"But, Skip, I thought you LIKED Marco Rubio."
I did. In a way, I still do. I thought he was one of the brightest rising stars in the GOP. That is what really disturbs me. Rubio is one of the BEST of the GOP members of the Senate. Just how BAD ae the OTHERS? The answer: really bad.
What am I talking about? See the blog article of a mere two weeks or so ago on Rubio and Mike Leigh. According to the unfair and unbalanced network (not a very reliable source, and no different than CNN--if I am remembering it wrong and it was CNN), Marco Rubio and Mike Leigh were part of that TERRIBLE 89-10 majority in the U.S. Seante who voted for that "two month" extension of the "payroll tax cut"--which necessarily meant joining the GOP in urging a ONE YEAR exention of hat "payroll tax cut" and extension of extended unemployoment benefits. Charles Krauthammer, who regularly advocates sELLING OUT this country, called that Seante bill an ABOMINATIONI, and htat was apart from the FACT taht tthe bill (over teh entire year) will rEQUIRE that the "debt ceiling" be raised an ADDITIONAL 150 BILLION (or more). This blog has posted article after article about thhe FRAUD of this "apyroll tax cut". It is not really a "tax cut". It is a BRIBE (no different than that FAILED $600 paymen---a Bush/Democrat "stimulus"--in 2008). Further it undermines Social Security: the entire concept of a selfl-funding Social Seucity. system.
It does not matter whether you agree with me on the fraudulent "payroll tax cut" or not. I have made a conclusive case agaisnt it, and you can review this blog's aricles over the past SIX MONTHS to review that case. But that is not the pint of this article. The point of this article is that IF you vote for an extension of the "payroll ax cut" and that extension of "extended unemployment benefits", then yhou CANNOT complain about raising the debtg limit without being an industrial grade hypocrfitge. Rubio has proven himself an industril grade hypocrite. NO, it is NOT ture that the "payroll tax cut" is "paid for". That is sim;ply a LIE Yes, I just called Rubiio and virtually the entire GOP LIARS. And they are. We are not paying for the government we have now, with the revenue we have now, and the idea that we are "paying for" any ADDITIONAL deficit bills--without paying for the deificts we already have--is simply a LIE. Even that does not matter. Say we WERE "paying for" the "payroll tax cut" OVER TEN YEARS . We are not, but say we were. That does not change that we would still HAVE to raise the debt ceiling to cover ADDITIONAL DEBT created by this bill, since the addition to the debt CAUSED BY THIS BILL occurs THIS NEXT YEAR. That does NOT happen over ten years. As this blog has told lyou before, it is like BORROWING 20 TGRILLION dollars (which we are in the process of doing)--assuming we had a balanced budget now, which, of course, we don't--and then "payring for" that 20 TRILLIOIN dollars over tghe nextg ten years. If we did that, how much do you think we would have to RAISE gthe debtr ceiling (assuming we started at zerou, whcih of couse, is again not the case)? We would have to RAISE the debt ceiling 20 TRILLION dollars, whether we "pay for it' over the nextg ten years or nto (we won't, as we won't "pay for" the debt adn deficits we now have until we HAVE to,m because we have turned into Greece).
In short, you CAN'T vote to INCREASE the difference between what we are collecting in 2012 and the amount we are spending, which the "payroll tax cut" bill does by at least 150 BILLION dollars, without RAISING THE DEBTG CEILING 150 billion ADDITIONAL dollars. And that is not counting the fact that gthe GOP ihas VOTED (in the GOP contgrolled House) fore EVERY DIME that Obama is requesting to be added to the debut ceing (eithr in 2012 spending bills or in the omnibus 2011 spending bill). The GOP, has CUT NOTHING from spending for 2011 or 2012, and they COUYLD HAVE (at POLITICAL risk, but they had the POWER to do it).
Given that the GOP is now just as responsible for NEW increases in the debt ceiling as Obama and the Democrats, how can Rubio write a letter to the President jumping all over President Obama for asking for the debt ceiling to be raised? Yet, that is what Rubio did. He virtually called President Obama names for asking for an increase in the debt ceiling REQUIRED by GOOP VOTES. Sure, Obama and the Democrats were even more responsbile fgor this than the GOP, but the GOP did NOTHING. That is what this blog has been tring to tell you for at least six months--since in the middle of that FARCE of a "debt ceiling debate" this past summer. When Congress VOTES for spending more money than we have, as the GOP haS done, then the debt ceiling MUST be raised. If you vote for the "payroll tax cut", AND the spending bills (as most in the GOP have done), then the debt ceiling MUST be raised. If lyou then vote agaisnt raising the debt ceiling , yoy simply label ourself a HYPOCRITE. That is sort of an inadquate word for Marco Rubion, who has not merely voted agaisnt raising the debt ceiling to cover laws ENACTED BY THE GOP (even if Obama and the Democrats were even more at fault), but WRITE A LETTER about it, what are you? Well, you are at least a HYPOCRITE, if not worse, and that is what Marco Rubio is.
But is not this the POLITICALLY smart thing to do, since people do not (the GOP hopes) connect the votes of CONGRESS to spend ore than we have (including those GOP votes that were NECESSARy to pass teh bills) with the debt ceiling. I am actually not sure that people are that dumb. But even if they are, this blog is going to tell you the TRUTH. I don't regard myself as a lPARTISAN. s you now, I hae said I will NEVER call myself a member of the GOP again. But even as a conserative, and ever had I not abandoned the GOP, I still would not give you LIES just because I am a lPARTISAN and think I may be able to getaway with it. This is what I mean by "politics as usual', and it is what is RUINGING this country. I refuse to be a part of it. Thus, I don't care whether Marco Rubion is playing SMART political games (which--as suggested--I dispute). . He is playing political games which make him a HYPOCRITE, and I am going to tell ou so.
Message, then, to Marco Rubio: You are a hypocrite. I have lost a lot of respect for you. Myou don't worry about my respect? Well, you are not alone. But I call them the way I see them. This blog will continue to do so.
P.S . No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Sunday, January 8, 2012
NBC, Comcast and Facebook: Losers in Uselesss GOP Debate
NBC is known as the "National Barack Compay", or sometimes as the "Natioinal (O)Bama Compay". There is not even a pretense of objectivity, and David Grregory is one of the WORST "newsmen' to ever lieve. To call him a partisan political hack is to ybderstate tge case, Thus, teh NBC debatge this morning was all about SUPORTING OBAMA, and NOT about providing GOP voters iwth any actual INFORMATION. And the debate did NOT provide any information of any value to GOP voters.
Therefore, this blog will not attempt an "analysis" of the GOP candidates' performan e this morening. It ws meaningless. You could say that Gingrich "won", but that is only becaue the debatewas dESIGNED with the ida of providing more HEAT than LIGHT. That is the kind of debate where Gingrich's Twitter-type pithy comments shine. Itg was imossible for the GOP candidates to really get out a coherent message in a debate so obviusly designed to SUPPORT OBAMA. What wsa PARTISAN HACK Gregory's primary "disappointment" about the debate? It ws that he could not get Rick Perry to CRITICIZE "GOP orthodoxy". I could never make this up. That ais exactly what PARTISAN HACK Greogry said. Have you ever been to an interview whre you are saked: "Waht is you WROST quality?" It bothers me that some interviewers actually seem to think this is "clever", or provides actual information. What it actually does, of course, is "test" how well you LIE (maybe the purpoise of this really asinine interview question). As stated, the whole purpose of this debate, from teh point of view of partisan NBC, was to SUPPORT OBAMA. Thus, Gregory kept putting out Obama /Democrat "tgalking points', includin g the question of: "How would you like it if you are elected President and the oppositon leaders in Congress say that their goal is to make you a one term President?" But Gregory got even MORE (I know, you would not have thought it possible) by asking Perry the main area whre Perry OPPOSED the GOP. Gregory even suggested he was gong to ask EVERYBODY that, but was so busy ATTACKING Perry's answer (not that bad) that Gregory FORGOT that he intended to get a comapign commercial for Obama out of this question (.lo--not only "laugh ou t loud", but "lots of luck", as NOBODY is going to trash his own party in answer to an OBVIOUIS partisan question like that).
Waht do I mean that Perry's answer was not so bad? Did nt Perry say he ws for a "Balanced Budget Amendment"--hardly against GOP "orthodoxy"? First, do you see how OBVIOUS Greogry was about his DISHONESTY.? Gregory virtually shouted that GOP "orthodoxy" was stupid, nad that the the only positions worth considering were positions which did NOT agree with the GOP positions. Time and time again Gregory, as Stephanopoulos the night before, tried to BRUSH ASIDE (or prevent) answers which repreent the position of the GOP rank and file. Rick Perry was merely the most obvious example. Waht Perry said was actually rfeasonable, and the "Balanced Budget Amendment" part was NOT the essence of the answer. Waht Perry said was the the GOP members of Congress, when the GOP was in control of both the Presidency and Congress, has shown themselves to be BIG SPENDERS jsut like Obama. Thus, perry reasoned (correctly--as this blog has pointed out more stridently every week for about six months--was that it acutally OPPOSED GOP "orthodoxy" to REALLY want to reduce government, deficits and spending. Ghis was ot the answer that Gregory (STUPIDLY) was looking for, but it is a perfectly reasonable answer. It could be MY answwer, and you could hardly say thigs blog goes alnog with "GOP ortodoxy", when this blog fialed to support McCain against Obama, and has already promised not to support Romney against Obama.
You should be able to see wy "analyzing" the preformance of the candidates in this debate is useless. It wa a useless debate. The hwole idea of the debate, aside from supporting Obama, was to get the GOP candidates to ATTACK EACH OTHER, and especially Romney. The MSNBC "analysis" afterward made it clear that the PARTISAN OBAMA SUPPORTERS of NBC and MSNBC are beginning to WORRY that Ropmney is getting to much of an "easy" path to the nomination. Sure, MSNBC, CNN and OTHER LEFTISTS have made it a pint to NOMINATE Romney, by tearing down ever HATED CONSERVATIVE that even starts to rise to the top, but MSNBC is obviously beginning to worry that it is creating a TOGH opponent for Obama. Therefore, most of the MSNBC "analysis" was NEGATIVE TOWARD ROMNEY. .Like CNN, MSNBC wanted teh GOP candidates TEARING INTO ROMNEY. That wass one of the goals of Gregory in the debate. Because Gregory was so persistent and obvious about this, there actually were more exchanges of aPERSONAL , negative ad nature between Romney and the other candidates. Tis was all so obvious, including what Gregory did, that I saw no EFFECTIVE blows landed. The ONLY way for a GOP candidate to do this EFFECTIVELY (aside from just a BLITZ of negative ads like Romney supporters put on in Iowa) is for a GOP candidate to ATTACK OBAMA, and at the same time take swipes at his GOP opponents not being able to take the fight to Obama because of their flaws. Gregory ws there to PREVENT attacks on Obama, and thus there ws almsot no way for the candidates to make real points (other than attacking GREGORY, which they should have done).
Enough. The debate was USELESS. Take my word for it. About the only good thing you can say about it was that there was not this RIDICULOUS emhasis on "social issues"--including FALSE soicial issues--as in the ABC cebatge last night . There was no George Stephanopoulos to stick his foot so far in his mouh that it came out anotehr orifice. Thus, a good part of the ABC debate was USELESS as well, but the ABC debate got enoguh subsetantive quesitions on real issues to have some substance to those parts of the debate. There was NO substance to any part of the NBC debate.
Waht is really FUNNY is the main THEMME of NBC/MSNBC/Comacast both during and after the debate. That theme was that we are TOO POLARIZED, and not wiling eough to work togethter. do oyu want any more evidence that these (mainstream media---including the unfair and unbalanced network---are the WORST HLYPOCRITGES TO EVER WAK THE EARTH, ON TWO LEGS OR FOUR? What is the MOST POLARIZING source of LEFTIST PROPAGANDA on this plante? Right. It is MSNBC, and NBC. Their "position" can fairly be stated like this: "Obama is right, and trying to do the right thing, and the GOP is wrong (not even trying to do the right thing, but dominated by right wing nuts and the "rich'). So much for "finding common ground", and "working together".
Comcast? Oh, Comcast OWNS NBC (which owns MSNBC). Thus, you should BOYCOTT COMCAST. And Facebook FRAUDLENTLY lent its name to this debate, although the fRAUD was mainly that of NBC. It was jsut so OBCIOUS (even more obvious than usual) that the quesioins asked were NOT from some "cross-section" of Facebook users, but wer SELECTED an phrased by the NBC questioners (expecailly teh blatantly PARTISAN David Gregory). It is a fundamental LIE in these "YoutTube" or 'intenet" or other 'public participation" debates that the questions come fofrom the publice,. I actually know how this works, not only from observation but because I recently "attended" a PHONE "town hall" by local Congressman Silvestere Reyes. The questions are SCREENED, and the only questins that getg asked are those that the SCREENERS (in this case David Gregory and the people of NBC) want to be asked. This is not actualy any different from when there is NO "pubic participation". In other words, David Gregory and the NBC questioners would have asked the SAME questions without Facebook having anything to do with this. The only possible exception is if some NBC LEFTIST sees what he or she thinks is a clver LEFTIST question that David Gregory would have asked if he wre smart enough to think of it. Then, maybe (rarely for even this) a member of the public may "help'NBC accomplish its agenda. But the agenda, and the questions intended to be asked, always remain the same.
No, I do NOT give Comcast a "pass". If Comcast is ging to own the most obviously PARTISAN TV network that has ever existed, then Comcast has to take the CONSEQUENCES of that. Comcast is RESPONSIBLE> Therfore, BOYCOTT COMCAST.
Facebook? Yes, I hink you should BOYCOTAT FACEBOOK. But I can't honestly say it is becaus of their FRAUD in letting their name be used in conection with this debate. I have NEVER been on Facebook, and NEVER will. The whole idea leaves me cold. That, of course, means thaqt HUNDREDS (ore even thousands) of people know more about my two daughters than I do (especially my older daughter, hwho puts here entire life on Facebook),. If you want to keep up with my daughters, the best way to do it is through their Facebook pages. Not for me. Thus, you have to tak this particular "boycott" recomendation with a ton of salt. I cannot be objective about Facebook, and I can't honestly say thaqt this particular "crime' is worthy of an actual boycott. I know you won't do it anyway, UNLESS you have come to realize how destructive Facbook really is to life in this ocuntry (and e en the worlld). "Flash mobs" are only the tip of the iceberg. Nope. I don't have an I-Phone either, or ANY cell phone (with or without internet capability). I do have an I-Pod (at the virtual insistence of my older daughter), but I use it ONLY for audiobooks (my eyesight meaning that I can no longer read regualr print books, OR regular ebooks). I tell you all of this jsut so you can understand my BIAS, and evaluate my reactio to Facebook0-accurate as it si--with that i mind. On Comcast, however, there is no such consideration. Comcast IS responsible for NBC, and you should BOYCOTT Comcast.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight--see paragraph above).
