests that Paul is NOAT BEING HAMMERED ENOUGH over those newsletters--as if they have any MAJOR effect on whether Pual should be President.
Paul, IN THIS CAMPAIGN, has said that the USA is responsible for 9/11. He has said that Iran has a RIGHT to have nuclear weapons, if Iran wnats them. He would LEGALIZE drugs like COCAINE (to some degree or another). He would DISMANTLE the Federal Government (where I agree with him). The idea that some stupid old newsletters weigh heavlily, in cmparison to what Paul is ASSERTING NOW as his positions, is really more than absurd.
I have said I would vote for Ron aul for President, against Barack Obama, while I will NOT vote for Mitt Romney against Barack Obama. And I mean it. But I have also said that Ron Paul is NUTS (figuratively and politically speaking), and cannot win the nomination (much less the Presidency). Waht sense does it make to keep quoting OLD NEWSLETTERS to Ron Paul (which Hannity evidently wants tthe media to do every tie they ask Paul any questons)? Again, if youLIKE Paul because he would SHAKE up the Federal Goverfnment, adn actually try to bring it under control, and are willing to put up with his CRAZINESS, what do a few old newsletters matrter? Not a thing. They don't have anything to do with what kind of Preisdent Ron Paul would make. Explaining THAT would take a real journalist" so much time that there would be NO TIME for the newsletters. Just reportt them an dforget it. ABUSING pual about them makes no sense at all. Really, if you LIKE Ron Paul because he is an anti-war ISOLATIONIST< who would pull ALL Aemrican ctoops out of ALL foreign countries, should ti really matter to you what was printed in a few newsletters under Paul's name? Don't be silly!!!!!! Paul is the ONLY candidate who is saing he will BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW, AND FROM EVERYWHERE, and not take us to war unless we DECLARE WAR. after an attack on us. If you WANT that kind of President (as I don't, but I feel it is LESS DANGEROUS than Romney or going along like we are domestically), then Ron Paul is YOUR ONLY VOTE. What could a few newsletters possibliy matter? Using myself as an example, I actualy think Paul MEANS IT when he says he wants to dismantle the Federal Government,a nd reduce spending by ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in the FIRST YER. No one else does mean it--not even Rick Santorum, who I have endorsed. I don't even think Michele Bachmann MEANS IT, although she probably comes coser than anyone besides Paul.
No, Hannity, you have a cable-TV mind, and I don't mean that in a good way. I am GLAD I do not have to make the choice of whether to actually vote for Ron Paul for President, since he will not win the nomination. Voting for Ron Paul is not a thing I would be proud of. But, on balance, it would give me ENUGH of what I want---things NO ONE else would do--that I would hold my nose and do it. What I would NOT do is the LAZY, Hannity cable-TV device of SMERING Ron Paul for reasons that have little or nothing to do with why I am reluctant to vote for Ron Paul (at least without holding my nose)., I repeat what I have accurately told you before: A SMEAR is NOT defined by whether it is TRUE. A SMEAR is defined by OVEREMPASIZING things that are really not that important (in perspective). For example, Gingrich's adultery and his credit account at Tiffany's are SMEARS, having really NOTHING to do with the kind of Presient Gingrich would be. Gingrich's INCONSISTENCY on ISSUES is NOT a smear, beccause that has a lot to do with what kind of Preisdent Gingrich would be (and whether we can KNOW what kind of Presdient Gingrich will be).
It would be nice if our media would REPORT FACTS--as many of them as they can--and let US decide what facts are IMPORTANT (even, perhaps, deciding for themselves that a candidate's personal lief should NOT be the subject of media "scrutiny" in the absence of an actual crime). "We report, you cdcide" is the LIE of the unfair and unbalanced network. If they actually did that, I would not advoacate you BOYCOTT them, as I do advocatge. That includes Hannity, even if i do agree with him on almost every POLICY issue (as much as I do with almost any conservative).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Iowa: Meaningless?
Let me give lyu these FACTS (as distinguished from media stupidity):
1. Who "wins" Iowa means absolutely NOTHING (unless Romney were to win with at least 30% of the vote). Ijust saw MSNBC--of all networks--give an analysis of the NUMBER OF VOTGES involved. Mike Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 by more than 10 percentage points. But how many VOTES was that? It aturns out it was about 10,000 votes (NOTING). Further, the diffreence between 3rd, fth and 5th was a matter of HUNDREDS of votes "LESS THAN NOTHING). This time, unless the polls are wrong (as they consistently have bneen worthless this election season), the difference in the TOP THREE candidates (seemingly Paul, Santorum and Romney)will be only a few percentage points, or that same HUNDREDS of votes (rather than thousands). ONly someone as STUPID as a "JOURNALIST" would say that it matters who actually finishes first, second and third--with that small a difference in the number of votes. Indeed, the candidates who finist 4th and 5th MAY be close enough so thaqt they are only a few thousand votes behind. That will NOT be enough to even discurage them--especially Gingrich and Perry--because Gingrich and Perry have the wherewithal to keep going no matter what the result in Iowa (unless the result is so very bad that they finally get discouraged, and that would bmean SINGLE DIGITS). Bachmann will WANT to continue, but if she finishes in single digits, it will really be over for her. What if all six candidates finish in double digits? Possible, in which case Iowa will likely not eliminate AnYONE. . Say Romney gets 20%; Paul and Santorum 18%; Perry and Gingrich 15%; and Bachmann 12%? Wouuld that mean ANYTHING? Again, you have to be as STUPID as a "JOURNALIST" to try to find meaning in that kind of result, or even a result somewhat more spread than that. Look at what has happened in those ridiculous and evil POLLS, which have EXPOSED today's "journalists' as the most LAZY and STUPID 'journalists" to ever live. Why should CHANGES in voter sentiment STOP just becaue of Iowa. Gingrich went frm 30% or so to 14% or so IN ABOUTA A WEEK. . Who is to say that Perry or Gingrcih might not RISE AGAIN, or Snatrorum, Paul and or even Romney FALL. I would elxpect Paul to fall, as a matter of fact. And Gingrich has jsut decleared war on Romney. That may not help Gingrich, but it may hurt Romney. And Santorumm has not yet faced "attacks" as a serious contender. Do you see how EVIL tPOLLS ARE? This election has PROVEN it yet again. Think of how much better it would be if both the media and candidates did not KNOW who to "target" with their negative ads (the media being the MAIN source of negative ads), because NO ONE new for sure who was "sruging" and who was not . The media MIGHT (their laziness and stupidity being so massive that we can't be sure) even have to do real "journalism" and actually INFORM you about the CANDIDATES (not smears, although they would do that, but where the candidates STAND--maybe even the DETAILS of things like their tax plans, etc.).