Therefore, this blog will not attempt an "analysis" of the GOP candidates' performan e this morening. It ws meaningless. You could say that Gingrich "won", but that is only becaue the debatewas dESIGNED with the ida of providing more HEAT than LIGHT. That is the kind of debate where Gingrich's Twitter-type pithy comments shine. Itg was imossible for the GOP candidates to really get out a coherent message in a debate so obviusly designed to SUPPORT OBAMA. What wsa PARTISAN HACK Gregory's primary "disappointment" about the debate? It ws that he could not get Rick Perry to CRITICIZE "GOP orthodoxy". I could never make this up. That ais exactly what PARTISAN HACK Greogry said. Have you ever been to an interview whre you are saked: "Waht is you WROST quality?" It bothers me that some interviewers actually seem to think this is "clever", or provides actual information. What it actually does, of course, is "test" how well you LIE (maybe the purpoise of this really asinine interview question). As stated, the whole purpose of this debate, from teh point of view of partisan NBC, was to SUPPORT OBAMA. Thus, Gregory kept putting out Obama /Democrat "tgalking points', includin g the question of: "How would you like it if you are elected President and the oppositon leaders in Congress say that their goal is to make you a one term President?" But Gregory got even MORE (I know, you would not have thought it possible) by asking Perry the main area whre Perry OPPOSED the GOP. Gregory even suggested he was gong to ask EVERYBODY that, but was so busy ATTACKING Perry's answer (not that bad) that Gregory FORGOT that he intended to get a comapign commercial for Obama out of this question (.lo--not only "laugh ou t loud", but "lots of luck", as NOBODY is going to trash his own party in answer to an OBVIOUIS partisan question like that).
Waht do I mean that Perry's answer was not so bad? Did nt Perry say he ws for a "Balanced Budget Amendment"--hardly against GOP "orthodoxy"? First, do you see how OBVIOUS Greogry was about his DISHONESTY.? Gregory virtually shouted that GOP "orthodoxy" was stupid, nad that the the only positions worth considering were positions which did NOT agree with the GOP positions. Time and time again Gregory, as Stephanopoulos the night before, tried to BRUSH ASIDE (or prevent) answers which repreent the position of the GOP rank and file. Rick Perry was merely the most obvious example. Waht Perry said was actually rfeasonable, and the "Balanced Budget Amendment" part was NOT the essence of the answer. Waht Perry said was the the GOP members of Congress, when the GOP was in control of both the Presidency and Congress, has shown themselves to be BIG SPENDERS jsut like Obama. Thus, perry reasoned (correctly--as this blog has pointed out more stridently every week for about six months--was that it acutally OPPOSED GOP "orthodoxy" to REALLY want to reduce government, deficits and spending. Ghis was ot the answer that Gregory (STUPIDLY) was looking for, but it is a perfectly reasonable answer. It could be MY answwer, and you could hardly say thigs blog goes alnog with "GOP ortodoxy", when this blog fialed to support McCain against Obama, and has already promised not to support Romney against Obama.
You should be able to see wy "analyzing" the preformance of the candidates in this debate is useless. It wa a useless debate. The hwole idea of the debate, aside from supporting Obama, was to get the GOP candidates to ATTACK EACH OTHER, and especially Romney. The MSNBC "analysis" afterward made it clear that the PARTISAN OBAMA SUPPORTERS of NBC and MSNBC are beginning to WORRY that Ropmney is getting to much of an "easy" path to the nomination. Sure, MSNBC, CNN and OTHER LEFTISTS have made it a pint to NOMINATE Romney, by tearing down ever HATED CONSERVATIVE that even starts to rise to the top, but MSNBC is obviously beginning to worry that it is creating a TOGH opponent for Obama. Therefore, most of the MSNBC "analysis" was NEGATIVE TOWARD ROMNEY. .Like CNN, MSNBC wanted teh GOP candidates TEARING INTO ROMNEY. That wass one of the goals of Gregory in the debate. Because Gregory was so persistent and obvious about this, there actually were more exchanges of aPERSONAL , negative ad nature between Romney and the other candidates. Tis was all so obvious, including what Gregory did, that I saw no EFFECTIVE blows landed. The ONLY way for a GOP candidate to do this EFFECTIVELY (aside from just a BLITZ of negative ads like Romney supporters put on in Iowa) is for a GOP candidate to ATTACK OBAMA, and at the same time take swipes at his GOP opponents not being able to take the fight to Obama because of their flaws. Gregory ws there to PREVENT attacks on Obama, and thus there ws almsot no way for the candidates to make real points (other than attacking GREGORY, which they should have done).
Enough. The debate was USELESS. Take my word for it. About the only good thing you can say about it was that there was not this RIDICULOUS emhasis on "social issues"--including FALSE soicial issues--as in the ABC cebatge last night . There was no George Stephanopoulos to stick his foot so far in his mouh that it came out anotehr orifice. Thus, a good part of the ABC debate was USELESS as well, but the ABC debate got enoguh subsetantive quesitions on real issues to have some substance to those parts of the debate. There was NO substance to any part of the NBC debate.
Waht is really FUNNY is the main THEMME of NBC/MSNBC/Comacast both during and after the debate. That theme was that we are TOO POLARIZED, and not wiling eough to work togethter. do oyu want any more evidence that these (mainstream media---including the unfair and unbalanced network---are the WORST HLYPOCRITGES TO EVER WAK THE EARTH, ON TWO LEGS OR FOUR? What is the MOST POLARIZING source of LEFTIST PROPAGANDA on this plante? Right. It is MSNBC, and NBC. Their "position" can fairly be stated like this: "Obama is right, and trying to do the right thing, and the GOP is wrong (not even trying to do the right thing, but dominated by right wing nuts and the "rich'). So much for "finding common ground", and "working together".
Comcast? Oh, Comcast OWNS NBC (which owns MSNBC). Thus, you should BOYCOTT COMCAST. And Facebook FRAUDLENTLY lent its name to this debate, although the fRAUD was mainly that of NBC. It was jsut so OBCIOUS (even more obvious than usual) that the quesioins asked were NOT from some "cross-section" of Facebook users, but wer SELECTED an phrased by the NBC questioners (expecailly teh blatantly PARTISAN David Gregory). It is a fundamental LIE in these "YoutTube" or 'intenet" or other 'public participation" debates that the questions come fofrom the publice,. I actually know how this works, not only from observation but because I recently "attended" a PHONE "town hall" by local Congressman Silvestere Reyes. The questions are SCREENED, and the only questins that getg asked are those that the SCREENERS (in this case David Gregory and the people of NBC) want to be asked. This is not actualy any different from when there is NO "pubic participation". In other words, David Gregory and the NBC questioners would have asked the SAME questions without Facebook having anything to do with this. The only possible exception is if some NBC LEFTIST sees what he or she thinks is a clver LEFTIST question that David Gregory would have asked if he wre smart enough to think of it. Then, maybe (rarely for even this) a member of the public may "help'NBC accomplish its agenda. But the agenda, and the questions intended to be asked, always remain the same.
No, I do NOT give Comcast a "pass". If Comcast is ging to own the most obviously PARTISAN TV network that has ever existed, then Comcast has to take the CONSEQUENCES of that. Comcast is RESPONSIBLE> Therfore, BOYCOTT COMCAST.
Facebook? Yes, I hink you should BOYCOTAT FACEBOOK. But I can't honestly say it is becaus of their FRAUD in letting their name be used in conection with this debate. I have NEVER been on Facebook, and NEVER will. The whole idea leaves me cold. That, of course, means thaqt HUNDREDS (ore even thousands) of people know more about my two daughters than I do (especially my older daughter, hwho puts here entire life on Facebook),. If you want to keep up with my daughters, the best way to do it is through their Facebook pages. Not for me. Thus, you have to tak this particular "boycott" recomendation with a ton of salt. I cannot be objective about Facebook, and I can't honestly say thaqt this particular "crime' is worthy of an actual boycott. I know you won't do it anyway, UNLESS you have come to realize how destructive Facbook really is to life in this ocuntry (and e en the worlld). "Flash mobs" are only the tip of the iceberg. Nope. I don't have an I-Phone either, or ANY cell phone (with or without internet capability). I do have an I-Pod (at the virtual insistence of my older daughter), but I use it ONLY for audiobooks (my eyesight meaning that I can no longer read regualr print books, OR regular ebooks). I tell you all of this jsut so you can understand my BIAS, and evaluate my reactio to Facebook0-accurate as it si--with that i mind. On Comcast, however, there is no such consideration. Comcast IS responsible for NBC, and you should BOYCOTT Comcast.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight--see paragraph above).
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Santorum, Gingrich and Romney: Winners, in About That Order (GOP Debate Analysis)--Ron Paul Loser
Talk about a GAFFE. As I have previously told you, FOOTBALL is SERIIOUIS.--not just a game.
If I am right, Newt Gingrich BLEW HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN tonight. In one of those typical "humanizing" last questions, ABC asked--in tonight's GOP debate--what the candidates would be doing this Saturday night if they weren't at that New Hampshire debate. Gingrich said he would be home watchign the COLLEGE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. lI hate to break it to you, Newt, but that game is MONDAY NIGHT. Tonight was tehe NFL playoff game between the Saints and the Lions. TheSACRIFICE I make for you readers of this blog who expectg debatge analysis. The Sainsts easily won the football game, but football is IMPORTANT. Thus, even though the Sainsts were pretty clearly gonig to be the winner by late tin the thrid quarter, I would normally have pretty much watched the entire game. As it was, I only checkded in on the football game, and watched ALMOST ALL of the debate. I still don't even belive it myself, but it was a prretty interesting debate (see previious article). I would say that the GOP candidates--except for Ron Paul--are getting BETTER every single debate (ALL of thhem--even Joh Huntsman, although he remains totally uninspiring and uninteresting).
What is worse is that the other candidates, or at least SOME of them, appeared to AGREE with Gingrich about the college championshiip game. But one or more merely said 'football", and you can excuse others by Gingrich having MISLED them into error (happens to me all of the time on things I consider unimportant, as these people HAVE to consider football at this time--fools that they are). Again, Alabama-LSU is MONDAY NIGHT. I will be watching (the whole thing, absent a truly huge blowout--even if my eyesight does make it hard for me to see the ball--this is FOOTBALL). Sylvia, my only female friend, even had the nerve to say that it is totally unimportant for me to watch these football games. You can see--aside from my general attitude toward women--why I am not romanticlally involved with Sylvia (as if Sylvia would be romantically involved with ME). I digress.
Santorum, Gingrich and Romney all did REALLY WEELL (although Romney, as usual, came across mainly as a very slick, "politics as usual" politician). Santorum, closer than usual to Ron Paul on the stage, got in some really good "digs" at Paul. Paul had a BAD debate. He went off on his libertarian crlusade against the drug laws, and even used the LEFTIST line that our drug laws (and crmiminal justice system) "discriminate" against minorities--as well as our WARS. This was his non-answer to a question about that 20 year old (a little less old than that) "newsletter" under Ron Paul's name. Paul seemed especailly cantankerous and irascible tonight, and all he can hope for is that no one was listening (and that the media will not REPLAY his really bad answers, because they correctly figure that this was juts "Ron Paul being Ron Paul". Sill, Paul was the big LOSER tonight. Huntsman is ALWAYS a loser. Perry was all right, but shunted off into the Santorum position, and he jsut did nto have much opportunity. He seemed almost an afterthought on state. Both he and Gingrich were especially good o the ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY of the mainstream media (Gingrich), and Obama's War on Religion (Perry).
My problem with Romney is that he really doesn't say much. He SOUNDS like he is, but he isn't. However, I thought he said "not much" about as well tonight as he ever has. He even made a "visioin" speech that sounded like it was written for Brack Obama. No, Romney's "vision" was for the OPPOSITE of a "Euroean welfare state", but--so help me-Obama hads made similar teleprompter speeches, without refrenecing the European welfare state. It sounded good (as do Obama's speeches about how we have to "learn to live within our menas"). As this blog has told you, Obama even usines--although not tonight--the Obama line about gong through the "budget line by line" to cut out spenidng that is not really needed.
Gingrich again got off some great, pithy, Twitter-type lines. But Gingrich did not give you the feeling, as usual, that he really has a consistent "philosophy of government". Gingrich always gives the impression that he "makes up" his ideas as he goews along, and may change them tomorrow (as he often has). Nevertheless, a good performance.
Santorum was good all of the way around. Romney--see, again, the previous article--got the ridiculous {contracepton" queston, and knocked it out of the partk with ridicule). I thought it was Romney's best moment, because teh lines did not seem to be lines he had said hundreds of times beforfe. A goo dnight for Romney, althoguh--for my taste--not quite as good as Santorum, or even Gingrich. Why not declare Santorum a clear winner? Easy. I know my own BIAS here toward conservatism, and against "politics as usual', and I have to overcome that to listen to Romney objectively.
There is one parituclar queston where I think Santorum got it exactly right--as if he ha been reading this blog. He was aseked about why he thinks he is a better candidate than Romney, as ABC fished for a PERSONAL ATTACK. They did ot get a personal attack, but they got a REALLY GOOD ANSER. Santourm said that he did not like the way that Romney constantly uses the term" middle class", divinding this coutnry up into "classes" engaging in class warfare rhetoric. I could not have said it better myself, and this blog has told you the same ting serveral times. All Santourm left out was that Romney uses the SAME figures for the "middle class' that Obama uses. To me, this was enough to say that Santorum WON the debate. His other answers were good too, and he pretty much deflated Ron Paul.
ABC, of course, declared Romney the winner, which is what ou can also expect from the unfair and unbalanced network (which I did nto even surf, and don't know whether they even analyzed the debate tonight). ABC, of coure, decleared Romney the winner because no one "laid a love on hiim". They actually said that the other candidates needed to tear Romney down. That is absurd, and shows how STUPID these people ("journalists") really are. Santorum cannot gain by ATTACKNG Romney directly. Santourum has to convince peole that SANTOURUM is a serious, credible candidate agasint Obama. I actually agree with Mary Matalin (who I usually don't think is worth hearing),. She said that what matters is whether conservatives can JON together behind someone other than Romney. That is Santorum's real "mission". He needs to QUICKLY establish himself as the ONLY credible alternative to Romney, and one who can beat Barack Obama. Mary Matalin and I agrree thant Santorum went a long way toward that tonight, as he deflated Ron Paul (along with Ron Paul deflating Ron Paul),, and pretty much left Gingrich and Perry in the dust (Perry more than Gingrich, but Gingrich is taknig ut after Romney, and that will not ultimately help Gingrich, as it would not help Santorum).
Still, there is a sense in which Romney "won". No, it is NOT the ABC sense. Santorum can NEVER win "going after" Romney tooth and nail. He needs to let Gingrich do that. The way in which Romney "won" is that it is becoming more and more clear that it is really hard now to RUFFLE ROMNEY. He, of course, is NOT facing the "meida scrutiny" he will get if his opponent is Obama, because the media wants to defeat all "consevatives' FIRST. STill, NO ONE seems to be able to "lay a glove" on Romney, as far as FORCING HIM INTO ERROR. He jsut won't be baited. He leaves that to paid negative ads, where he can "out-compete" the whole field. In short, Romney is showing thqat he CAN defeat Barack Obama, at least in terms of the media communications game. For me, that is not enough. I want a candidate who will not just keep us gong down the same road, although managed a little better. Santourm tried to make thqat criticism tonight, but Ropmney pretty well sidesteepeed it with that 'vision" , Obama-type speech (short speech).
Why do I think Santourm mmay still be a BETTER candidate against Obama, and why do I think Romney could yet turn out to be a disaster? It all goes back to what my older daughter (living in Boston) told me abut Romney wayback in 2007 or so. She said the Romney was RIDICULED in Boston (consider the source here, but in thic case I think it has merit) because Romney decided to try to show "confidence" in the safety of the Boston subway system (the "T") by RIDING the "T". Unfortunately, according to my daughter,, Romney made it clear that he had NEVER RIDDEN THE "T". In ohter, words, he came acrooss as a person OUT OF TOUCH with the ordinary American. To a degree, I thnk this is a true picture of Romney. No, I dont think that "disqualifies" him from my vote. I supported him in 2008, DESPITE agreeing with my older daughter on tis flaw. But I don't thik Romney really CONNECTS with people. That may not matter. NIXON did not connect with people, and own 60% of the vote in 1972. The "electable' case for Eomney is that he REASSURES PEOPOLE. He LOOKS Presidential, and he SOUNDS Presidential (to a fault). They KNOW he is an "elitist rich guy", who almost seems incapble of showing real human emotion (or connecting with theirs). But if they beleive, as I think they will, that this country cannot AFFORD four more years of Obama (my brothers' position), then Romney appears to be SAFE. As this blog has told you, I consider Romney MORE DANGEROUS than Ron Paul. But most people don't think like me.
In short, Romney is NEVER going to be "inspiring". But we will have had four yearsof the Messiah by November of 2012. People may be READY for Romney. I don't delude myself on that. Santorum, in THIS sense, is more risky agaisnt Obama than Romneyh. It justs eems unlikey that Romney will make major mistakes, unless the "out of touch" "charge" bvegins to stick. I guarantee ou it will be MORE the attack than the "flip-flopper" charge. Obama is gong to try to portray Romney as an "out of touch Wall Street guy who does not care about the common man, or understand him.". It MAY work (although I don't think so)., Santorum is not subject tto this "charge", but he is much more likely to MAKE MISTAKES, such that he can be marginalized as one of those crazy conservatives. That has nothing to do witht eh debate tonight. Santorum could do noting about that in the debate, and he did about as well as he can do (pretty good, but maybe not good enough, even if better than Romney).
The message against Obama as hurting jobs and wanting to turn us into a European welfare state was MORE CONSISTANT than it has been, and really pretty effective. It does appear to me that the GOP is getting it togethr on this messsage, no matter who the nominee is (most likely Romney, and I see o alternative to Romney except Santorum, absent a new entrant). For those of ou out thre like my brothers, and so many others (who don't think this country can afford anoterh Obama term, but do think we can afford a Romney term), this should be encouraging. For the mainstream meida, it should be REALLY DISCOURAING.
P.S No proofreaidng or spell checking (bad eyesight). As usual, the above is the DEFINITIVE debate analysis,. You do not need to listen to any other "analysis". I have told you everything you need to know. Oh, and I would STILL vote for Ron Paul agasint Obama, and agaisnt Romney if the race were to somehow come down to Romne vs. Paul. But Paul is NOT going to win the nomination. The most he could do is create a deadlock (if Santorum, Gingrich and Perry mount enough of a challenge to Romney to deny him a majority of delegates, when combined with Ron Paul delegates). Santorum SHOULD finish second in New Hampshire, although Paul may manage to hold on to that sot. I just don't see Gingrich having a big impact, except tearing down Romney, but Gingrich has been about the ONLY candidate to really surprise me this election cycle.
If I am right, Newt Gingrich BLEW HIS WHOLE CAMPAIGN tonight. In one of those typical "humanizing" last questions, ABC asked--in tonight's GOP debate--what the candidates would be doing this Saturday night if they weren't at that New Hampshire debate. Gingrich said he would be home watchign the COLLEGE FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME. lI hate to break it to you, Newt, but that game is MONDAY NIGHT. Tonight was tehe NFL playoff game between the Saints and the Lions. TheSACRIFICE I make for you readers of this blog who expectg debatge analysis. The Sainsts easily won the football game, but football is IMPORTANT. Thus, even though the Sainsts were pretty clearly gonig to be the winner by late tin the thrid quarter, I would normally have pretty much watched the entire game. As it was, I only checkded in on the football game, and watched ALMOST ALL of the debate. I still don't even belive it myself, but it was a prretty interesting debate (see previious article). I would say that the GOP candidates--except for Ron Paul--are getting BETTER every single debate (ALL of thhem--even Joh Huntsman, although he remains totally uninspiring and uninteresting).
What is worse is that the other candidates, or at least SOME of them, appeared to AGREE with Gingrich about the college championshiip game. But one or more merely said 'football", and you can excuse others by Gingrich having MISLED them into error (happens to me all of the time on things I consider unimportant, as these people HAVE to consider football at this time--fools that they are). Again, Alabama-LSU is MONDAY NIGHT. I will be watching (the whole thing, absent a truly huge blowout--even if my eyesight does make it hard for me to see the ball--this is FOOTBALL). Sylvia, my only female friend, even had the nerve to say that it is totally unimportant for me to watch these football games. You can see--aside from my general attitude toward women--why I am not romanticlally involved with Sylvia (as if Sylvia would be romantically involved with ME). I digress.
Santorum, Gingrich and Romney all did REALLY WEELL (although Romney, as usual, came across mainly as a very slick, "politics as usual" politician). Santorum, closer than usual to Ron Paul on the stage, got in some really good "digs" at Paul. Paul had a BAD debate. He went off on his libertarian crlusade against the drug laws, and even used the LEFTIST line that our drug laws (and crmiminal justice system) "discriminate" against minorities--as well as our WARS. This was his non-answer to a question about that 20 year old (a little less old than that) "newsletter" under Ron Paul's name. Paul seemed especailly cantankerous and irascible tonight, and all he can hope for is that no one was listening (and that the media will not REPLAY his really bad answers, because they correctly figure that this was juts "Ron Paul being Ron Paul". Sill, Paul was the big LOSER tonight. Huntsman is ALWAYS a loser. Perry was all right, but shunted off into the Santorum position, and he jsut did nto have much opportunity. He seemed almost an afterthought on state. Both he and Gingrich were especially good o the ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTRY of the mainstream media (Gingrich), and Obama's War on Religion (Perry).
My problem with Romney is that he really doesn't say much. He SOUNDS like he is, but he isn't. However, I thought he said "not much" about as well tonight as he ever has. He even made a "visioin" speech that sounded like it was written for Brack Obama. No, Romney's "vision" was for the OPPOSITE of a "Euroean welfare state", but--so help me-Obama hads made similar teleprompter speeches, without refrenecing the European welfare state. It sounded good (as do Obama's speeches about how we have to "learn to live within our menas"). As this blog has told you, Obama even usines--although not tonight--the Obama line about gong through the "budget line by line" to cut out spenidng that is not really needed.
Gingrich again got off some great, pithy, Twitter-type lines. But Gingrich did not give you the feeling, as usual, that he really has a consistent "philosophy of government". Gingrich always gives the impression that he "makes up" his ideas as he goews along, and may change them tomorrow (as he often has). Nevertheless, a good performance.
Santorum was good all of the way around. Romney--see, again, the previous article--got the ridiculous {contracepton" queston, and knocked it out of the partk with ridicule). I thought it was Romney's best moment, because teh lines did not seem to be lines he had said hundreds of times beforfe. A goo dnight for Romney, althoguh--for my taste--not quite as good as Santorum, or even Gingrich. Why not declare Santorum a clear winner? Easy. I know my own BIAS here toward conservatism, and against "politics as usual', and I have to overcome that to listen to Romney objectively.
There is one parituclar queston where I think Santorum got it exactly right--as if he ha been reading this blog. He was aseked about why he thinks he is a better candidate than Romney, as ABC fished for a PERSONAL ATTACK. They did ot get a personal attack, but they got a REALLY GOOD ANSER. Santourm said that he did not like the way that Romney constantly uses the term" middle class", divinding this coutnry up into "classes" engaging in class warfare rhetoric. I could not have said it better myself, and this blog has told you the same ting serveral times. All Santourm left out was that Romney uses the SAME figures for the "middle class' that Obama uses. To me, this was enough to say that Santorum WON the debate. His other answers were good too, and he pretty much deflated Ron Paul.
ABC, of course, declared Romney the winner, which is what ou can also expect from the unfair and unbalanced network (which I did nto even surf, and don't know whether they even analyzed the debate tonight). ABC, of coure, decleared Romney the winner because no one "laid a love on hiim". They actually said that the other candidates needed to tear Romney down. That is absurd, and shows how STUPID these people ("journalists") really are. Santorum cannot gain by ATTACKNG Romney directly. Santourum has to convince peole that SANTOURUM is a serious, credible candidate agasint Obama. I actually agree with Mary Matalin (who I usually don't think is worth hearing),. She said that what matters is whether conservatives can JON together behind someone other than Romney. That is Santorum's real "mission". He needs to QUICKLY establish himself as the ONLY credible alternative to Romney, and one who can beat Barack Obama. Mary Matalin and I agrree thant Santorum went a long way toward that tonight, as he deflated Ron Paul (along with Ron Paul deflating Ron Paul),, and pretty much left Gingrich and Perry in the dust (Perry more than Gingrich, but Gingrich is taknig ut after Romney, and that will not ultimately help Gingrich, as it would not help Santorum).
Still, there is a sense in which Romney "won". No, it is NOT the ABC sense. Santorum can NEVER win "going after" Romney tooth and nail. He needs to let Gingrich do that. The way in which Romney "won" is that it is becoming more and more clear that it is really hard now to RUFFLE ROMNEY. He, of course, is NOT facing the "meida scrutiny" he will get if his opponent is Obama, because the media wants to defeat all "consevatives' FIRST. STill, NO ONE seems to be able to "lay a glove" on Romney, as far as FORCING HIM INTO ERROR. He jsut won't be baited. He leaves that to paid negative ads, where he can "out-compete" the whole field. In short, Romney is showing thqat he CAN defeat Barack Obama, at least in terms of the media communications game. For me, that is not enough. I want a candidate who will not just keep us gong down the same road, although managed a little better. Santourm tried to make thqat criticism tonight, but Ropmney pretty well sidesteepeed it with that 'vision" , Obama-type speech (short speech).
Why do I think Santourm mmay still be a BETTER candidate against Obama, and why do I think Romney could yet turn out to be a disaster? It all goes back to what my older daughter (living in Boston) told me abut Romney wayback in 2007 or so. She said the Romney was RIDICULED in Boston (consider the source here, but in thic case I think it has merit) because Romney decided to try to show "confidence" in the safety of the Boston subway system (the "T") by RIDING the "T". Unfortunately, according to my daughter,, Romney made it clear that he had NEVER RIDDEN THE "T". In ohter, words, he came acrooss as a person OUT OF TOUCH with the ordinary American. To a degree, I thnk this is a true picture of Romney. No, I dont think that "disqualifies" him from my vote. I supported him in 2008, DESPITE agreeing with my older daughter on tis flaw. But I don't thik Romney really CONNECTS with people. That may not matter. NIXON did not connect with people, and own 60% of the vote in 1972. The "electable' case for Eomney is that he REASSURES PEOPOLE. He LOOKS Presidential, and he SOUNDS Presidential (to a fault). They KNOW he is an "elitist rich guy", who almost seems incapble of showing real human emotion (or connecting with theirs). But if they beleive, as I think they will, that this country cannot AFFORD four more years of Obama (my brothers' position), then Romney appears to be SAFE. As this blog has told you, I consider Romney MORE DANGEROUS than Ron Paul. But most people don't think like me.
In short, Romney is NEVER going to be "inspiring". But we will have had four yearsof the Messiah by November of 2012. People may be READY for Romney. I don't delude myself on that. Santorum, in THIS sense, is more risky agaisnt Obama than Romneyh. It justs eems unlikey that Romney will make major mistakes, unless the "out of touch" "charge" bvegins to stick. I guarantee ou it will be MORE the attack than the "flip-flopper" charge. Obama is gong to try to portray Romney as an "out of touch Wall Street guy who does not care about the common man, or understand him.". It MAY work (although I don't think so)., Santorum is not subject tto this "charge", but he is much more likely to MAKE MISTAKES, such that he can be marginalized as one of those crazy conservatives. That has nothing to do witht eh debate tonight. Santorum could do noting about that in the debate, and he did about as well as he can do (pretty good, but maybe not good enough, even if better than Romney).
The message against Obama as hurting jobs and wanting to turn us into a European welfare state was MORE CONSISTANT than it has been, and really pretty effective. It does appear to me that the GOP is getting it togethr on this messsage, no matter who the nominee is (most likely Romney, and I see o alternative to Romney except Santorum, absent a new entrant). For those of ou out thre like my brothers, and so many others (who don't think this country can afford anoterh Obama term, but do think we can afford a Romney term), this should be encouraging. For the mainstream meida, it should be REALLY DISCOURAING.
P.S No proofreaidng or spell checking (bad eyesight). As usual, the above is the DEFINITIVE debate analysis,. You do not need to listen to any other "analysis". I have told you everything you need to know. Oh, and I would STILL vote for Ron Paul agasint Obama, and agaisnt Romney if the race were to somehow come down to Romne vs. Paul. But Paul is NOT going to win the nomination. The most he could do is create a deadlock (if Santorum, Gingrich and Perry mount enough of a challenge to Romney to deny him a majority of delegates, when combined with Ron Paul delegates). Santorum SHOULD finish second in New Hampshire, although Paul may manage to hold on to that sot. I just don't see Gingrich having a big impact, except tearing down Romney, but Gingrich has been about the ONLY candidate to really surprise me this election cycle.
George Stephanopoulos, Partisan Political Hack: Congraceptioni and Ridicule of Stepahnopoulos (This Blog Gives You Goeday's News Yesterday--or Earlie
George Stephanopoulos made a serious mistake, even for a partidan political hack like he is (a former pwero in the Clinton Administratioion): He asked a question about that burning political issue,, CONGRACEPTION (lol), to MITT ROMNEY (ratehr than Rick Santorum). No, it is not that the question makes any more sense, except as a SMEAR, when directed to Santorum (who does not support a state "ban" on contraception,, as NOBODY does--it being impossible to even think up a more riidiculous NON-ISSUE.
But that is the point. Santorum is used to this SMEAR--ridiculous as it is. Romney is not. Therefore, Romney could HONESTLY (probably) look amazed and astounded at the question. "George, you mean some state WANTS to ban contraceptives" That is a silly question." (or words to that effect). In other words, partly because he is not used to the question, Romney had the proper atttitude: RIDICULE. If Stephanopoulous had any class or inteelligence (he does not), he would have walked right off the the panel (in tonight's GOP debate) and fallen on his sword. He should never be able to live this down. If he weere a Presidential caandidae, this would be called a FATAL GAFFE.
And it got worse. For some 15 minues, Stephanopoulos treied to convince SOME candidate on the state that he wsa asking a question that made sense. After Romney's initial,correct ridicule, there was no hope. Stephanopoulos merely made hiself look MORE RIDICULOUS. It ws like Rick Perry standing there being unable to think of the government agencies he wanted to ban, only WORSE. I was actually embrarrassed for poor George. If there wre any honor in "journalism' (there is no), poor George should never be able to work in the business again.
Now look at my CORRECT dismantling of Bill O'Reilly a few days ago. You will remember that O'Reilly trotted out this "contraception" SMEAR against Santorum with a straight face, as if this was a "serious problem" for Santorum. I correctly told you that this particular SMEAR--attempted SMEAR--could not be a problem for anyone, because it is so absrud. It is just not a current issue in thns countgry, and was NOT even an issue at the time the Supreme Court decided the case referenced in my article (althouh not by name--"Griswold v. Connecticut", as actually cited byStepahnopoulous, when NOBODY CAES. Not only does NO state want to ban contraceptives now, but NO state wanted to ban contraceptives at the time of that Suprme Court case (a manufactured case to pave the way for the LIEF AND DEATH case of Roe v. Wade). Sure, way back n the 196s, Connecticut still had a law on the books about selling contraceptives, but it ws not really enforeced (:and could have been easily gotten rid of with any effort at all). Connecticut was virtually the ONLY state (maybe one or tow others) with such a law even still on the books. It was a FALSE "issue" then, and it is even more of a FALSE issue now--deserving only of RIDICULE.