2. The reason that Paul, Romney and Santorum are likely to be the tp; three in Iowa has only a little to do with 'polls", ever shifting, and a whole lot to do with MOMENTUM and JUDGMENTA. Bachmann has faded away because she just does not have a consistent message beyond the uNIMPORESSIVE one hat she has been a heroine if FIGHING OBAMA (which she has, but that is not enough to get her elected President). Gingrich has faded because of ATTACKS, especailly from Romney, Romney surrogates and teh GOP estalbishment (pro-Romney). Perrry has faded for obvious reasons. In contrast, Paul is supported by FANATICS, and people--like me--who are DISGUSTED with "politics as usual". Paul can get his usupporters to a caucus, AND to any unscientific, online or telephone poll around. Romney is Romney--the estalbishment favorite (this time, after they chose McCain last time--what a RECORD these people have). He will automatically get 20 to 25% of the vote, which will be enough to put himm in the top three--how high depedning on just how mcuyh his opoponents jump on the Santorum or Paul bandwagons as the most likely "anti-Romney", anti-establishment candidates who can actually make a difference. I do'n't see Romney getting 30%, and Iowa would be more significant if he did. It is actually more likely that Paul or Santorum could get 30% r more, just like Huckabee, becaues voters MOVE to those two as they ABANDON Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich.
3. Rick Santorum is the solid conservative in the race, on both fiscal and social issues: the most CONSISTENT conservative on most issues (outside of Bachmann, who just has not been able to develop a consistent message, and is probably out of it--although this year shows that ANYTHING can happen). Paul is an libertarian isolationist, rather than a conservative, even if Paul would be the MOST reliable at DISMANTLING the Federal Government. Gingrich is NOT a "conservative" at all, despite his references to Reagan and Goldwater. Gingrich's agile ind simplyh flits from idea to idea like a butterfly, with not real consistent, guiding principles. Ropmney, as Gingrich says, is an old-style GOP "moderate" like LOSERS Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Fordand the rest (not as far left as people like Nelson Rockefeller, Scott Bron, and other Northeastern types, but capable of going that direction in terms of principle if he considers it the appropriate "management" option at the time). This is why this blog has ENDORFSED Santorum: he is a consistent, reliable conservative (mostly), even if too much of a standard Washington politician who smells a little too mcuh of a more conservative "politics as usual'. On foreign policy for example, Paul is to the LEFT OF ANYBODY (including Obama). Santorum is a fairly reliable conservative across the board. And Santorum is actually sounding more like a real nhuman being recently--gining his stride as a campaigner. Thus, Santorum is the last refuge left for conservatives, and NOT A BAD ONE (if not yet in the class of Ronald REagan, but no GOP candidate is).
4. Santorum is hard to SMEAR. So he was once "for earmarks". Compared to Gingrich and Romney, that makes him RONALD RFEAGAN (despite my caveat in item 3). The MEDIA is DESPERATE for "smears" if they suggest Santroum is "vulnerable" on that kind of relatively small betrayal. Then there was Alan Colmes (EVIL, dishoenst political hack, as this bog showed long ago), who ATTACKED Santorum for teh way Santorum and his wife treated the death of their almost still born child. LYlu simply cant't attack the way a parent handled such a death (barring cannabalism, and Santorum is actuallly impressive on the way he explans what he and his family did to honor the child wo lived two hours or so), without exposing YOURSELF as a truly EVIL person. Alan Collmes exposed himself as that. I wonder how many otehr media leftists have so exposed themselves? You don't have to agree with Santorum on what he did (which was to bring the body home, and talk to hi sother children about the event, before the funeral). But to ATTACK Santorum on this is, again, to expose yhourself as an EVIOL person. if you are such a person (Alan Colmes, this means YOU), I hope Hell exists, because I will then meet you there. Sure, it is possible the media will come up with a BETER SMEAR of Santorum. So far, their efforts are pathetic. They may be reduced to attacking Santourm on POLICY, whihc is the LAST thing they want to do. The SMEAR/NEGATIVE AD (distuised as "news') is what they are about.
5. Romeny will win New Hampshire, but that is even more meaningless than Iowa. South Carolina and Florida are where it gets serious, although someone is going to fave to show that they can compete with Romney on a NATIONAL level, and not just in individual states. Romney has such an edge in money, that someone like Santourm is going to have to have conservatives RALLY AROUND HIM fairly quickly to be able to compete with Romney in multiple states (like on Super Tuesday). It is no accident that Romney is only one of two candidates to get on the ballot in Virginia (along with Ron Paul). It is gong to take a MAJOR move of conservatives to someone like Santorum (or Gingrich or Perry, but you feel they have had their chance). And that will have to be SOON. Or, as with McCain, it will be TOO LATE. That is why this blog advised Rush Limbaugh to ENDROSE SANTORUM. otehrwise, Limbaugh will have BETRAYED conservatives yet again, as he did in 2008 (as this bog CALLED HIM OUT ON in 2008, IN FORESIGH).
6. "Polls" as to hwo Romney and Snatourm would do against Obama are totally meaningless. Sure, Romney would do better TODAY. It is NOT that clear that Romney will be that good a candidate next fall. These hypothetical polls, before there is even a nominee, are evidence of how STUPID and worthless the media really is, rather tahan any real indication of who will best be able to defeat Obama. Santorum is basically as "atarctive" as Romney, and is lookng more "Presidential" every day. He "debates" at least as well as Romney, and perahps better. The real "knock" against Santorum is the standard GOP estalbishment mantra that Santorum is too conservative on SOCIAL ISSUES> What this rally means is that NO consevative on social issues should EVER vote for a GOP establishment candidate. NO MATTER WHAT SUCH A CNNDIDATE SAYS ON SOCIAL ISSUES, HE DOES NOT MEAN IT. Romney says essentially the same thing on "soical issues" as Santorum (except for "faith", because Romney does not want to highlight he is a Mormon)--maybe more so on illegal immigration . But CNN and the rest DO NOT BELIEVE ROMNEY. Maybe we should not believe him either. As a matter of fact, I don't --just like I don't believe Barack Obama is a Christian (as Bill Maher and I--as professed agnostics ourselves--agree).