I will say one thing. I thought Santorum was generally BETTER than Romney in the debate, as he almost always is, bukt Romney handled THIS "question" (not deserving of the word) BETTER than Santorum.--partly because Romney is NOT used to the question. Read my articel on O'Reilly again. Look at what I ADVISED. I ADVISED REIDICULE as the only possible response to this kind of questiion. I have previously said that Mitt Romney reads this blgo. Here is MORE EVIDENCE to that effectd. Indeed, ALL of the GOP candidatess seemed ready to take on the MEDIA BIAS in the way these questins are aked only of GOP candidates. Gingrich, in his best omonet (Gingrich being one of 3 WINNERS this night), made this charge DIRECTLY, and repeated another correct asserton of this blog: The mainstream media are ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTS. Gingrich actually proved it tonight, with the help of the questions asked. Does Gingrich, too, read this blog? Maybe.
Hacker Boy: "Oh, forget it. You already know that Skip is such a poster child for magalomania that books have been written on his case. Not worth hacking into this disgraceful blog this time, even in the interest of turth, justice and the American way."
Ignoring the interrluption (am I really about to get rid of Hacker Boy?), this shows what a FOOL, as well as dishonest hypocrite, Bill O'Reilly is. You CANNOT effectively SMEAR somone on the things that O'Reilly seemed to regard as "improtatn". Did I telly you O'Reilly is a FOOL? I know I did. Herman Cain was not successfully SEMEARED as an EXTREMIST. No, I don't think it works even on independents, but it definitely does nto work in the GOP nomination. Notice that ROMNEY said the SAME thing on gay marriage as Santorum. Nope. The O'REILLY SMERS (for he made them his own) of Snatorum were never going to have any effect, EXCEPT to keep Santorum from getting out his real message (which was O'REILLY'S intnt, dishonest hypocrite that he is). Some people may not like Santorum's positions on "social issues" (again, not that different from Romney's STATED positons), but this is not really a "smear" Those peole were unlikely to vote for the GOP candidate in any event. Other people, woh really do not regard social issues as important, or relevant to their lives, are ulikely to pay any real attention. They--unlike George Stephanopooulos and the mainstream media--really ae intrested in a President that will SAVE this country. They correctly don't think that whether we have gays OPENLY in the militrary is going to matter much to that IMMMEDIATE problem. See the O'REilly article again about how O'Reilly was willing to SELL OUT lthis country bysuggeting that peole should consider contracepton, and gays in the military, as a basis pon which ot cast their vote this eyar. "Absurd" is a kind word for this SELL OUT TH COUNTRY position. In other words, if Rick Santorum would really save this country's economy, are make a better attempt at tit htan nany of the other candidates, what else do you call it if you say that people should, or will, vote AGAINST him because of "contraception", or gay marriage? SELLING OUT THE COUNTRY is a kind term for anyone like that, and a kind term for O'Reily and Stephanopoulos.
Again, though, look at the FORESIGHT of this blog. I have even TOLD the GOP candidates what to say, and they seem to be listening. ............(Maybe I HAVE gotten rid of Hacker Boy--no rise to this last sentence.)
Hacker Boy: "In your dreams, Skippy boy. "
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
But that is the point. Santorum is used to this SMEAR--ridiculous as it is. Romney is not. Therefore, Romney could HONESTLY (probably) look amazed and astounded at the question. "George, you mean some state WANTS to ban contraceptives" That is a silly question." (or words to that effect). In other words, partly because he is not used to the question, Romney had the proper atttitude: RIDICULE. If Stephanopoulous had any class or inteelligence (he does not), he would have walked right off the the panel (in tonight's GOP debate) and fallen on his sword. He should never be able to live this down. If he weere a Presidential caandidae, this would be called a FATAL GAFFE.
And it got worse. For some 15 minues, Stephanopoulos treied to convince SOME candidate on the state that he wsa asking a question that made sense. After Romney's initial,correct ridicule, there was no hope. Stephanopoulos merely made hiself look MORE RIDICULOUS. It ws like Rick Perry standing there being unable to think of the government agencies he wanted to ban, only WORSE. I was actually embrarrassed for poor George. If there wre any honor in "journalism' (there is no), poor George should never be able to work in the business again.
Now look at my CORRECT dismantling of Bill O'Reilly a few days ago. You will remember that O'Reilly trotted out this "contraception" SMEAR against Santorum with a straight face, as if this was a "serious problem" for Santorum. I correctly told you that this particular SMEAR--attempted SMEAR--could not be a problem for anyone, because it is so absrud. It is just not a current issue in thns countgry, and was NOT even an issue at the time the Supreme Court decided the case referenced in my article (althouh not by name--"Griswold v. Connecticut", as actually cited byStepahnopoulous, when NOBODY CAES. Not only does NO state want to ban contraceptives now, but NO state wanted to ban contraceptives at the time of that Suprme Court case (a manufactured case to pave the way for the LIEF AND DEATH case of Roe v. Wade). Sure, way back n the 196s, Connecticut still had a law on the books about selling contraceptives, but it ws not really enforeced (:and could have been easily gotten rid of with any effort at all). Connecticut was virtually the ONLY state (maybe one or tow others) with such a law even still on the books. It was a FALSE "issue" then, and it is even more of a FALSE issue now--deserving only of RIDICULE.
I will say one thing. I thought Santorum was generally BETTER than Romney in the debate, as he almost always is, bukt Romney handled THIS "question" (not deserving of the word) BETTER than Santorum.--partly because Romney is NOT used to the question. Read my articel on O'Reilly again. Look at what I ADVISED. I ADVISED REIDICULE as the only possible response to this kind of questiion. I have previously said that Mitt Romney reads this blgo. Here is MORE EVIDENCE to that effectd. Indeed, ALL of the GOP candidatess seemed ready to take on the MEDIA BIAS in the way these questins are aked only of GOP candidates. Gingrich, in his best omonet (Gingrich being one of 3 WINNERS this night), made this charge DIRECTLY, and repeated another correct asserton of this blog: The mainstream media are ANTI-CHRISTIAN BIGOTS. Gingrich actually proved it tonight, with the help of the questions asked. Does Gingrich, too, read this blog? Maybe.
Hacker Boy: "Oh, forget it. You already know that Skip is such a poster child for magalomania that books have been written on his case. Not worth hacking into this disgraceful blog this time, even in the interest of turth, justice and the American way."
Ignoring the interrluption (am I really about to get rid of Hacker Boy?), this shows what a FOOL, as well as dishonest hypocrite, Bill O'Reilly is. You CANNOT effectively SMEAR somone on the things that O'Reilly seemed to regard as "improtatn". Did I telly you O'Reilly is a FOOL? I know I did. Herman Cain was not successfully SEMEARED as an EXTREMIST. No, I don't think it works even on independents, but it definitely does nto work in the GOP nomination. Notice that ROMNEY said the SAME thing on gay marriage as Santorum. Nope. The O'REILLY SMERS (for he made them his own) of Snatorum were never going to have any effect, EXCEPT to keep Santorum from getting out his real message (which was O'REILLY'S intnt, dishonest hypocrite that he is). Some people may not like Santorum's positions on "social issues" (again, not that different from Romney's STATED positons), but this is not really a "smear" Those peole were unlikely to vote for the GOP candidate in any event. Other people, woh really do not regard social issues as important, or relevant to their lives, are ulikely to pay any real attention. They--unlike George Stephanopooulos and the mainstream media--really ae intrested in a President that will SAVE this country. They correctly don't think that whether we have gays OPENLY in the militrary is going to matter much to that IMMMEDIATE problem. See the O'REilly article again about how O'Reilly was willing to SELL OUT lthis country bysuggeting that peole should consider contracepton, and gays in the military, as a basis pon which ot cast their vote this eyar. "Absurd" is a kind word for this SELL OUT TH COUNTRY position. In other words, if Rick Santorum would really save this country's economy, are make a better attempt at tit htan nany of the other candidates, what else do you call it if you say that people should, or will, vote AGAINST him because of "contraception", or gay marriage? SELLING OUT THE COUNTRY is a kind term for anyone like that, and a kind term for O'Reily and Stephanopoulos.
Again, though, look at the FORESIGHT of this blog. I have even TOLD the GOP candidates what to say, and they seem to be listening. ............(Maybe I HAVE gotten rid of Hacker Boy--no rise to this last sentence.)
Hacker Boy: "In your dreams, Skippy boy. "
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Friday, January 6, 2012
Jobs: No Improvement in More Than Two Years (Entire Obama Presidency)
The mainstream media could not containt their GLEE today over the "good" jobs numbers. Women, and even men, were having multiple orgasms right there on your TV screen. These people lieve in a world of FANTASY, and not reality. The "news" was "good" only in that it was not bad. I am serious. The "news" showed NO substantial improvement in the Obama Presidency. Trend? What "trend"? It depends on when you tart. What the media wants to do is use the WORST numbers of 2011, and ignore that there has been NO improvement from January of 2011, and the unemployment rate has shown essentailly no improvement since July of 2009 9 (yes, 2009, right after Obama's policies were put into effect). Further, the MONT TO MONTH "trend" is non-existent. Doubt me? Never do that. I am never wrong no these figures.
The unemployment RATE announced today was 8.5%. That was "down" .1% from the ANNOUNCED figure for November of 8.6^. These figures, of course, are written on water. More about that later. In other words, the unemployment rate did NOT "improve". It was UNCHANGED (.1% being statistically insignificant). But weren't f200,000 jobs "created" in December? Yes, but so waht? Not only is that figure not sufficient to lower the unemployment rate, but thre is NO TREND (despite the media LIES you have heard). This number has BOUNCED AROUND month after month, and it CHANGES (remember again, these figures are written in water, rather than permanent ink). Remember that month--this summer--when ZERO jobs were "created"? Well, that number was REVISED to show at least 50,000 jobs "created". Then the number was REVISED again. These numbers keep getting REVISED, months after the original number is reported, and yet the media picks out the numbers they want to HIGHLIGHT to show a non-existent "tgrend".
howw about giving the FACTS. Waht do I mean? I mean give a chart for the month-by-month numbers for 2011 and 2010, maybe even showing the REVISIONS, and caompare 2010 numbers with 2011. Let us take January of 2011 (this year). What was the unemployment rate? I think it was the first two months of 2011, the unemployoment rate dropped below 9% (8.9% and 8.8%). Yes,k last month's "great" improvement to 8.7% was essentailly the SAME unemployment rate with which we started out for 2011. What "trend"? It is a "trend" ONLY if you START with the WORST numbers of 2011.
It gets worse than that. You can look at theis blog's (correct) articles for the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011. The media put out the SAME propaganda. The "trend" was a "steadily improving" economy". The AP put "steadily impraoving" in EVERY story. The uneemployment rate "dropped" below 9%. The weekly jobless claims numbers (as now) dropped a little below 400,000 The media was hyping the "TREND". It turned out there was NO "trend". The unemployment rate went back up. The weekly jobless claims went back up above 400,000. The economy "slowed down". What"trend". We are now just back about where we were to START 2011. Then, if you go to 2010, as stated, a "steady improvement" was "obverved" supposedly throhout the year. The "jobs created". went "positive" in early 2010, and there were individual months when they were about that same 200,000 initialy reported this month. Again, it was supposedly an irreversible "trend". Some 'trend". It did not even last into the summer of 2011. Then look at July of 2009, The unemployment rate DROPPED from 9.5% to 9.4%. It woould not be that low again until that period ending in that 8.9% rate, and 8.8% rate, at the beginning of 2011. That did not stop the media from HYPING the "trend" then--the "improvement". Looked at correctly, the unemplyment rate has NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ILMPROVED since Julyu of 2009--less than 1%, and approaching that oONLY in the last two months. What "trend".
Noope. It is a LIE to take the numbers of jobs and jobless claims from 2008 and 2009-the FREE FALL time of the Great Recession--and compare present nubmers with them. Oh, you can do that to show that things are not gettin gWORSE now, as they were then. But you cannot show a TRND that way. You can only show a TRND by showing a "steady" improvement--maybe with a glitch or two, but ssteady--over 2010 and 2011. That, you CANNOT DO. And the media can't do it. They just declare a "trend" and hope people won't notice the LIE.
What is going on here? These numbers on jobs are SEASONALLY ADJUSTED numbers. For this reason alone, the "margin of error" in the monthly "jobs created" is at least 100,000. The "margin of error" in that weekly jobless claims number is at least 50,000 (in any individual week). This is indicated by the fact that the RAW (not seasonally adjusted number) number of new unemployment calims often changes by 100,000 from week to week. The "adjusted" number NEVER changes by more than 25,000 (well, almost never). You can see what happpens if the seasonal pattern CHANGES, and the "adjustment" formula is WRONG. Weather, by the way, also plays a factor in seasonal adjustments, and the weather this late fal and winter has been really GOOD (for the most part, in heavily populated areas). In short, the numbres do NOT now show a "trend". That could, of course, change, but you cannot create a "rend" by forever comparing the WORST numbers of the Great Recession with the present numbers. A "trend" means a STADY IMPROVEMEMENT--not that the numbres are better than the worst numbers when the economy was collapsing.
Look at the PATGTERN here. lWhat happened in the second half of 2009,as the economy supposedly bounced back from the depths of the recession? The economy "grew" at more than 5% one quarter, and close to that for the entire second half of 2009 (GDP growth). Talk about a "trend'!!!!! l The economy has NOT grown atthat pace since, and "g\rew" atless than 2% for all of 2011. Now that is going the WRONGB direction (not the right direction). This seasonal pattern has continued. As staeted above, the media dnoted the SAME "steady mprovement" at the end of 2010 that it is noting now (without reporting the fact that they were putting out the ame stories at the end of 2010, which proved FALSE, while this blog correctly noted they were wrong). Now, at the end of 2011, the SAME thing seems to be occurring. The economy SEEMS to be "bouncing ack". But is this REAL, or jsut a NEW, extreme seasonal pattern. In other words, when the numbers were showing a TERRIBLE economy this summer, ws it really "that bad", or just an example of the new seasonal pattern? Are we just "bouncing along tghe bottom", not getting worse but not getting better? The case for that is at least as good as the case for an "improving trend".
Look how much room for manipulation there is in these numbers. Look what the DISHONEST people at CNBC did with the REVISED unemployment rate numbers. Remember the 9% rate for October? Well, that was REVISED to 8.9%. Then the 8.6% number last month was REVISED to 8.7%. Then the RAW (unrevised) number for December was reported at 8.5%. I LAUGH at what the DISHONEST ECOMIC FASCISTS of CNBC did with this, because if I started CRYING I would never stop. CNBC actually had the GALL to suggsest that these REVISED numbers show a "steady trend" of a drop of .2% per month. I feel like screaing. The very REVISIONS show that these numbers are WRITTEN ON WATER, and that there is an enormous margine of error. The idea that you can see a "steady" .2% drop is ABUSRD. One of the problems is that you are not even using apples to apples. This month's number is a RAW number--in the sense of not being REVISED. You are comparing it with REVISED numbers. You are a LIEAR if you say, like CNBC, that it makes any sense to try to make a "steady" trnd out of that. Who knows what this month's number will be REVISED to (haning preposition, but it is too hard to aovid that grammatical 'crime").
Look at teh weekly new unemployment claims. Three and four weeks ago those claims had dropped to a SEASONALLY ADJUTED 36,000 and 365,000 (teh "best" numbes since Feburary of 2011, and SLIGHTLY better than the 375,000 reached then, before we went back up above400,00). What happened then? Well, last week the number wsa initially reported as 381,000, UP 15,000 (a higher number being WORSE, since this is a number representing layoffs). That number was REVISED upward by 6,000 this week. Did I not tell you that these numbers are WRITTEN ON WATER? That meanst the number whihc SHOULD have been reported last week was 387,00--not far from that 400,000 number (well within the marging of error of that number, as a matter of fact). This Thrusday, the number of new unemplyoment claims (always reported for the previous week) wa reported--BEFORE REVISIONS--as 372,000. The meida--incliuding the LIARS at CNBC---promptly reported that the number had drropped 15,000. The media in general HYPED the supposed "trend" of "iimprovement in this number. Note lthat the LIE here is comparing the REVISED number for the previous week with the UNREVISED number reportedd this week. And this really is a LIE repeated over and over again by the media.See prvious articles of this blog over at least a TWO YEAR period. This number is almost ALWAYS reviised upward--usually 3,000 or 4,000--but 6,000 for the previous week. Look at what happens if you add 6,000 to the 32,000. You would then have a number for the most recent week of 378,000--hardly any different from the 381,000 initially reported as BAD news last week. Look at it another way. Trend? The "trend" is WRONG. Remembber, this number dropoped to 365,000 in the past month. No, for tow weeks in a row, this number has RISEN to above 70,00000 In fact, after next week's revison, the TWO WEEK AVERAGE is likely to be above 380,000, as compared with a previus two week average of about 365,000. Tren? None, except in the WRONG directin.
Now, if you are paying attentin, you realize that these SHORT-TERM numbers dont men much. The question is whether there really is a "trend", or jsut a recurrent seasonal pattern that will be reversed after the Christmas season is fully past. us. That is what happened last year Will this year repeat. These weekly "jobless claim" numbers are NOT substantially below levels they reached in early 2011, and even late 2010-a LITTLE bettter, but not much (the weather alone would explain the SLIGHT 'improvemetn"). To have a "trend", these numbers are gong to have to STEADILY GO DOWN, over MONATHS and not weeks. Similarly, the number of month "new jobs created" is going to have to go CONSISTENTLY UP--not just bounce around. Untilk we show thqat we are just not repeatign the same thing that has happened the past three yers ("improvement" in the second half of the eyar, REVERSED in the beginning of the next eyar), there is NO TREND.
I actually heard a CNN reporter simply put out OBASMA CAMPAIGN PROPAGAANDA. She said that 1.6 million jobs were "created" in 2011, compared with 8 million jobs "lost" ni 2008 and 2009, showing a TREND of improvement. That is the Obama PROPAGANDA line, and it is a LIE. Have you been paying attention? Do you see WHY i is LIE? Again, teh CNN reporter (as fed to CNNN by Obama0 is comparing 2011 with the WORST of the Great Recssion. What about 2010? Obama was saying teh sAME THING in 2010. These yearly numbers, by the way, are also subject to REVISION. It was recently reported, YEARS afterward, how much WORSE it was in the dark days of 2008-2009 than originally reported. But let us stay with the numbers we have. The "trend" is NOW. It is NOT a quesiotn of whether we are getting WORSE, the way we were in the WROSST months of the Great Depression. The question is whether theyre is a STEADY IMPROVING TREND NOW. 2010 is relevant to thtat question. That is what CNN INGOED. 2008 and 209 are IRRELEVANT to that question (of the PRESIENT TREND). But CNN ingored the RELEVANT information, in favorof the IRRELEVANT propaganda. What else is new. You don't see this? Then you should apply to work at CNN. Asumme you earn $50,0000 in 2007. Then you earn $30,000 in 2008 and 2009. Then you go up to $35,000 in 2010. Then you STAY at $35,000 for 2011. What is the TRND? The TREND is that you have STALLED, even though you ae "better off" than your worst years, although not as well off as you once were. If you do not STOP BVEING STGALLED, you will NEVER return to the level of prosperiry you were at before the down turn. Tht is the situation we are now in.
We keep BOUNCING ALONG THE BOTTOM. We are not getting worse. Neither are we getting substantially better. And there is NO TREND yet estalbished until we KEEP moving in a positive direcin, insteadof bouncing back and forth.
This bog has told you that Obama and Bernanke policies have made it IMPOSSIBLE ofr us to have a SUSTAINTED "recovery". That means that this blog does nto expect a "trend" to be possible, in terms of a SUSTAINED "improving trend". Notice how misplaced the orgasms of the pro-Obama mainstream media are. Waht happens if the SAME PATTERN occurs this year as in 2011? Then Obama will be in REAL TROUBLE, because things will be WORS right around the November election (in the summer of 2012). Now will hisory repeat that exactly? if you look at the price of oil and gasoline, you will see indications that maybe it will (gasoline prices in the spring and early summer being a major problem for the economy in 2011). It is barely possible Obama will GET LUCKY, and that the economy will be in an upward bounce this summer. However, there is no way to know. Recent hisotry would suggest MY scenario is more likely tha the media orgasmic scenario.
However, that is why I don't really worry to much abut what the meida says NOW--otehr than pointing out how partisan , stupid and dishoenst they are. What matter is how the economy is in August, September and October of next year. if the unemplyment rate is still 8.5% in October of 2012, and the "jobs created" are still boucing between 0 and 200,000, Obama is not going to be reelected (absent a GOP implosion). If the unemplyment rate is 7.5%. am dwe are CONSISTENTLY "creating" 250,000 jobs a month (2.5 million a year), then there is a good chance Obama will get reelected. Obviously, numbers in between these, or more "extreme" on either side, will eithe make the result more certainor more uncertain.
But the polls NOW mean NOTING, and the economic numbers rightnow mean very little. They will start meaning more in May, June , Julyu, etc., and it is the "rend" in September and October that is going to matter. I am certain the media has NO CLUE as to wht the situation will reallyy be. Even I-much smarter than them--cannot be sure. As stated, I AM sure that we have now made a sustained recoery imossible. I am also sure we ae in a DANTEROUS time, with Europe and a very volativle Middle East in turmoilk (either economic or political or both). It is not onlyObama's POLIXIES that could cause an oil price shock. This is one of the most dangerous years I can remember. Obama will have to be the LUCKIEST man alive to naviage thi mine field unscathed. No, I dont consider the possibility he actuallyhas the SKILL to do it. In fact, that is the problem with Obama, Bernanke and the new ECONOOMIC FASCISM: we are relying on mere MEN to CONGROL economic events, and even the best of men cannot do it without making fatal mistakes (eventuallY). But you know I am a pessimist.
No. I don't want" teh cconomy to "fail". Among other things, I trade the stock market i a way that could ruin my livelihood if there is a sudden major collapse. Objectively, however, I see an eventual collapsse as inevitable. It is jsut a matter of WHEn. We may stave off final collapsse for awhile, although I just don't see our presentpolicies allowing us to have a "real" recovery. Aboutt he best we can hope foris to "muddle through" YEARS of economic pain. Thatis why I say what Obama needs is the LUCK of an APPAENT economic "bounce" taknig place this summer. I don't think he will e that lu cky, but it is barely possible. Thre is already stealth inflation out thre. The moment a "strong" recovery starts, teh economy is going o be SHUT DOWN with inflation and high interst rate.s. It isbarely possible, although not likely, that Obama can reach the election while there appears to be a "stronger" recovery, and the inflation is not yete obvious. Good luck to us all. As readers of this blog know, I have given up counting on anything but luck. I have endosed Rick SDantorum, and feel he is he best of the current alternatives, but I don't think he is leader enough to really turn this country around (over "polkitics as usual" opposition)). And Mitt Romney, athe most likely GOP nominee, is probably going to be jstu as bad as Obama (in practive, because the GOP will not even feel it can FIGHT Romney, which is what made Bush such an ultimate disaster).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
The unemployment RATE announced today was 8.5%. That was "down" .1% from the ANNOUNCED figure for November of 8.6^. These figures, of course, are written on water. More about that later. In other words, the unemployment rate did NOT "improve". It was UNCHANGED (.1% being statistically insignificant). But weren't f200,000 jobs "created" in December? Yes, but so waht? Not only is that figure not sufficient to lower the unemployment rate, but thre is NO TREND (despite the media LIES you have heard). This number has BOUNCED AROUND month after month, and it CHANGES (remember again, these figures are written in water, rather than permanent ink). Remember that month--this summer--when ZERO jobs were "created"? Well, that number was REVISED to show at least 50,000 jobs "created". Then the number was REVISED again. These numbers keep getting REVISED, months after the original number is reported, and yet the media picks out the numbers they want to HIGHLIGHT to show a non-existent "tgrend".
howw about giving the FACTS. Waht do I mean? I mean give a chart for the month-by-month numbers for 2011 and 2010, maybe even showing the REVISIONS, and caompare 2010 numbers with 2011. Let us take January of 2011 (this year). What was the unemployment rate? I think it was the first two months of 2011, the unemployoment rate dropped below 9% (8.9% and 8.8%). Yes,k last month's "great" improvement to 8.7% was essentailly the SAME unemployment rate with which we started out for 2011. What "trend"? It is a "trend" ONLY if you START with the WORST numbers of 2011.
It gets worse than that. You can look at theis blog's (correct) articles for the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011. The media put out the SAME propaganda. The "trend" was a "steadily improving" economy". The AP put "steadily impraoving" in EVERY story. The uneemployment rate "dropped" below 9%. The weekly jobless claims numbers (as now) dropped a little below 400,000 The media was hyping the "TREND". It turned out there was NO "trend". The unemployment rate went back up. The weekly jobless claims went back up above 400,000. The economy "slowed down". What"trend". We are now just back about where we were to START 2011. Then, if you go to 2010, as stated, a "steady improvement" was "obverved" supposedly throhout the year. The "jobs created". went "positive" in early 2010, and there were individual months when they were about that same 200,000 initialy reported this month. Again, it was supposedly an irreversible "trend". Some 'trend". It did not even last into the summer of 2011. Then look at July of 2009, The unemployment rate DROPPED from 9.5% to 9.4%. It woould not be that low again until that period ending in that 8.9% rate, and 8.8% rate, at the beginning of 2011. That did not stop the media from HYPING the "trend" then--the "improvement". Looked at correctly, the unemplyment rate has NOT SUBSTANTIALLY ILMPROVED since Julyu of 2009--less than 1%, and approaching that oONLY in the last two months. What "trend".
Noope. It is a LIE to take the numbers of jobs and jobless claims from 2008 and 2009-the FREE FALL time of the Great Recession--and compare present nubmers with them. Oh, you can do that to show that things are not gettin gWORSE now, as they were then. But you cannot show a TRND that way. You can only show a TRND by showing a "steady" improvement--maybe with a glitch or two, but ssteady--over 2010 and 2011. That, you CANNOT DO. And the media can't do it. They just declare a "trend" and hope people won't notice the LIE.
What is going on here? These numbers on jobs are SEASONALLY ADJUSTED numbers. For this reason alone, the "margin of error" in the monthly "jobs created" is at least 100,000. The "margin of error" in that weekly jobless claims number is at least 50,000 (in any individual week). This is indicated by the fact that the RAW (not seasonally adjusted number) number of new unemployment calims often changes by 100,000 from week to week. The "adjusted" number NEVER changes by more than 25,000 (well, almost never). You can see what happpens if the seasonal pattern CHANGES, and the "adjustment" formula is WRONG. Weather, by the way, also plays a factor in seasonal adjustments, and the weather this late fal and winter has been really GOOD (for the most part, in heavily populated areas). In short, the numbres do NOT now show a "trend". That could, of course, change, but you cannot create a "rend" by forever comparing the WORST numbers of the Great Recession with the present numbers. A "trend" means a STADY IMPROVEMEMENT--not that the numbres are better than the worst numbers when the economy was collapsing.
Look at the PATGTERN here. lWhat happened in the second half of 2009,as the economy supposedly bounced back from the depths of the recession? The economy "grew" at more than 5% one quarter, and close to that for the entire second half of 2009 (GDP growth). Talk about a "trend'!!!!! l The economy has NOT grown atthat pace since, and "g\rew" atless than 2% for all of 2011. Now that is going the WRONGB direction (not the right direction). This seasonal pattern has continued. As staeted above, the media dnoted the SAME "steady mprovement" at the end of 2010 that it is noting now (without reporting the fact that they were putting out the ame stories at the end of 2010, which proved FALSE, while this blog correctly noted they were wrong). Now, at the end of 2011, the SAME thing seems to be occurring. The economy SEEMS to be "bouncing ack". But is this REAL, or jsut a NEW, extreme seasonal pattern. In other words, when the numbers were showing a TERRIBLE economy this summer, ws it really "that bad", or just an example of the new seasonal pattern? Are we just "bouncing along tghe bottom", not getting worse but not getting better? The case for that is at least as good as the case for an "improving trend".
Look how much room for manipulation there is in these numbers. Look what the DISHONEST people at CNBC did with the REVISED unemployment rate numbers. Remember the 9% rate for October? Well, that was REVISED to 8.9%. Then the 8.6% number last month was REVISED to 8.7%. Then the RAW (unrevised) number for December was reported at 8.5%. I LAUGH at what the DISHONEST ECOMIC FASCISTS of CNBC did with this, because if I started CRYING I would never stop. CNBC actually had the GALL to suggsest that these REVISED numbers show a "steady trend" of a drop of .2% per month. I feel like screaing. The very REVISIONS show that these numbers are WRITTEN ON WATER, and that there is an enormous margine of error. The idea that you can see a "steady" .2% drop is ABUSRD. One of the problems is that you are not even using apples to apples. This month's number is a RAW number--in the sense of not being REVISED. You are comparing it with REVISED numbers. You are a LIEAR if you say, like CNBC, that it makes any sense to try to make a "steady" trnd out of that. Who knows what this month's number will be REVISED to (haning preposition, but it is too hard to aovid that grammatical 'crime").
Look at teh weekly new unemployment claims. Three and four weeks ago those claims had dropped to a SEASONALLY ADJUTED 36,000 and 365,000 (teh "best" numbes since Feburary of 2011, and SLIGHTLY better than the 375,000 reached then, before we went back up above400,00). What happened then? Well, last week the number wsa initially reported as 381,000, UP 15,000 (a higher number being WORSE, since this is a number representing layoffs). That number was REVISED upward by 6,000 this week. Did I not tell you that these numbers are WRITTEN ON WATER? That meanst the number whihc SHOULD have been reported last week was 387,00--not far from that 400,000 number (well within the marging of error of that number, as a matter of fact). This Thrusday, the number of new unemplyoment claims (always reported for the previous week) wa reported--BEFORE REVISIONS--as 372,000. The meida--incliuding the LIARS at CNBC---promptly reported that the number had drropped 15,000. The media in general HYPED the supposed "trend" of "iimprovement in this number. Note lthat the LIE here is comparing the REVISED number for the previous week with the UNREVISED number reportedd this week. And this really is a LIE repeated over and over again by the media.See prvious articles of this blog over at least a TWO YEAR period. This number is almost ALWAYS reviised upward--usually 3,000 or 4,000--but 6,000 for the previous week. Look at what happens if you add 6,000 to the 32,000. You would then have a number for the most recent week of 378,000--hardly any different from the 381,000 initially reported as BAD news last week. Look at it another way. Trend? The "trend" is WRONG. Remembber, this number dropoped to 365,000 in the past month. No, for tow weeks in a row, this number has RISEN to above 70,00000 In fact, after next week's revison, the TWO WEEK AVERAGE is likely to be above 380,000, as compared with a previus two week average of about 365,000. Tren? None, except in the WRONG directin.