You se the point? Iowa just cannot mean much, in this year where the situation of the candidates is STILL largely in flux. It is POSSIBLE that the media will stil find an EFFECTIVE SMEAR on Santorum, although these media SMEARS are becoming so obvious that they have to stop being effectgive at some point (especially when the BIAS iss so obvious--look at the SMEARS that COULD have been urged as to Obama--some of them not even really smears--had the media wanted to push them in 2008, OR NOW). As to NOW, think Solyndra, "green" failures, "Operation Fast and Furious", and several other things. No real delegates are even at stake until we get to Florida. Even South Carolina is not that important, in terms of delegates, due to the proportional rules and size of the sate. Even Flrida does not mean much in terms of DELEGATES, if the vote is still SPLIT. It is not until we get to "winner take all" lprimaries that the delegate count will mount up. In fact, the mostr imortant DELEGATE win this month is probably Romney's ballot "vicotory" in Virginia--assuming it stands and only Romney and Paul are on the Virginia ballot. The race is still fluid, and the only REAL significant thing that can happen in Iowa--uotside of a really major Romney vitory by 10 points or so--has alreayd happened: the rise of Rick Santorum to a CONTENDING positon. If Santorum did not(or does not--if the polls are worng and my judgement wrong) get that, he would have been DEAD. As it is, Santorum probably cannot "put away" Gingrich and Perry in Iowa, be HE lies on to be a major contender for the conservative vote in future primaires. ; Otherwise, as the headline suggests, the result in Iowa is probably pretty much MEANINGLESS, as to exact ranking and votes. No, even a Santorum win (entirely possible) will not mean much more than a Santorum third palace finish. As Gingrich is saing, no matter waht happens in Iowa, the "Massacusetts moderate" (Ropmney) will probably be OUTVOTED by something like 75% to 25%. That leaves a LOT of room for ANYONE else who can CATCH FIRE (and not flame out). There still remains the possibility that NO NOE will be able to take amajrity of the delegates or s close they canot be denied). Then thre might be a DEADLOCK, and how knows who the nominee might be.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). When yu are listening to the electino coverage tomorrow night--if you botehr, as you probably should not--you might read this blog's previous article on Chris Collinsworth. It is amazing how SIMILAR the "analysis" of sportscasters is to the "analysis" of political commentaqtors/"journalists" on election results and their significance. It is all about saying the SAME OLD THINGS the SAME OLD WAY, without regard to whetehr they have any relationship to reality. The idea is to say the EASY thing, with total contempt for yoru audience, rather then do any REAL THINKING. Chris Collinsworth could step in as a political commentator without missing a beat, and vice versa as to political "journalists" stepping in as "sports analysts". As usual, what I am saing here applies fully as much to the unfair and unbalanced network (not worth watchign) as it does to CNN and the reast of the mainstream media.
1. Who "wins" Iowa means absolutely NOTHING (unless Romney were to win with at least 30% of the vote). Ijust saw MSNBC--of all networks--give an analysis of the NUMBER OF VOTGES involved. Mike Huckabee won Iowa in 2008 by more than 10 percentage points. But how many VOTES was that? It aturns out it was about 10,000 votes (NOTING). Further, the diffreence between 3rd, fth and 5th was a matter of HUNDREDS of votes "LESS THAN NOTHING). This time, unless the polls are wrong (as they consistently have bneen worthless this election season), the difference in the TOP THREE candidates (seemingly Paul, Santorum and Romney)will be only a few percentage points, or that same HUNDREDS of votes (rather than thousands). ONly someone as STUPID as a "JOURNALIST" would say that it matters who actually finishes first, second and third--with that small a difference in the number of votes. Indeed, the candidates who finist 4th and 5th MAY be close enough so thaqt they are only a few thousand votes behind. That will NOT be enough to even discurage them--especially Gingrich and Perry--because Gingrich and Perry have the wherewithal to keep going no matter what the result in Iowa (unless the result is so very bad that they finally get discouraged, and that would bmean SINGLE DIGITS). Bachmann will WANT to continue, but if she finishes in single digits, it will really be over for her. What if all six candidates finish in double digits? Possible, in which case Iowa will likely not eliminate AnYONE. . Say Romney gets 20%; Paul and Santorum 18%; Perry and Gingrich 15%; and Bachmann 12%? Wouuld that mean ANYTHING? Again, you have to be as STUPID as a "JOURNALIST" to try to find meaning in that kind of result, or even a result somewhat more spread than that. Look at what has happened in those ridiculous and evil POLLS, which have EXPOSED today's "journalists' as the most LAZY and STUPID 'journalists" to ever live. Why should CHANGES in voter sentiment STOP just becaue of Iowa. Gingrich went frm 30% or so to 14% or so IN ABOUTA A WEEK. . Who is to say that Perry or Gingrcih might not RISE AGAIN, or Snatrorum, Paul and or even Romney FALL. I would elxpect Paul to fall, as a matter of fact. And Gingrich has jsut decleared war on Romney. That may not help Gingrich, but it may hurt Romney. And Santorumm has not yet faced "attacks" as a serious contender. Do you see how EVIL tPOLLS ARE? This election has PROVEN it yet again. Think of how much better it would be if both the media and candidates did not KNOW who to "target" with their negative ads (the media being the MAIN source of negative ads), because NO ONE new for sure who was "sruging" and who was not . The media MIGHT (their laziness and stupidity being so massive that we can't be sure) even have to do real "journalism" and actually INFORM you about the CANDIDATES (not smears, although they would do that, but where the candidates STAND--maybe even the DETAILS of things like their tax plans, etc.).
2. The reason that Paul, Romney and Santorum are likely to be the tp; three in Iowa has only a little to do with 'polls", ever shifting, and a whole lot to do with MOMENTUM and JUDGMENTA. Bachmann has faded away because she just does not have a consistent message beyond the uNIMPORESSIVE one hat she has been a heroine if FIGHING OBAMA (which she has, but that is not enough to get her elected President). Gingrich has faded because of ATTACKS, especailly from Romney, Romney surrogates and teh GOP estalbishment (pro-Romney). Perrry has faded for obvious reasons. In contrast, Paul is supported by FANATICS, and people--like me--who are DISGUSTED with "politics as usual". Paul can get his usupporters to a caucus, AND to any unscientific, online or telephone poll around. Romney is Romney--the estalbishment favorite (this time, after they chose McCain last time--what a RECORD these people have). He will automatically get 20 to 25% of the vote, which will be enough to put himm in the top three--how high depedning on just how mcuyh his opoponents jump on the Santorum or Paul bandwagons as the most likely "anti-Romney", anti-establishment candidates who can actually make a difference. I do'n't see Romney getting 30%, and Iowa would be more significant if he did. It is actually more likely that Paul or Santorum could get 30% r more, just like Huckabee, becaues voters MOVE to those two as they ABANDON Bachmann, Perry and Gingrich.
3. Rick Santorum is the solid conservative in the race, on both fiscal and social issues: the most CONSISTENT conservative on most issues (outside of Bachmann, who just has not been able to develop a consistent message, and is probably out of it--although this year shows that ANYTHING can happen). Paul is an libertarian isolationist, rather than a conservative, even if Paul would be the MOST reliable at DISMANTLING the Federal Government. Gingrich is NOT a "conservative" at all, despite his references to Reagan and Goldwater. Gingrich's agile ind simplyh flits from idea to idea like a butterfly, with not real consistent, guiding principles. Ropmney, as Gingrich says, is an old-style GOP "moderate" like LOSERS Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush, Gerald Fordand the rest (not as far left as people like Nelson Rockefeller, Scott Bron, and other Northeastern types, but capable of going that direction in terms of principle if he considers it the appropriate "management" option at the time). This is why this blog has ENDORFSED Santorum: he is a consistent, reliable conservative (mostly), even if too much of a standard Washington politician who smells a little too mcuh of a more conservative "politics as usual'. On foreign policy for example, Paul is to the LEFT OF ANYBODY (including Obama). Santorum is a fairly reliable conservative across the board. And Santorum is actually sounding more like a real nhuman being recently--gining his stride as a campaigner. Thus, Santorum is the last refuge left for conservatives, and NOT A BAD ONE (if not yet in the class of Ronald REagan, but no GOP candidate is).