Now, if you are paying attentin, you realize that these SHORT-TERM numbers dont men much. The question is whether there really is a "trend", or jsut a recurrent seasonal pattern that will be reversed after the Christmas season is fully past. us. That is what happened last year Will this year repeat. These weekly "jobless claim" numbers are NOT substantially below levels they reached in early 2011, and even late 2010-a LITTLE bettter, but not much (the weather alone would explain the SLIGHT 'improvemetn"). To have a "trend", these numbers are gong to have to STEADILY GO DOWN, over MONATHS and not weeks. Similarly, the number of month "new jobs created" is going to have to go CONSISTENTLY UP--not just bounce around. Untilk we show thqat we are just not repeatign the same thing that has happened the past three yers ("improvement" in the second half of the eyar, REVERSED in the beginning of the next eyar), there is NO TREND.
I actually heard a CNN reporter simply put out OBASMA CAMPAIGN PROPAGAANDA. She said that 1.6 million jobs were "created" in 2011, compared with 8 million jobs "lost" ni 2008 and 2009, showing a TREND of improvement. That is the Obama PROPAGANDA line, and it is a LIE. Have you been paying attention? Do you see WHY i is LIE? Again, teh CNN reporter (as fed to CNNN by Obama0 is comparing 2011 with the WORST of the Great Recssion. What about 2010? Obama was saying teh sAME THING in 2010. These yearly numbers, by the way, are also subject to REVISION. It was recently reported, YEARS afterward, how much WORSE it was in the dark days of 2008-2009 than originally reported. But let us stay with the numbers we have. The "trend" is NOW. It is NOT a quesiotn of whether we are getting WORSE, the way we were in the WROSST months of the Great Depression. The question is whether theyre is a STEADY IMPROVING TREND NOW. 2010 is relevant to thtat question. That is what CNN INGOED. 2008 and 209 are IRRELEVANT to that question (of the PRESIENT TREND). But CNN ingored the RELEVANT information, in favorof the IRRELEVANT propaganda. What else is new. You don't see this? Then you should apply to work at CNN. Asumme you earn $50,0000 in 2007. Then you earn $30,000 in 2008 and 2009. Then you go up to $35,000 in 2010. Then you STAY at $35,000 for 2011. What is the TRND? The TREND is that you have STALLED, even though you ae "better off" than your worst years, although not as well off as you once were. If you do not STOP BVEING STGALLED, you will NEVER return to the level of prosperiry you were at before the down turn. Tht is the situation we are now in.
We keep BOUNCING ALONG THE BOTTOM. We are not getting worse. Neither are we getting substantially better. And there is NO TREND yet estalbished until we KEEP moving in a positive direcin, insteadof bouncing back and forth.
This bog has told you that Obama and Bernanke policies have made it IMPOSSIBLE ofr us to have a SUSTAINTED "recovery". That means that this blog does nto expect a "trend" to be possible, in terms of a SUSTAINED "improving trend". Notice how misplaced the orgasms of the pro-Obama mainstream media are. Waht happens if the SAME PATTERN occurs this year as in 2011? Then Obama will be in REAL TROUBLE, because things will be WORS right around the November election (in the summer of 2012). Now will hisory repeat that exactly? if you look at the price of oil and gasoline, you will see indications that maybe it will (gasoline prices in the spring and early summer being a major problem for the economy in 2011). It is barely possible Obama will GET LUCKY, and that the economy will be in an upward bounce this summer. However, there is no way to know. Recent hisotry would suggest MY scenario is more likely tha the media orgasmic scenario.
However, that is why I don't really worry to much abut what the meida says NOW--otehr than pointing out how partisan , stupid and dishoenst they are. What matter is how the economy is in August, September and October of next year. if the unemplyment rate is still 8.5% in October of 2012, and the "jobs created" are still boucing between 0 and 200,000, Obama is not going to be reelected (absent a GOP implosion). If the unemplyment rate is 7.5%. am dwe are CONSISTENTLY "creating" 250,000 jobs a month (2.5 million a year), then there is a good chance Obama will get reelected. Obviously, numbers in between these, or more "extreme" on either side, will eithe make the result more certainor more uncertain.
But the polls NOW mean NOTING, and the economic numbers rightnow mean very little. They will start meaning more in May, June , Julyu, etc., and it is the "rend" in September and October that is going to matter. I am certain the media has NO CLUE as to wht the situation will reallyy be. Even I-much smarter than them--cannot be sure. As stated, I AM sure that we have now made a sustained recoery imossible. I am also sure we ae in a DANTEROUS time, with Europe and a very volativle Middle East in turmoilk (either economic or political or both). It is not onlyObama's POLIXIES that could cause an oil price shock. This is one of the most dangerous years I can remember. Obama will have to be the LUCKIEST man alive to naviage thi mine field unscathed. No, I dont consider the possibility he actuallyhas the SKILL to do it. In fact, that is the problem with Obama, Bernanke and the new ECONOOMIC FASCISM: we are relying on mere MEN to CONGROL economic events, and even the best of men cannot do it without making fatal mistakes (eventuallY). But you know I am a pessimist.
No. I don't want" teh cconomy to "fail". Among other things, I trade the stock market i a way that could ruin my livelihood if there is a sudden major collapse. Objectively, however, I see an eventual collapsse as inevitable. It is jsut a matter of WHEn. We may stave off final collapsse for awhile, although I just don't see our presentpolicies allowing us to have a "real" recovery. Aboutt he best we can hope foris to "muddle through" YEARS of economic pain. Thatis why I say what Obama needs is the LUCK of an APPAENT economic "bounce" taknig place this summer. I don't think he will e that lu cky, but it is barely possible. Thre is already stealth inflation out thre. The moment a "strong" recovery starts, teh economy is going o be SHUT DOWN with inflation and high interst rate.s. It isbarely possible, although not likely, that Obama can reach the election while there appears to be a "stronger" recovery, and the inflation is not yete obvious. Good luck to us all. As readers of this blog know, I have given up counting on anything but luck. I have endosed Rick SDantorum, and feel he is he best of the current alternatives, but I don't think he is leader enough to really turn this country around (over "polkitics as usual" opposition)). And Mitt Romney, athe most likely GOP nominee, is probably going to be jstu as bad as Obama (in practive, because the GOP will not even feel it can FIGHT Romney, which is what made Bush such an ultimate disaster).
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Thursday, January 5, 2012
McCain Endorses Santorum (Losers Endorse Romney)
Hacker Boy (hacking into this disgraceful blog in the name of truth, justice and the American way despite Skip's SMEARS of me as "piers Morgan", or some other agent of the News Corp 'hackng machine'--paranoid Skip being under the dlusion that anyone cares about his attacks on what he alls the unfair and unbalanced netowrk--when Skip's own mother and daughter don't read his ravings): "I don't know why I bother with tryng to bring sanity to this blog, when Skip has so little influence. But, Skip, you keep getting worse. You know that John McCain endoresed Romney, and not Santorum. You just make these things up."
Skip: Hacker Boy must be Piers Morgan. Who else is so veyryu clueless? And, actually, the whole U.K. has LESS influence than this blog. I digress. Back to the blog, where the very point of the article is what Hacker Boy said.
John McCain is a LOSER. It is not jsut that he lost. it is that he ran a PATHETIC campaign with almost no principle behind it. Now he has SAID he is endorsing Mitt Romney. What better way to help RICK SANTORUM? John McCain is the very essence of "politics asusual"--the very essence of "Washington think", and the GOP (Grand Outdated lParty) establishment. If Hohn McCain had officially endorsed Santorum, I would have had to rethink this blog's endorsement. Already, my main reservation about Santorum is that he is too much of a standard politician, who was in Washington too long. But he has made the right ENEMIES (the media, the GOP establishmetnt, John McCain and the rest). When I say "enemies", I am not talking aobut personal enemies. I am talking about POLITICAL enemies, and Santorum has made the right ones. Taht alone is an indication that he deserves conservative support in this election. Gingrich, in contrast, has made political eneimies from everywhere, including me, which is why this blog has never come close to endorseing Gingrich, and never will.
Thus, the question is whether McCain"really" endorsed Romney, or whether McCain is tryiing to give a boost to ANTORUM. I regard McCain's endorsement as a MAJOR boost to Santorum's campaign. It is further confirmation, if sincere, that I am right that Romney is virtualya CLONE of McCain, despite the bashing Romney got from McCain--and especially the same "moderates" who are pusihing for Romney this time--for being "too conservative". Since 2008, it has been my observation that Romney has sounded more like McCain and OBAMA every single day, and there is no way I could ever vote for Romney. The McCain "endorsement" merely confirms me in that view. You will remember that this blgo REFUSED TO ENDORSE McCAIN, and I did NOT vote for McCain (or Obama). I did promise to vote for Hillary Clinton, but she managed to blow the nomination. I did vote for her in the Texas primary.
The GOP estalbishment remains ready and willing to SABOTAGE any conservative. I return the compliment, in spades. Taht means that I will NEVER again (George W. Bush was the last) vote for a GOP estalbishment candidate. How do I know who is such a cnadidate? Well, endorsements from people like McCain and Karl Rove (who HAS made his feelings clear, without an official endorsement) give you a CLUE. Plus, I know these people when I see them, , as I have everr since this very same kind of GOP estalbishment SABOTAGED Barry Goldwater in 1964 (the first electioon to which I paid close attention, although I had followed the Nixon/Kennedy race at 12-13). Thus, it is ME that represents the conclusive vote as to who is a GOP establishment candidate, in the event there is any doubt. Here, there is NO doubt, an dRomney is such a candidate: sa;ying NTOTHING with any passion or principlle, an dbasically running for Managerin-Chief of the country. This approach actually has NO CHANCE of beating Obama, except that Obama and the Democrats may well beat themselves because of the RESULTS of what they have done. (pulus the arrogant way they have ignored American principles and values). Romney is NOT going to "nspire" anyone to vote for him as a "leader". As this blog often sates, I will vote for a GOP establishment candidate only when Hell freezes over, and probably not even then. IF I KNEW that my vote would dtermine whether Obama or Romney would be President of the United States, I would NOT cast that vote for Romney No, I would probably not casst it for Obama either, but I refuse to ASSIST a GOP estalbishment cnandidate in any way (except the bakhanded way of my attacks on leftist ideology and Obama).
Notice how it is LOSERS who are the establishment endorsers of Mitt Romney. And these LOSERS lost for the very reason that Romney will be a WEAK candidate against Obama. They stood for NOTHING., I am talking here about Bob Dole and John McCain. Both of them never had a chance, because there ws nothing to them. They were BOTH legitimate war heroes, but neither had any other real principle. I acually think McCain may have MORe principle than romney, on isolated things like military policy and earmarks.
That ws the big McCain attack on Santorum: earmarks. I, myself, do not agree with Santorum on earmarks. The idea that earmarks put control of spending more in Congress than the President and the bureaucracy merely emphasizes lthe SLUSH FUND theory of government. What can it possibly mean to say that eliminating earmarks does not reduce Federal spending, because then the executive branch and the government gets to spend that same money the way they want to? If that moneyis NOT spent on earmarks, then IT SHOULD NOT BE SPENT. That is because it is obviusly NOT NEEDED to fund other items, or otherwise there would have been a battle over the "earmarks". No, McCain is right on this: Earmarks represent Washington at it sworst.
However, look at what McCain (stupid hypocrite and establishment guy that he is) is highlighting. Earmarks have always been a SMALL, although irritating, part of the Federal budget. Sure, they represent BRIBES to get members of Congress reelected, but SMALL BRIBES. You can validly say that Santorum, like OBAMA and so many others, bought into the way Washington worked to this SMALL EXTENT. Obama said he would not sign bills with earmarks,, and promptly DID when Democrats controlled Congress. But these are the SMALL BRIBES.
The 800 BILLIION dollar Obama "stimulus" bill was a series of BIG BRIBES--a SLUSH UND that invited and created corruption. It was not even used for what it was promised it would be used for (those "shovel ready" infrastructure projects). But the GOP voted AGAINST that boondoggle, while at the same time proposing BRIBES of their own. No, I don't include general tax RATE cuts as "bribes", becuae they just alow peoplle to keep their own money. But TAX GIMMICKS are bribes.
Look at what McCain voted FOR, and what Santorum has OPPOSED: this fraudulent Social Security tax "cut"-really a temporay "stimulus" BRIBE. That BRIBE--a MCCAIN BRIBE--cost us 150 BILION dollars in 2011, and will cost us 150 BILLION dollars in 2012. Those numbers DWARF any "earmarks" of Santorum. The HIGHEST number I have seen on Santorum "earmarks", most of whcih may be perfectly worthy things in isolation, is ONE billiion dollars. In other words, McCain has OUTBRIBED Santorum 300 to 1, and that is true of essentially EVERY GOP estlablishment figure. Romney, for example, favors this BRIBE. Santorum is proopsing to cut the Federal Government 5 TRILLION dollars in 5 years (or something like that, as the media seems uninterested in actually looking at the facts). Romney, in contrast, merely makes the SAME promis made by Barack Obama: "I will go through the budget line by line, and eliminate those things that cannot be justified." Tme after time, Romney ECHOES Obama. That is what makes him such a WEAK candidate against Obama, although it is possible he can win so long as the election is about Obama.
No, a McCain endorsement does nto help Romney. It should HURT Romney That is why my headline suggests that McCain really wants Santorum to win, and that his sTATED endorsment is really an endorsement of Santorum.
Now for the Tea Party. This blog has called the Tea Party a FAILURE--correctly. The Tea Party, because of a lakc of ledership, and a leadership now appearing to be looking for PERSONAL POWER, is becoming LESS and LESS impressive every day. The rank and file remain mostly peopleof principle But the "movement" no longer has a COHERENT message, after going along entirely too much with the GAMES of a GOP Congress that has CUT NOTHING (not one thin dime) from Federal spednign so far-in fact ADDING to the defict with both spending and things like the "payroll tax cut" and extension of extending unemployment benefits). The goverfnor of Sourth Carolina, supposedly a "Tea Party" politician, has even endorsed ROMNEY (more helpful to Romney than McCain). Blunt statement: If you are a Tea Party "leader", and endorse Romney, then you are NOT doing so on "principle". The kindest thing that can be said about you is that you think i is so improtatn to defeat Obama that we need to abandon principle. Suffice it to say that the 'Tea Party" (as a bunch of ORGANIZATIONS) no longer has my support (as ti once did). Over this sumer, the message has been lost, or rather the GOP KILLED IT. This WILL have consequences, beyond just the withdrawal of supoport from this blgg (although this blog never was part oft he Tea Party movement). WHY did this blog not actively push the Tea Party movement, even while sympathizing with the stated policy goals? It is because I SUSPECTED something like this would happne, unless a LEADER (or leaders) arose to LEAD the Tea Party principles to victory. That has NOT hapened. The supposed Tea Party politicians have FAILED.
That is hwy I hanker now for a REAL third pary based on CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES. I think the "foot solides" are out there. What is MISSING are the GENERALS, COLONELS, and even CAPTAINS. Whether in or--more likey-out of the GOP, the "movement" awaits LEADERS.. Sarah Palin is probably the best of the current crop of wannabe leaders of Tea Party principles, but I doubt sehe is good enough. I can, and do, support Santorum as a solid conservative, but he is NOT the "leader" we really need. But you can't just order up a "leader". Santorum is the best that is running, and really is pretty good (especially for a guy that was in Washington as long as he was), I am happy to supoport Santorum. I will NOT support Romney, under any circumstances.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Skip: Hacker Boy must be Piers Morgan. Who else is so veyryu clueless? And, actually, the whole U.K. has LESS influence than this blog. I digress. Back to the blog, where the very point of the article is what Hacker Boy said.
John McCain is a LOSER. It is not jsut that he lost. it is that he ran a PATHETIC campaign with almost no principle behind it. Now he has SAID he is endorsing Mitt Romney. What better way to help RICK SANTORUM? John McCain is the very essence of "politics asusual"--the very essence of "Washington think", and the GOP (Grand Outdated lParty) establishment. If Hohn McCain had officially endorsed Santorum, I would have had to rethink this blog's endorsement. Already, my main reservation about Santorum is that he is too much of a standard politician, who was in Washington too long. But he has made the right ENEMIES (the media, the GOP establishmetnt, John McCain and the rest). When I say "enemies", I am not talking aobut personal enemies. I am talking about POLITICAL enemies, and Santorum has made the right ones. Taht alone is an indication that he deserves conservative support in this election. Gingrich, in contrast, has made political eneimies from everywhere, including me, which is why this blog has never come close to endorseing Gingrich, and never will.
Thus, the question is whether McCain"really" endorsed Romney, or whether McCain is tryiing to give a boost to ANTORUM. I regard McCain's endorsement as a MAJOR boost to Santorum's campaign. It is further confirmation, if sincere, that I am right that Romney is virtualya CLONE of McCain, despite the bashing Romney got from McCain--and especially the same "moderates" who are pusihing for Romney this time--for being "too conservative". Since 2008, it has been my observation that Romney has sounded more like McCain and OBAMA every single day, and there is no way I could ever vote for Romney. The McCain "endorsement" merely confirms me in that view. You will remember that this blgo REFUSED TO ENDORSE McCAIN, and I did NOT vote for McCain (or Obama). I did promise to vote for Hillary Clinton, but she managed to blow the nomination. I did vote for her in the Texas primary.
The GOP estalbishment remains ready and willing to SABOTAGE any conservative. I return the compliment, in spades. Taht means that I will NEVER again (George W. Bush was the last) vote for a GOP estalbishment candidate. How do I know who is such a cnadidate? Well, endorsements from people like McCain and Karl Rove (who HAS made his feelings clear, without an official endorsement) give you a CLUE. Plus, I know these people when I see them, , as I have everr since this very same kind of GOP estalbishment SABOTAGED Barry Goldwater in 1964 (the first electioon to which I paid close attention, although I had followed the Nixon/Kennedy race at 12-13). Thus, it is ME that represents the conclusive vote as to who is a GOP establishment candidate, in the event there is any doubt. Here, there is NO doubt, an dRomney is such a candidate: sa;ying NTOTHING with any passion or principlle, an dbasically running for Managerin-Chief of the country. This approach actually has NO CHANCE of beating Obama, except that Obama and the Democrats may well beat themselves because of the RESULTS of what they have done. (pulus the arrogant way they have ignored American principles and values). Romney is NOT going to "nspire" anyone to vote for him as a "leader". As this blog often sates, I will vote for a GOP establishment candidate only when Hell freezes over, and probably not even then. IF I KNEW that my vote would dtermine whether Obama or Romney would be President of the United States, I would NOT cast that vote for Romney No, I would probably not casst it for Obama either, but I refuse to ASSIST a GOP estalbishment cnandidate in any way (except the bakhanded way of my attacks on leftist ideology and Obama).
Notice how it is LOSERS who are the establishment endorsers of Mitt Romney. And these LOSERS lost for the very reason that Romney will be a WEAK candidate against Obama. They stood for NOTHING., I am talking here about Bob Dole and John McCain. Both of them never had a chance, because there ws nothing to them. They were BOTH legitimate war heroes, but neither had any other real principle. I acually think McCain may have MORe principle than romney, on isolated things like military policy and earmarks.
That ws the big McCain attack on Santorum: earmarks. I, myself, do not agree with Santorum on earmarks. The idea that earmarks put control of spending more in Congress than the President and the bureaucracy merely emphasizes lthe SLUSH FUND theory of government. What can it possibly mean to say that eliminating earmarks does not reduce Federal spending, because then the executive branch and the government gets to spend that same money the way they want to? If that moneyis NOT spent on earmarks, then IT SHOULD NOT BE SPENT. That is because it is obviusly NOT NEEDED to fund other items, or otherwise there would have been a battle over the "earmarks". No, McCain is right on this: Earmarks represent Washington at it sworst.
However, look at what McCain (stupid hypocrite and establishment guy that he is) is highlighting. Earmarks have always been a SMALL, although irritating, part of the Federal budget. Sure, they represent BRIBES to get members of Congress reelected, but SMALL BRIBES. You can validly say that Santorum, like OBAMA and so many others, bought into the way Washington worked to this SMALL EXTENT. Obama said he would not sign bills with earmarks,, and promptly DID when Democrats controlled Congress. But these are the SMALL BRIBES.
The 800 BILLIION dollar Obama "stimulus" bill was a series of BIG BRIBES--a SLUSH UND that invited and created corruption. It was not even used for what it was promised it would be used for (those "shovel ready" infrastructure projects). But the GOP voted AGAINST that boondoggle, while at the same time proposing BRIBES of their own. No, I don't include general tax RATE cuts as "bribes", becuae they just alow peoplle to keep their own money. But TAX GIMMICKS are bribes.
Look at what McCain voted FOR, and what Santorum has OPPOSED: this fraudulent Social Security tax "cut"-really a temporay "stimulus" BRIBE. That BRIBE--a MCCAIN BRIBE--cost us 150 BILION dollars in 2011, and will cost us 150 BILLION dollars in 2012. Those numbers DWARF any "earmarks" of Santorum. The HIGHEST number I have seen on Santorum "earmarks", most of whcih may be perfectly worthy things in isolation, is ONE billiion dollars. In other words, McCain has OUTBRIBED Santorum 300 to 1, and that is true of essentially EVERY GOP estlablishment figure. Romney, for example, favors this BRIBE. Santorum is proopsing to cut the Federal Government 5 TRILLION dollars in 5 years (or something like that, as the media seems uninterested in actually looking at the facts). Romney, in contrast, merely makes the SAME promis made by Barack Obama: "I will go through the budget line by line, and eliminate those things that cannot be justified." Tme after time, Romney ECHOES Obama. That is what makes him such a WEAK candidate against Obama, although it is possible he can win so long as the election is about Obama.
No, a McCain endorsement does nto help Romney. It should HURT Romney That is why my headline suggests that McCain really wants Santorum to win, and that his sTATED endorsment is really an endorsement of Santorum.
Now for the Tea Party. This blog has called the Tea Party a FAILURE--correctly. The Tea Party, because of a lakc of ledership, and a leadership now appearing to be looking for PERSONAL POWER, is becoming LESS and LESS impressive every day. The rank and file remain mostly peopleof principle But the "movement" no longer has a COHERENT message, after going along entirely too much with the GAMES of a GOP Congress that has CUT NOTHING (not one thin dime) from Federal spednign so far-in fact ADDING to the defict with both spending and things like the "payroll tax cut" and extension of extending unemployment benefits). The goverfnor of Sourth Carolina, supposedly a "Tea Party" politician, has even endorsed ROMNEY (more helpful to Romney than McCain). Blunt statement: If you are a Tea Party "leader", and endorse Romney, then you are NOT doing so on "principle". The kindest thing that can be said about you is that you think i is so improtatn to defeat Obama that we need to abandon principle. Suffice it to say that the 'Tea Party" (as a bunch of ORGANIZATIONS) no longer has my support (as ti once did). Over this sumer, the message has been lost, or rather the GOP KILLED IT. This WILL have consequences, beyond just the withdrawal of supoport from this blgg (although this blog never was part oft he Tea Party movement). WHY did this blog not actively push the Tea Party movement, even while sympathizing with the stated policy goals? It is because I SUSPECTED something like this would happne, unless a LEADER (or leaders) arose to LEAD the Tea Party principles to victory. That has NOT hapened. The supposed Tea Party politicians have FAILED.
That is hwy I hanker now for a REAL third pary based on CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES. I think the "foot solides" are out there. What is MISSING are the GENERALS, COLONELS, and even CAPTAINS. Whether in or--more likey-out of the GOP, the "movement" awaits LEADERS.. Sarah Palin is probably the best of the current crop of wannabe leaders of Tea Party principles, but I doubt sehe is good enough. I can, and do, support Santorum as a solid conservative, but he is NOT the "leader" we really need. But you can't just order up a "leader". Santorum is the best that is running, and really is pretty good (especially for a guy that was in Washington as long as he was), I am happy to supoport Santorum. I will NOT support Romney, under any circumstances.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).
Rick Santorum and Bill O'Reilly: The Serious Candidate and teh Smear Merchant (O'Reilly Sells Out His Country on the Unfair and Unbalanced Network)
See the previous article, to which this is a follow up. Do you think I was too harsh on O'Reilly? On the contrary, I was not harsh enough. Do you doubt that the O'Reilly "interview" of Santorum was a SMEAR from beginning to end--worse than anything I have seen CNN do recently? Then condiser what O'Reilly did NOT ask Santorum about:
1. Iran. Santorum has had some STRONG things to say about Iran, and what he would do to stopo Iran from having nuclear weapons. O'Reilly did not caer. O'Reilly was intrested in CONTRACEPTION (lol). Samle "tough" question: "Mr. Santorum, yu seem to have said that you would 'consult with Israel', and take military action to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Do you really think that this contry can afford another war right now, and that the American people will support one?" Not ONE WORD on the subject from O'Reilly, who was UNINTERESTED in giving the public actual, imorttant INFORMATION. That is why O'Reilly is not worth watching. He has NO interest in actual INFORMATION, or getting it to the American people O'Reilly is ALL aboutr "spin", as he spins in the "no spin" zone.
2. Tax policy. Santorum has a full tax plan, including going back to Reagan tax RATES (lower than Reagan on the "middle class"). Not ONE WORD froom O'Reilly as to Santorum's positions on this IMORTANT issue. Rick Santorum even has asomewhat controversial position that manuufacturers who comply with certain conditions should pay NO income tax. Sample, tough question: "Mr. Santorum, you criticizze government interference with business. Yet, you wold have a driscriminatory tax code that prefers manufacturers to other businesses, so long as the manufacturers are AMERICAN manufacturers and do some of the things you want them to do. Is this not 'picking winners and losers', and using the Tax Code to prefer some over others." You might guess thaqt this is one area where I DISAGREE with Santorum, although his overall tax program is pretty good. That is especially true in comparison with Romney, who is an ESTABLISHMENT COWARD on taxpolicy. I have said for a decade or more that we should go back to the Reagan rates, although a top rate of 25% (1 dollar in every four going to the government at the TOP) seems to be to be reasonable.--morally and as a matter of policy. SIMPLE is best, and Santorum would propose two SIMLE rates (and limited deductions). Not abd, although I think Santorum then turns around and COMPLICATES the Tax Code with a DIFFERENT rate for corporations, and a still different rate for certain manufacturers. That muddles the overall idea of simplicity, and indicatres that Santorum has not given up on the idea of "right wing social engineering" (to quote Newt's inapproriate comment in another context) using the Tax Code.
3 Deficits, Spending and Debrt. . Unlike Romney, who just uses the old Obama LIE of going through the Federal budget "line by line" to determine what Federal spending is really doing any good, Rick Santorum has said that he will "cut' FIVE TRILLON dollars from the Federal budget over something like the next five years (instead of the ridiculous ten years that now seems to be the "accepted" Washington LIE). Obvious tough question: "Mr. Santoru, where would you cut 5 trillion dollars? " Not so obviious tough question, but more to the point: "Mr. Santorum, the GOP contorols the House, and the House has to apporve ALL spending. Yet, the GOP controlled House has "cut" essentially NOTHING from this years spending, or over the past two years. What would you have done differently if you were in Congress. How would you have handled an Obama/Democrat threat to shut down the government if there were any real spending cuts. " Or, a somewhat simpler question: "Mr. Santorum, the Congress, including the GOOP contorolled House and a big enough minotiry in the Senate to stop any spending, have coooperated to pass bills which have ADDED to the deficit in the past two years, and have not managed to cut spending at all. Do you agree or disagree with the way GOP members of Congress have handled budget, spending and deficit maters." Again, not ONE WORD from O'Reilly on this subject--at least in the all imortant opening of O'Reily's program. I did not stay arond to see if O'Reilly might have a later installment. I got the impression he did not. But it doen't matter. Instead of owrrying about giving the American public INFORMATION on IMPORTANT things, O'Reilly was concentrating on the SMEAR. Then O'Reilly put on Karl Rove, and fed him lines to ATTACK Santorum as not a viable candidate. Rove, as well as teh GOOP establishment in general, are "all in" for Romney. As to Santorum, O'Reilly was 'interested" in such things as whether Santorum, ONCE (in a single sentence), had suggesteed that blacks are more concerned with wefare than whites. Santorum denies say;ing it (see previoius article), but this is the DEMOCRAT position :(that "cuts" in socialprograms hurt MINORITEIS most--ignroing the damage dependency does to everyone who is pushed into that PERMANENT state, as Democrats have done with minorities). Is it realy an IMPORTANT "issue" as to whether Rick Santorum MAY have ONCE suggested that "hand outs" hurt blacks more than they help htem (absolutely true, if not limited to blacks)? Not a chance. This is a SMEAR, and O'Reilyknows it. More imoratntly, how is this IMPORTATN? O'Reilly, you ARE a DISHONEST HYPOCRITIE (O'Reilly having comlained int he past about how his remarks have been taken out of contxt, or overhped, to suggest he is a racist).
4. Illegal immigration. Not one word in any question frfom O'Reilly. O'Reilly was more interested in the UNIMPORTANT questions of whether Santorum's positoins on gays int eh military, or gay marriage, are "too extreme". Again, O'Reilly is NOT intersted in giving the public IMPORTANT information. He was only intereseted in the SMEAR NARRATIVE whche he was pursuing.
5. Foreign policy in general--for instance Afghanistan. Again, NOTHING from O'Reilly, SMEAR MERCHANT. Yahoo/ABC did BETTER (yep, O'Reilly was WORSE than any mainstream media "journliast" I have seen recently) had this SUBSTANTIVE headline this morning (neutral to slightly favorable): "Santorum on foreign policy: combination hawk and--according to Bono--"defender of the vulnerable". Just how bad can O'Reilly and the unfair and unbalanced network get if they are WORSE than ABC/Yahooo (more about the SMEAR MERCHANTS from ABC/:Yahoo in the next article, but O'Reily was WORSE). O'Reilly was UNINTERESTED in Santorum's SUBSTANTIVE positions on foreign policy, or any other importatn substantive issue.
6. Payroll tax cut. Santorum has actually come out, correctly, against that FRAUDULENT 'payroll tax cut" (Social Security tax/funding cut) that UNDERMINES the very concept of self-funding Social Security. Sample "tough" queston: "Mr. Santorum, you have said that you oppose extending the payroll tax cuts. The GOP members of Congress appear to overwhelmingly FAVOR an extension of the payroll tax cut, as well as extened unemployment benefits. The vote in th eSeante was 89-10. Are you out of steop with the majority of the GOP members of Congress." (I, for one, turly hope so, but you could hardly call that a "softball" question. It is, however, a SUBSTANTICE question seeknig real INFORMAITON--soemting in which O'Reilly is uninterested.)