4. Santorum is hard to SMEAR. So he was once "for earmarks". Compared to Gingrich and Romney, that makes him RONALD RFEAGAN (despite my caveat in item 3). The MEDIA is DESPERATE for "smears" if they suggest Santroum is "vulnerable" on that kind of relatively small betrayal. Then there was Alan Colmes (EVIL, dishoenst political hack, as this bog showed long ago), who ATTACKED Santorum for teh way Santorum and his wife treated the death of their almost still born child. LYlu simply cant't attack the way a parent handled such a death (barring cannabalism, and Santorum is actuallly impressive on the way he explans what he and his family did to honor the child wo lived two hours or so), without exposing YOURSELF as a truly EVIL person. Alan Collmes exposed himself as that. I wonder how many otehr media leftists have so exposed themselves? You don't have to agree with Santorum on what he did (which was to bring the body home, and talk to hi sother children about the event, before the funeral). But to ATTACK Santorum on this is, again, to expose yhourself as an EVIOL person. if you are such a person (Alan Colmes, this means YOU), I hope Hell exists, because I will then meet you there. Sure, it is possible the media will come up with a BETER SMEAR of Santorum. So far, their efforts are pathetic. They may be reduced to attacking Santourm on POLICY, whihc is the LAST thing they want to do. The SMEAR/NEGATIVE AD (distuised as "news') is what they are about.
5. Romeny will win New Hampshire, but that is even more meaningless than Iowa. South Carolina and Florida are where it gets serious, although someone is going to fave to show that they can compete with Romney on a NATIONAL level, and not just in individual states. Romney has such an edge in money, that someone like Santourm is going to have to have conservatives RALLY AROUND HIM fairly quickly to be able to compete with Romney in multiple states (like on Super Tuesday). It is no accident that Romney is only one of two candidates to get on the ballot in Virginia (along with Ron Paul). It is gong to take a MAJOR move of conservatives to someone like Santorum (or Gingrich or Perry, but you feel they have had their chance). And that will have to be SOON. Or, as with McCain, it will be TOO LATE. That is why this blog advised Rush Limbaugh to ENDROSE SANTORUM. otehrwise, Limbaugh will have BETRAYED conservatives yet again, as he did in 2008 (as this bog CALLED HIM OUT ON in 2008, IN FORESIGH).
6. "Polls" as to hwo Romney and Snatourm would do against Obama are totally meaningless. Sure, Romney would do better TODAY. It is NOT that clear that Romney will be that good a candidate next fall. These hypothetical polls, before there is even a nominee, are evidence of how STUPID and worthless the media really is, rather tahan any real indication of who will best be able to defeat Obama. Santorum is basically as "atarctive" as Romney, and is lookng more "Presidential" every day. He "debates" at least as well as Romney, and perahps better. The real "knock" against Santorum is the standard GOP estalbishment mantra that Santorum is too conservative on SOCIAL ISSUES> What this rally means is that NO consevative on social issues should EVER vote for a GOP establishment candidate. NO MATTER WHAT SUCH A CNNDIDATE SAYS ON SOCIAL ISSUES, HE DOES NOT MEAN IT. Romney says essentially the same thing on "soical issues" as Santorum (except for "faith", because Romney does not want to highlight he is a Mormon)--maybe more so on illegal immigration . But CNN and the rest DO NOT BELIEVE ROMNEY. Maybe we should not believe him either. As a matter of fact, I don't --just like I don't believe Barack Obama is a Christian (as Bill Maher and I--as professed agnostics ourselves--agree).
You se the point? Iowa just cannot mean much, in this year where the situation of the candidates is STILL largely in flux. It is POSSIBLE that the media will stil find an EFFECTIVE SMEAR on Santorum, although these media SMEARS are becoming so obvious that they have to stop being effectgive at some point (especially when the BIAS iss so obvious--look at the SMEARS that COULD have been urged as to Obama--some of them not even really smears--had the media wanted to push them in 2008, OR NOW). As to NOW, think Solyndra, "green" failures, "Operation Fast and Furious", and several other things. No real delegates are even at stake until we get to Florida. Even South Carolina is not that important, in terms of delegates, due to the proportional rules and size of the sate. Even Flrida does not mean much in terms of DELEGATES, if the vote is still SPLIT. It is not until we get to "winner take all" lprimaries that the delegate count will mount up. In fact, the mostr imortant DELEGATE win this month is probably Romney's ballot "vicotory" in Virginia--assuming it stands and only Romney and Paul are on the Virginia ballot. The race is still fluid, and the only REAL significant thing that can happen in Iowa--uotside of a really major Romney vitory by 10 points or so--has alreayd happened: the rise of Rick Santorum to a CONTENDING positon. If Santorum did not(or does not--if the polls are worng and my judgement wrong) get that, he would have been DEAD. As it is, Santorum probably cannot "put away" Gingrich and Perry in Iowa, be HE lies on to be a major contender for the conservative vote in future primaires. ; Otherwise, as the headline suggests, the result in Iowa is probably pretty much MEANINGLESS, as to exact ranking and votes. No, even a Santorum win (entirely possible) will not mean much more than a Santorum third palace finish. As Gingrich is saing, no matter waht happens in Iowa, the "Massacusetts moderate" (Ropmney) will probably be OUTVOTED by something like 75% to 25%. That leaves a LOT of room for ANYONE else who can CATCH FIRE (and not flame out). There still remains the possibility that NO NOE will be able to take amajrity of the delegates or s close they canot be denied). Then thre might be a DEADLOCK, and how knows who the nominee might be.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). When yu are listening to the electino coverage tomorrow night--if you botehr, as you probably should not--you might read this blog's previous article on Chris Collinsworth. It is amazing how SIMILAR the "analysis" of sportscasters is to the "analysis" of political commentaqtors/"journalists" on election results and their significance. It is all about saying the SAME OLD THINGS the SAME OLD WAY, without regard to whetehr they have any relationship to reality. The idea is to say the EASY thing, with total contempt for yoru audience, rather then do any REAL THINKING. Chris Collinsworth could step in as a political commentator without missing a beat, and vice versa as to political "journalists" stepping in as "sports analysts". As usual, what I am saing here applies fully as much to the unfair and unbalanced network (not worth watchign) as it does to CNN and the reast of the mainstream media.
Chris Collinsworth: Certified Idiot (Dallas Cowboys: Jerry Jones and Tony Romo Failures)
I watched the Dallas Cowboys blow another season last night, againt the New York Giants. This has become standard in the Jerry Jones era, after Jimmy Johnson and the one Super Bowl champ;ionship with the team that Johnson built. It has also become standard in the Tony Romo era, as the main Cowboy quarterback after Troy Aikman. Jerry Jones was always hopeless, but Tony Romo seemed to offer hope, until he PROVED that he simply is unable to do what it takes to win games you have to win. His tatistics arfe fine. His skills are fine. And it is not exactly "heart" or "toughness". Whatever intanglibe quarterbacks like Joe Montana, Roger Staubach, Tery Bradshaw, Johnny Unitas, Bat Starr, John Ellway, and the rest had, however, Tony Romo just does nto seem to have. As this blog told you way back when i was noting that Tony LaRussa had become a FAILURE in the Ben Bernanke era (another FAILURE over the past vive years--my crticism of LaRussa being SOLELY responsible for the St. Louis Cardinals being world cahmpions, as evidence by the fact that La Russa's Cardinals begqan their push toward the playooffs eXACTLY the same time that this blog article on LaRussa was posted), baseball is merely a game. It is not life and death. But this is FOOTBALL. Football is NOT merely a game. It IS life and death. Thus, it depresses me to talk any further about Jerry Jones and Tony Romo, or the Dallas Cowboys. I am begining to feel like a Chicago Cubs fan, and their can't be any worse feeling than that. The Cowboys have been "my team" since Roger Staubach,. I do, of course, live in Texas , although El Paso is clower (by far) to Phoenix than it is to Dallas (or Arlington or Irving). Enough. I would rather talk about sportscasters, and specifically Chris Collinsworth.
Sportscasters are, in general, stupid people. As you know "journalists"in general share the "nonor" of being The Stupidest People n Earth with Wall Street/financial peoople (like Bernanke, CNBC people and Wall Street Journal people)--although leftists in general are in contention. Sportscasters are the WORST of the "journalists", which may make them The Stupidest People Who Have Ever Lived (including Neanderthal Man in the comparison). You may think this is because sportscasters are often former professional athletes, but that does not explain people like Howard Coseell, Al Michaels and the rest. Howard Cosell was one of the stupidest men I have ever heard on television, as former Dallas quarterback Don Meredith exposed virtually every night in the "Golden Age" of Monday Night Football. Thus, we come to Chris Collinsworth, who is one of the STUPIDEST of the sportscasters--making him automatically one of the stupidest men who has ever lived.
Doubt me? Never do that. Collinsowrth is NOT a "one-hit" wonder. He has EARNED his standing as one of the stupidest men who ever lived over time. Take my word for it. But you don't have to take my word for last night, as NBC (home of a remarkable number of the stupidest "journalists" around--making NBC the natural home for MANY of the stupidest people who have ever lived) presented Collinsworth as its "expert" commentator on Sunday Night Football.
Let me set this up for you. It was early in the 4th quarter. The Cowboys--as Romo took advantage of a Giant team that was obviously "sitting on" a 21-0 halftime lead--were on the comeback trail. They were still down 21-7, but they had a 4th down and 1 on the Giant 10 yard line (after a typical Romo play ened up JUST SHORT of a first down). Collinsworth, et. al., were just talking aobut what a "big decision" this was (not true--it was an OBVIOUS decision), when Romo rushed the Cowboys to the line to try to catch the Giants off guard with a "qucik snap" quarterback sneak (the kind of play upon which Tom Brady has made a living). Romo FAILED, and the Giants took over on downs. The OTHER "analyst" noted that this made the decision to "go for it", rather than kick a field goal, a BAD decison ONLY if the Giants were able to move the ball. Collinsworth--again, one of the stupidest man who has ever lived--ws obviously not listening to the person right there with him, as he NEVER listens (in my experience hearing him "analyze" things).
What happened? The Giants could not make a first down. They not only had to punt, but Des Bryant brought the punt back quite a ways, and a personal foul gave the Cowboys 15 more yards. Suddenly, the Cowboys were inside of the 30--hardly much worse off than they had just been on the 10, as they now had a first down. A play or two later, the Cowboys scored a touchdown, and were only behind 21-14---the same as they MIGHT have been had they MADE that 4th and 1 first down try. Thus, the failure to kick a field goal--as the OTHER NBC analyst had poknted out without Collinsworth bothering to listen--had SUCCEDED for the Dallas Cowboys. They had got their touchdown--not a field goal--partly BECAUSE they had "gone for it" (and failed), rahter than kick the field goal. This mad the 4th down failure by the Cowboys, and the good play by a Giant player (which Collinsworth had GUSHED about), a MEANINGLESS play. At most, it had cost the Cowboys maybe 2 or 3 minutes--not nothing, but hardly one of the game's key plays. The Cowboys were within a touchdown, and there was sitll more than half of the 4th quarter left to play.
In fact, the Cowboys looked likely to get the ball right back after the Giants got the ball. Manning (I think on a thrid down play) ws in DEEP TROUBLE, and the Cowboys should have SACKED him. For all the world, it looked just like the play in the Giant Suerp Bowl win, when the Patriots had Manning sacked, only to see him throw the ball up for grabs, and have the Gian receiver come down with the ball. That is what happened. Manning whirled around, and seemed to jsut loft the ball almost blindly twoard a Gian receiver way down field (Victory Cruz). History repeated itself, and Cruz out-jumped the Cowboy defensive back from the ball (despite the defsive back being in perfect position to break up the play). The gain ws 43 yeards or so. The Giants would get a field goal, after running some time off, and the Cowboys were suddenly in pretty desperat sahpe (down 10 points--they would lose by 17). THIS Manning play was THE key play of the game, but NOT for Collinsworth (agian, one of The Stupidest Men Who Ha Ever Lived).
What did Collinsworth say after the Giants kicked a field goal? You should have guessed it. He said that IF the Cowboy's coach had jsut kicked that field goal (see above), the Cowboys would only be behind "one score" (a touchdown), and not in such desperate shape. What cn you say about a man this STUPID. IF the Cowboys had kicked that field goal, they would be behind ELEVENPOINTS (instead of 7), and the Giants' field goal wold have put them back ahead 14. Collinsworth was INGORING the fact that the Coowboys had scored their touchdown MAINLY BECAUSE they had "gone for it" on 4th down, and failed. This had led directly to the Cowboys scoring a touchdown a few minutes later, as Collinsworth's own colleague had TOLD Collinswroth would be the test of whether it had been right or wrong to go for the first down on 4th down (not exactly true, since yo can't operate from hindsight, and "going for it" awas ALWAYS the right decision, because it gave you TWO chances to succeed: make the fist down or hold the Giants and be in good position to be right back down deep in Giant territory, which is what acutally happened).
What Collinsworth was ASSUMMING (with NO justification whatever) was that teh Cowboys woulld have socred their touchdown ANYWAY, after successfully kicking the field goal and then kicking off to tthe Giants. There is NO reason to assume that this would have happened. What actually happened was about as GOOD as the Cowboys could possibly have hoped for. They FAILED to make the first down, but promptly scored a touchdown only abut 3 minutes later, after STOPPING the Giants. As stated, this made the Giant play stoppping the Cowboys on 4th down pretty much MEANINGLESS. The Cowboys were pretty much in the same position they would have been had they MADE the first down. The few minutes they lost were NOT crucial to the outcome.
Was it POSSILBE thta things would have gone the way CollinsworthASSUMED (with no justification--an "ass of you and me" when you assume)? Sure. IF theCowboys had kicked the field goal, kicked off, and promptly held the Giants, the Cowboys MIGHT have been able to go right back down, after the Giants punt, and score a touchdown. But it is UNLIKELY that it would have happened as easily as it did after the Giants took over on downs. Remember, the Cowboys STARTED that next possession INSIDE THE GIANT 30, as a DIRECT result of the Giants taking over on downs at their own 10. There is NO reson to believe it would have been thaqt easy for the Cowboys if they had kicked the field goal.
Wait,. Collinsworth was not thrugh. Remember that Manning pass paly? What do you think Collinsworth later (when it was obvius that the Giants had won the game) said was the KEY play of the game? Right (if you have been paying attention). Collinsworth went back t the defensive player who COLLINSWORTH had GUSHED over for that 4th down stop, and credited him with the "KEY PLAY" of the game? You just can't get any mroe STUPID than that. This blog has desbribed it to you accurately. No matter how good the defensive play was, to stop Tony Romo on that 4th down quarterback sneak (the main problem being that this "ploy" of a quck quarterback sneak is becoming too COOMN and OBVIOUS), the game had gone in such a way tat the play had turned out to be MEANINGLESS. The Cowboys had gotten to within a touchdonw RIGHT AWAY, mainly BECAUSE of that fialed quarterback sneak and immmeidately following events. The Cowboys were in position to have a chance to TIE the game, with momentum and trailing by only a touchdown. Instead, Manning completed that "Hail Mary" (almost) 43 yeard pass, and the Cowboy season was pretty much over. Collinsworht got it WXACTLY WRONG, even after his fellow analyst had TOLD HIM the correct way to view this.
As stated, this is NOT an isolated performance in stupidity by Collinsworth Is he really thi sDUMB, or is it just picking up on the standard sportscaster method of MISREPRESENINTG what has happened? I think it is a combinatino of both. Collinsworth really is this STUPID (as indicatred by his failure to even listen what was told to him), but he is also simply copying the STUPIDITY of sportscasters in general. They ALL seem to make these comletely false assertions as to the significancdee of certain plays and decisions, based on totally false assumptions as to how the game would have proceeded if different vents had occurred, or different decisions had been made. Say, for example, that Maning had thrown that 43 yard pass, and it had been INTAERCEPTAED. Say that the Cowboyd had then gone down and tied the game, and had WON the game larter. Would Colinsworth have said that the INTERCEPATION had "turned the game around"? If he were true to sportscaster fro, that is excatly what he would have said. And it would have been FALSE. Manniing was under extreme pressure. He HAD to throw the ball. He chose to throw it WAY DOWN FIELD. So long as the Cowboys did not return an interception a long ways, this was AS GOOD AS A PUNT. It would have been a MEANIGNLESS INTERCEPTION, since the Giants would have had to punt the ball away anyway (if Manning had simply thrown the ball away, or gotten sacked).
"Skip, you don't know as much as Collinsworth about football." So what? This is not about FOOTBAL. This is about LOGIC, and WATCHING what actually is happening (instead of simply saying things because they sound good, and track what sportscasters have always said). If you are gonig to ANALYZE a game, then you should ANALYZE what has really happened--not the "sportscaster way" of putting emphasis on MEANINGLESS events. The way to look at an interception is to look at what the situation would have been if the interception had not happned. For that matter, say that one team returns an interception for a touchdown. Really important play, right? Probably. But what if the ensuing kickoff is RETURNED FOR A TOUCHDOWN (a play that would not have happned but for the interception)? Then the interceptoin becomes pretty much MEANINGLESS as far as the outcome of the game, because its effect was NEGATED by the next play. Sportscasdters seem unable to analyze the game the way it actually is unfolding, and this is because they are some of The Stupidest People Who Have Ever Lived. Plus, they have CONTEMPT for their audience.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, if I could SEE I WOULD have made a better sportscaster than Chris Collinsworht, and definitely a better "analyst". Even though most of my life I could see reasonably well, I have never really had acute eyesight since I became severly near sighted at the end of high shcool. Yes, I used to be able to red, drive, and do all kinds of things I can't do now. But I really have never had the eyesight, and ability to see detail, to see accurately what is going on, in detail, in a football play. Maybe mot people can't, and maybe a former footgall palyer has more idea as to what exactly to look for on an individual play. However, they have all of this HELP (spotters, statisticians, etc.). It wuold be nice if they could actualy ANALYZE allof the data that is HANDED to them. Even blind, I could ndo a better job than they do.
Sportscasters are, in general, stupid people. As you know "journalists"in general share the "nonor" of being The Stupidest People n Earth with Wall Street/financial peoople (like Bernanke, CNBC people and Wall Street Journal people)--although leftists in general are in contention. Sportscasters are the WORST of the "journalists", which may make them The Stupidest People Who Have Ever Lived (including Neanderthal Man in the comparison). You may think this is because sportscasters are often former professional athletes, but that does not explain people like Howard Coseell, Al Michaels and the rest. Howard Cosell was one of the stupidest men I have ever heard on television, as former Dallas quarterback Don Meredith exposed virtually every night in the "Golden Age" of Monday Night Football. Thus, we come to Chris Collinsworth, who is one of the STUPIDEST of the sportscasters--making him automatically one of the stupidest men who has ever lived.
Doubt me? Never do that. Collinsowrth is NOT a "one-hit" wonder. He has EARNED his standing as one of the stupidest men who ever lived over time. Take my word for it. But you don't have to take my word for last night, as NBC (home of a remarkable number of the stupidest "journalists" around--making NBC the natural home for MANY of the stupidest people who have ever lived) presented Collinsworth as its "expert" commentator on Sunday Night Football.
Let me set this up for you. It was early in the 4th quarter. The Cowboys--as Romo took advantage of a Giant team that was obviously "sitting on" a 21-0 halftime lead--were on the comeback trail. They were still down 21-7, but they had a 4th down and 1 on the Giant 10 yard line (after a typical Romo play ened up JUST SHORT of a first down). Collinsworth, et. al., were just talking aobut what a "big decision" this was (not true--it was an OBVIOUS decision), when Romo rushed the Cowboys to the line to try to catch the Giants off guard with a "qucik snap" quarterback sneak (the kind of play upon which Tom Brady has made a living). Romo FAILED, and the Giants took over on downs. The OTHER "analyst" noted that this made the decision to "go for it", rather than kick a field goal, a BAD decison ONLY if the Giants were able to move the ball. Collinsworth--again, one of the stupidest man who has ever lived--ws obviously not listening to the person right there with him, as he NEVER listens (in my experience hearing him "analyze" things).
What happened? The Giants could not make a first down. They not only had to punt, but Des Bryant brought the punt back quite a ways, and a personal foul gave the Cowboys 15 more yards. Suddenly, the Cowboys were inside of the 30--hardly much worse off than they had just been on the 10, as they now had a first down. A play or two later, the Cowboys scored a touchdown, and were only behind 21-14---the same as they MIGHT have been had they MADE that 4th and 1 first down try. Thus, the failure to kick a field goal--as the OTHER NBC analyst had poknted out without Collinsworth bothering to listen--had SUCCEDED for the Dallas Cowboys. They had got their touchdown--not a field goal--partly BECAUSE they had "gone for it" (and failed), rahter than kick the field goal. This mad the 4th down failure by the Cowboys, and the good play by a Giant player (which Collinsworth had GUSHED about), a MEANINGLESS play. At most, it had cost the Cowboys maybe 2 or 3 minutes--not nothing, but hardly one of the game's key plays. The Cowboys were within a touchdown, and there was sitll more than half of the 4th quarter left to play.
In fact, the Cowboys looked likely to get the ball right back after the Giants got the ball. Manning (I think on a thrid down play) ws in DEEP TROUBLE, and the Cowboys should have SACKED him. For all the world, it looked just like the play in the Giant Suerp Bowl win, when the Patriots had Manning sacked, only to see him throw the ball up for grabs, and have the Gian receiver come down with the ball. That is what happened. Manning whirled around, and seemed to jsut loft the ball almost blindly twoard a Gian receiver way down field (Victory Cruz). History repeated itself, and Cruz out-jumped the Cowboy defensive back from the ball (despite the defsive back being in perfect position to break up the play). The gain ws 43 yeards or so. The Giants would get a field goal, after running some time off, and the Cowboys were suddenly in pretty desperat sahpe (down 10 points--they would lose by 17). THIS Manning play was THE key play of the game, but NOT for Collinsworth (agian, one of The Stupidest Men Who Ha Ever Lived).
What did Collinsworth say after the Giants kicked a field goal? You should have guessed it. He said that IF the Cowboy's coach had jsut kicked that field goal (see above), the Cowboys would only be behind "one score" (a touchdown), and not in such desperate shape. What cn you say about a man this STUPID. IF the Cowboys had kicked that field goal, they would be behind ELEVENPOINTS (instead of 7), and the Giants' field goal wold have put them back ahead 14. Collinsworth was INGORING the fact that the Coowboys had scored their touchdown MAINLY BECAUSE they had "gone for it" on 4th down, and failed. This had led directly to the Cowboys scoring a touchdown a few minutes later, as Collinsworth's own colleague had TOLD Collinswroth would be the test of whether it had been right or wrong to go for the first down on 4th down (not exactly true, since yo can't operate from hindsight, and "going for it" awas ALWAYS the right decision, because it gave you TWO chances to succeed: make the fist down or hold the Giants and be in good position to be right back down deep in Giant territory, which is what acutally happened).
What Collinsworth was ASSUMMING (with NO justification whatever) was that teh Cowboys woulld have socred their touchdown ANYWAY, after successfully kicking the field goal and then kicking off to tthe Giants. There is NO reason to assume that this would have happened. What actually happened was about as GOOD as the Cowboys could possibly have hoped for. They FAILED to make the first down, but promptly scored a touchdown only abut 3 minutes later, after STOPPING the Giants. As stated, this made the Giant play stoppping the Cowboys on 4th down pretty much MEANINGLESS. The Cowboys were pretty much in the same position they would have been had they MADE the first down. The few minutes they lost were NOT crucial to the outcome.
Was it POSSILBE thta things would have gone the way CollinsworthASSUMED (with no justification--an "ass of you and me" when you assume)? Sure. IF theCowboys had kicked the field goal, kicked off, and promptly held the Giants, the Cowboys MIGHT have been able to go right back down, after the Giants punt, and score a touchdown. But it is UNLIKELY that it would have happened as easily as it did after the Giants took over on downs. Remember, the Cowboys STARTED that next possession INSIDE THE GIANT 30, as a DIRECT result of the Giants taking over on downs at their own 10. There is NO reson to believe it would have been thaqt easy for the Cowboys if they had kicked the field goal.
Wait,. Collinsworth was not thrugh. Remember that Manning pass paly? What do you think Collinsworth later (when it was obvius that the Giants had won the game) said was the KEY play of the game? Right (if you have been paying attention). Collinsworth went back t the defensive player who COLLINSWORTH had GUSHED over for that 4th down stop, and credited him with the "KEY PLAY" of the game? You just can't get any mroe STUPID than that. This blog has desbribed it to you accurately. No matter how good the defensive play was, to stop Tony Romo on that 4th down quarterback sneak (the main problem being that this "ploy" of a quck quarterback sneak is becoming too COOMN and OBVIOUS), the game had gone in such a way tat the play had turned out to be MEANINGLESS. The Cowboys had gotten to within a touchdonw RIGHT AWAY, mainly BECAUSE of that fialed quarterback sneak and immmeidately following events. The Cowboys were in position to have a chance to TIE the game, with momentum and trailing by only a touchdown. Instead, Manning completed that "Hail Mary" (almost) 43 yeard pass, and the Cowboy season was pretty much over. Collinsworht got it WXACTLY WRONG, even after his fellow analyst had TOLD HIM the correct way to view this.
As stated, this is NOT an isolated performance in stupidity by Collinsworth Is he really thi sDUMB, or is it just picking up on the standard sportscaster method of MISREPRESENINTG what has happened? I think it is a combinatino of both. Collinsworth really is this STUPID (as indicatred by his failure to even listen what was told to him), but he is also simply copying the STUPIDITY of sportscasters in general. They ALL seem to make these comletely false assertions as to the significancdee of certain plays and decisions, based on totally false assumptions as to how the game would have proceeded if different vents had occurred, or different decisions had been made. Say, for example, that Maning had thrown that 43 yard pass, and it had been INTAERCEPTAED. Say that the Cowboyd had then gone down and tied the game, and had WON the game larter. Would Colinsworth have said that the INTERCEPATION had "turned the game around"? If he were true to sportscaster fro, that is excatly what he would have said. And it would have been FALSE. Manniing was under extreme pressure. He HAD to throw the ball. He chose to throw it WAY DOWN FIELD. So long as the Cowboys did not return an interception a long ways, this was AS GOOD AS A PUNT. It would have been a MEANIGNLESS INTERCEPTION, since the Giants would have had to punt the ball away anyway (if Manning had simply thrown the ball away, or gotten sacked).
"Skip, you don't know as much as Collinsworth about football." So what? This is not about FOOTBAL. This is about LOGIC, and WATCHING what actually is happening (instead of simply saying things because they sound good, and track what sportscasters have always said). If you are gonig to ANALYZE a game, then you should ANALYZE what has really happened--not the "sportscaster way" of putting emphasis on MEANINGLESS events. The way to look at an interception is to look at what the situation would have been if the interception had not happned. For that matter, say that one team returns an interception for a touchdown. Really important play, right? Probably. But what if the ensuing kickoff is RETURNED FOR A TOUCHDOWN (a play that would not have happned but for the interception)? Then the interceptoin becomes pretty much MEANINGLESS as far as the outcome of the game, because its effect was NEGATED by the next play. Sportscasdters seem unable to analyze the game the way it actually is unfolding, and this is because they are some of The Stupidest People Who Have Ever Lived. Plus, they have CONTEMPT for their audience.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, if I could SEE I WOULD have made a better sportscaster than Chris Collinsworht, and definitely a better "analyst". Even though most of my life I could see reasonably well, I have never really had acute eyesight since I became severly near sighted at the end of high shcool. Yes, I used to be able to red, drive, and do all kinds of things I can't do now. But I really have never had the eyesight, and ability to see detail, to see accurately what is going on, in detail, in a football play. Maybe mot people can't, and maybe a former footgall palyer has more idea as to what exactly to look for on an individual play. However, they have all of this HELP (spotters, statisticians, etc.). It wuold be nice if they could actualy ANALYZE allof the data that is HANDED to them. Even blind, I could ndo a better job than they do.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Happy New Year: A DangerousYear
I wish lyou alll a Happy New Year, even as--pessimist that I am--I view this coming year as perhaps the MOST dangerous year of my life (talkng about danger to the nation and the world, and not to me personally).
Things appar to be going from bad to worse in the Middle East. Iran is close to a nuclear weapon. Islmic extremists are gaining influence everywhere. Euroope is on the verge of economic collapse. WE are broke, and don't seemt o realize it-well on the rode to Europe. Ben Bernanke has put us in a positon where FOOD and ENERGY are already priced TOO =high, and set to SURGE in price at any sign of an "economic recovery". In toerh words, a real economic recovery is IMPOSSIBLE, because we have made it impossible with deficts and monetary policy (printing money). At any sign of economic 'recovery", INFLATION is gong to start heading towrd the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic(cutting off any"recovery" as son as it begins to gain any steam). Oil is at $100 a barrrel, and gasoline well over $3 a barrel, BEFORE we have any real signs of recovery, and BEFORE any disruption in the Middle East (like from Iran, or because of Iran). And I have ot even gotten to North Korea.
a turly DANGEROUS year. That is why I don't see Obama being reelected. He LEADS FROM BEHIND, and is not that smart-in addition to having the WRONG phioloophy o fgoverfnment. The ptential problems are all too big gor him. He has no chance. If only the GOP had anybody much better. But the odds are that things will go BADLY for Obama, becasuse the odds are that things will go BADLYL for this country.
Stil, I wish you all INDIVIDUALLY a Happy New Year, even if I find it difficult to see how it will be a Happy New Year for the country.
I talked to one of my borthers again today--acually 3 of my brothers. And they ALL said I as too negative. Imagine that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, thye all agree that I am pretty much right on the specifics, but they just refuse to believe that the GOP cannot dobetter than Obama, even under Romney. Maybe they are right. I hope so. My brain tells me otherwise.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I repeat my endorsement of Rick Santorum--not as a conservative "savior" of this country, but as a consistently conservative politician who is the best of the GOP candidates (not bad n ordinary times, although probably not good enoughin times that require BOLD LEADERSHIP of the kind provided by Ronald Reagan). I think Santorum has at least as much of a chance as Romney of winning against Obama, and Santorum is the much more reliable conservative. Will he be BOLD enought to "sav" the country? Probably not. However, he will give us the best chance of those that are running, and have any chance of winning. A CHANCE is all we are going to get in these desperate times, and Snatroum is more likely to give this country a chance at "recovery" than the rest. Hardly a great campaign slogan, and no one could win an election being as pessimistic as I presently am. However, one of our problems is LACK OF URGENCY. In the absence of a real leader with that sense of urgency, rick Santorum is thebest out there (which is not bad, just perhaps not up to the truly formidable challenges we face). Obama, of course, is not only not up to the challenges we face, but is making them aLL much, much worse. That is my brothers' position: that we can't afford four more eyars of Obama. They are right. I jsut don't think we can afford frou more years of BUSH etiehr, and I regard Romeny as essentially that. Remember, by the way, that I have often said that Obama is in the midst of BUSH'S THRID TERM--which tell you what I think of Obama, Bush and Romney (all three).
Things appar to be going from bad to worse in the Middle East. Iran is close to a nuclear weapon. Islmic extremists are gaining influence everywhere. Euroope is on the verge of economic collapse. WE are broke, and don't seemt o realize it-well on the rode to Europe. Ben Bernanke has put us in a positon where FOOD and ENERGY are already priced TOO =high, and set to SURGE in price at any sign of an "economic recovery". In toerh words, a real economic recovery is IMPOSSIBLE, because we have made it impossible with deficts and monetary policy (printing money). At any sign of economic 'recovery", INFLATION is gong to start heading towrd the hyperinflation of the Weimar Republic(cutting off any"recovery" as son as it begins to gain any steam). Oil is at $100 a barrrel, and gasoline well over $3 a barrel, BEFORE we have any real signs of recovery, and BEFORE any disruption in the Middle East (like from Iran, or because of Iran). And I have ot even gotten to North Korea.
a turly DANGEROUS year. That is why I don't see Obama being reelected. He LEADS FROM BEHIND, and is not that smart-in addition to having the WRONG phioloophy o fgoverfnment. The ptential problems are all too big gor him. He has no chance. If only the GOP had anybody much better. But the odds are that things will go BADLY for Obama, becasuse the odds are that things will go BADLYL for this country.
Stil, I wish you all INDIVIDUALLY a Happy New Year, even if I find it difficult to see how it will be a Happy New Year for the country.
I talked to one of my borthers again today--acually 3 of my brothers. And they ALL said I as too negative. Imagine that!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, thye all agree that I am pretty much right on the specifics, but they just refuse to believe that the GOP cannot dobetter than Obama, even under Romney. Maybe they are right. I hope so. My brain tells me otherwise.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I repeat my endorsement of Rick Santorum--not as a conservative "savior" of this country, but as a consistently conservative politician who is the best of the GOP candidates (not bad n ordinary times, although probably not good enoughin times that require BOLD LEADERSHIP of the kind provided by Ronald Reagan). I think Santorum has at least as much of a chance as Romney of winning against Obama, and Santorum is the much more reliable conservative. Will he be BOLD enought to "sav" the country? Probably not. However, he will give us the best chance of those that are running, and have any chance of winning. A CHANCE is all we are going to get in these desperate times, and Snatroum is more likely to give this country a chance at "recovery" than the rest. Hardly a great campaign slogan, and no one could win an election being as pessimistic as I presently am. However, one of our problems is LACK OF URGENCY. In the absence of a real leader with that sense of urgency, rick Santorum is thebest out there (which is not bad, just perhaps not up to the truly formidable challenges we face). Obama, of course, is not only not up to the challenges we face, but is making them aLL much, much worse. That is my brothers' position: that we can't afford four more eyars of Obama. They are right. I jsut don't think we can afford frou more years of BUSH etiehr, and I regard Romeny as essentially that. Remember, by the way, that I have often said that Obama is in the midst of BUSH'S THRID TERM--which tell you what I think of Obama, Bush and Romney (all three).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)