7. Jobs. "Mr. Santorum, do you believe that the government can even create jobs? What do you think government can do, beyond that manufactkuring tax cut you propose?" O'Reily uninterested.
8. Housing. 'Mr. Santoru, do you thinkthe Federal Government should do anyting to directly help peole facing foreclosure on their homes?" OiReilly, uneinterested.
9. Stimulus spending and infrastructure. O'Reilly uninterested.
10. More on taxes, from teh Democrat point of view. "Mr. Santorum, don't you think President Obama is right when he says that the American peole would prefer that taxes be raised on 'millionaires and billionaires' rather tahan see programs they LIKE cut." O'Reilly is uninterested.
11. Solyndra and "green subsidies". "Mr. Santorum, what do ou say to the ide that your prooposed subsidy to manufacturers is the SAME kind of government meddling in frfee markets that has led to the Solyndra scandal." O'Reily, uninterested.
12. Energy policy. MR. Santorum, what do ou propose to do about our energy policy, and don't you think that your proposed tough policy on Iran puts our eecoooomy at risk from a sudden spike in the price of oil if Iranina oil is disrupte, or Iran disrupts oil shipments int he region." O'Reilly uninteresteed.
13. Ben Bernanke and the Fed. "Mr. ?Santorm, some peole give Ben Bernanke credit for saving us--nt only in 2008, but by buying our own debt in a policy known as 'quantative easing"--which others have called printing money. What is your position on what Ben Bernanke and the Fed have done in the past, and are donig now?" Again, O'Reilly uninterested.
Oh, why go on. 13 is an appropriate palce to end this EXPOSURE of Bil O'REilly as a SMEAR MERCHANT, instaed of a person who, in good faith, wantws to give the American people information they NEED.
Why do I say that Bill O'Reilly and the unfair and unbalanced network have SOLD OUT THIS COUNTRY?: for the same reason that I said the same thiing about Dishonest Jack Cafferty and CNN. What is Bill O'Reilly really saying when he ignores what HE says ar the important issues to focus on UNIMPORTANT smear issues, and "social issues"? O'Reilly is saying that peoople will, and even SHOULD, be wiling to SELL OUT THIS COUNTRY by voting AGAINST Rick Santorum because of his positon on gays in the militarry, even if Rick Santorum will SAVE the country on the IMPORTANT issues that we face. It is NOT Rick Santorum who is saing that people should vote for or againt him based on his position on gays and the military. It is O'REILLY, and the media in general, who are taking that position that SELLS OUT THE COUNTRY. What else lan you call it when you are willing to have this country go down the drain because lyou think Rick Santorum is "too conservative" on "gay rights". What about Rick Santorum's positionon terrorism, by the way, and the recent bill signed by Obama that would authorize detention of American citizens without legal proceedings? O'Reilly, uninterested. You should be able to see why I say, with absolute accuracy, that O'REilly and the unfair and unbalanced network are SEeLLING OUT THIS COUNTRY by focusing on the UNIIMPORTANT.
"Wait a second, Skip. People may think Rick Santorum is wrong on the important things, too."
Ah, now you are finally getting th eont. Exactly right. O''Reilly , and the rest, are SUING these supposedly UNIMPORTANT issues (which Santorum is not saying are that imortant) as a SMEAR to avoid "debating" Santourum on the real issues. It is worse than that. The whole idea is to keep the American peole from even considereing what kind of President Rick Snatorum would make on the tinngs they CARE about most. The idea is to OPREVENT Santorum from getting his message out, so that the SUBSTANTIVE issues are NEVER JOINED. This is EVIL. It is DSHONEST. And it is SELLING OUT THE COUNTRY. Did I jsut call Bill O'Reilly an EVIL person? Darn right I did.
"But, Skip, O'Reilly would say that it is NOT HIM doing this smear, but that he is only testing" Santorum on how he will handle what OBAMA and the mainstream media will throw against him--not to mention his GOP opponents lol on this one)."
Ah. Do ou see lhow DISHONEST this i? BillO'Reilly, again, is a DISHONEST HYPOCRITE. The whole idea of these SMEARS is to keep the focus on THEM, reather than on the importtant issues. How is it any different for O'REILY to focus his interview solely on the SMEARS, and CNN to do so--with the diffrence that O'REilly was WORSE? It is no different. O'Reilly has made himself part of the SMEARS. As O'Reilly is wel aware, the only way for Santorum to DEFEAT the smears is to focus his campaign on the IMPORTANT issues. To the smear merchants, including O'REilly and the unfair and unbalanced network, it DOES NOT MATTER how Santorum "reponds" to the smears. Santorum can't win on that ground. The whole essence of the SMEARS is to make the Snatorum campaing all aobut "responding" to the smears, and NOT about informing the American people what kind of Preisdent he would make (the supposed "missioin" of "journalists", whchO'Reilly and the rest have abandoned long ago.
I repeat: I have watched my last minu;te of O'Reilly, and the entire prime time programming of the unfair and unbalanced network. I will continue to "surf" the unfair and unblanaced networkin the daytime, simply for purposes of this blog (and NOT to get any real information, whcih they don't give). I advocate that YOU BOYCOTT both O'Reilly and the unfair and unbalanced network, unless lyou watnt to surf a maxi=imum of two minutes a day--my policy for this new year--just to ssee how bad they have gotten.
P.S. No proofreading or spell ckhecking (bad eyesight). Remember this truest of axiooms, which applies to today's Muslims and yesterday's non-Nazi Germans): "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." O'Reily is NOT a "good man", but he and the unfair and unbalanced network have clearly embraked on a policy of ENABLING and ENCOURAGING SMEARS, as they SELL OUT this country. I have no respect for them. You can believe that Rick Santorum should nto be Presdient, based on his overall positions. For ou to try to PREVENT Santorum from even making his case to the peole is an EVIL thing, and it is DESTORYING this country (this idea that every conservative should be TORN DOWN without even having a chance to make his or her case on the merits).
1. Iran. Santorum has had some STRONG things to say about Iran, and what he would do to stopo Iran from having nuclear weapons. O'Reilly did not caer. O'Reilly was intrested in CONTRACEPTION (lol). Samle "tough" question: "Mr. Santorum, yu seem to have said that you would 'consult with Israel', and take military action to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Do you really think that this contry can afford another war right now, and that the American people will support one?" Not ONE WORD on the subject from O'Reilly, who was UNINTERESTED in giving the public actual, imorttant INFORMATION. That is why O'Reilly is not worth watching. He has NO interest in actual INFORMATION, or getting it to the American people O'Reilly is ALL aboutr "spin", as he spins in the "no spin" zone.
2. Tax policy. Santorum has a full tax plan, including going back to Reagan tax RATES (lower than Reagan on the "middle class"). Not ONE WORD froom O'Reilly as to Santorum's positions on this IMORTANT issue. Rick Santorum even has asomewhat controversial position that manuufacturers who comply with certain conditions should pay NO income tax. Sample, tough question: "Mr. Santorum, you criticizze government interference with business. Yet, you wold have a driscriminatory tax code that prefers manufacturers to other businesses, so long as the manufacturers are AMERICAN manufacturers and do some of the things you want them to do. Is this not 'picking winners and losers', and using the Tax Code to prefer some over others." You might guess thaqt this is one area where I DISAGREE with Santorum, although his overall tax program is pretty good. That is especially true in comparison with Romney, who is an ESTABLISHMENT COWARD on taxpolicy. I have said for a decade or more that we should go back to the Reagan rates, although a top rate of 25% (1 dollar in every four going to the government at the TOP) seems to be to be reasonable.--morally and as a matter of policy. SIMPLE is best, and Santorum would propose two SIMLE rates (and limited deductions). Not abd, although I think Santorum then turns around and COMPLICATES the Tax Code with a DIFFERENT rate for corporations, and a still different rate for certain manufacturers. That muddles the overall idea of simplicity, and indicatres that Santorum has not given up on the idea of "right wing social engineering" (to quote Newt's inapproriate comment in another context) using the Tax Code.
3 Deficits, Spending and Debrt. . Unlike Romney, who just uses the old Obama LIE of going through the Federal budget "line by line" to determine what Federal spending is really doing any good, Rick Santorum has said that he will "cut' FIVE TRILLON dollars from the Federal budget over something like the next five years (instead of the ridiculous ten years that now seems to be the "accepted" Washington LIE). Obvious tough question: "Mr. Santoru, where would you cut 5 trillion dollars? " Not so obviious tough question, but more to the point: "Mr. Santorum, the GOP contorols the House, and the House has to apporve ALL spending. Yet, the GOP controlled House has "cut" essentially NOTHING from this years spending, or over the past two years. What would you have done differently if you were in Congress. How would you have handled an Obama/Democrat threat to shut down the government if there were any real spending cuts. " Or, a somewhat simpler question: "Mr. Santorum, the Congress, including the GOOP contorolled House and a big enough minotiry in the Senate to stop any spending, have coooperated to pass bills which have ADDED to the deficit in the past two years, and have not managed to cut spending at all. Do you agree or disagree with the way GOP members of Congress have handled budget, spending and deficit maters." Again, not ONE WORD from O'Reilly on this subject--at least in the all imortant opening of O'Reily's program. I did not stay arond to see if O'Reilly might have a later installment. I got the impression he did not. But it doen't matter. Instead of owrrying about giving the American public INFORMATION on IMPORTANT things, O'Reilly was concentrating on the SMEAR. Then O'Reilly put on Karl Rove, and fed him lines to ATTACK Santorum as not a viable candidate. Rove, as well as teh GOOP establishment in general, are "all in" for Romney. As to Santorum, O'Reilly was 'interested" in such things as whether Santorum, ONCE (in a single sentence), had suggesteed that blacks are more concerned with wefare than whites. Santorum denies say;ing it (see previoius article), but this is the DEMOCRAT position :(that "cuts" in socialprograms hurt MINORITEIS most--ignroing the damage dependency does to everyone who is pushed into that PERMANENT state, as Democrats have done with minorities). Is it realy an IMPORTANT "issue" as to whether Rick Santorum MAY have ONCE suggested that "hand outs" hurt blacks more than they help htem (absolutely true, if not limited to blacks)? Not a chance. This is a SMEAR, and O'Reilyknows it. More imoratntly, how is this IMPORTATN? O'Reilly, you ARE a DISHONEST HYPOCRITIE (O'Reilly having comlained int he past about how his remarks have been taken out of contxt, or overhped, to suggest he is a racist).
4. Illegal immigration. Not one word in any question frfom O'Reilly. O'Reilly was more interested in the UNIMPORTANT questions of whether Santorum's positoins on gays int eh military, or gay marriage, are "too extreme". Again, O'Reilly is NOT intersted in giving the public IMPORTANT information. He was only intereseted in the SMEAR NARRATIVE whche he was pursuing.
5. Foreign policy in general--for instance Afghanistan. Again, NOTHING from O'Reilly, SMEAR MERCHANT. Yahoo/ABC did BETTER (yep, O'Reilly was WORSE than any mainstream media "journliast" I have seen recently) had this SUBSTANTIVE headline this morning (neutral to slightly favorable): "Santorum on foreign policy: combination hawk and--according to Bono--"defender of the vulnerable". Just how bad can O'Reilly and the unfair and unbalanced network get if they are WORSE than ABC/Yahooo (more about the SMEAR MERCHANTS from ABC/:Yahoo in the next article, but O'Reily was WORSE). O'Reilly was UNINTERESTED in Santorum's SUBSTANTIVE positions on foreign policy, or any other importatn substantive issue.
6. Payroll tax cut. Santorum has actually come out, correctly, against that FRAUDULENT 'payroll tax cut" (Social Security tax/funding cut) that UNDERMINES the very concept of self-funding Social Security. Sample "tough" queston: "Mr. Santorum, you have said that you oppose extending the payroll tax cuts. The GOP members of Congress appear to overwhelmingly FAVOR an extension of the payroll tax cut, as well as extened unemployment benefits. The vote in th eSeante was 89-10. Are you out of steop with the majority of the GOP members of Congress." (I, for one, turly hope so, but you could hardly call that a "softball" question. It is, however, a SUBSTANTICE question seeknig real INFORMAITON--soemting in which O'Reilly is uninterested.)
7. Jobs. "Mr. Santorum, do you believe that the government can even create jobs? What do you think government can do, beyond that manufactkuring tax cut you propose?" O'Reily uninterested.
8. Housing. 'Mr. Santoru, do you thinkthe Federal Government should do anyting to directly help peole facing foreclosure on their homes?" OiReilly, uneinterested.
9. Stimulus spending and infrastructure. O'Reilly uninterested.
10. More on taxes, from teh Democrat point of view. "Mr. Santorum, don't you think President Obama is right when he says that the American peole would prefer that taxes be raised on 'millionaires and billionaires' rather tahan see programs they LIKE cut." O'Reilly is uninterested.
11. Solyndra and "green subsidies". "Mr. Santorum, what do ou say to the ide that your prooposed subsidy to manufacturers is the SAME kind of government meddling in frfee markets that has led to the Solyndra scandal." O'Reily, uninterested.
12. Energy policy. MR. Santorum, what do ou propose to do about our energy policy, and don't you think that your proposed tough policy on Iran puts our eecoooomy at risk from a sudden spike in the price of oil if Iranina oil is disrupte, or Iran disrupts oil shipments int he region." O'Reilly uninteresteed.
13. Ben Bernanke and the Fed. "Mr. ?Santorm, some peole give Ben Bernanke credit for saving us--nt only in 2008, but by buying our own debt in a policy known as 'quantative easing"--which others have called printing money. What is your position on what Ben Bernanke and the Fed have done in the past, and are donig now?" Again, O'Reilly uninterested.
Oh, why go on. 13 is an appropriate palce to end this EXPOSURE of Bil O'REilly as a SMEAR MERCHANT, instaed of a person who, in good faith, wantws to give the American people information they NEED.
Why do I say that Bill O'Reilly and the unfair and unbalanced network have SOLD OUT THIS COUNTRY?: for the same reason that I said the same thiing about Dishonest Jack Cafferty and CNN. What is Bill O'Reilly really saying when he ignores what HE says ar the important issues to focus on UNIMPORTANT smear issues, and "social issues"? O'Reilly is saying that peoople will, and even SHOULD, be wiling to SELL OUT THIS COUNTRY by voting AGAINST Rick Santorum because of his positon on gays in the militarry, even if Rick Santorum will SAVE the country on the IMPORTANT issues that we face. It is NOT Rick Santorum who is saing that people should vote for or againt him based on his position on gays and the military. It is O'REILLY, and the media in general, who are taking that position that SELLS OUT THE COUNTRY. What else lan you call it when you are willing to have this country go down the drain because lyou think Rick Santorum is "too conservative" on "gay rights". What about Rick Santorum's positionon terrorism, by the way, and the recent bill signed by Obama that would authorize detention of American citizens without legal proceedings? O'Reilly, uninterested. You should be able to see why I say, with absolute accuracy, that O'REilly and the unfair and unbalanced network are SEeLLING OUT THIS COUNTRY by focusing on the UNIIMPORTANT.
"Wait a second, Skip. People may think Rick Santorum is wrong on the important things, too."
Ah, now you are finally getting th eont. Exactly right. O''Reilly , and the rest, are SUING these supposedly UNIMPORTANT issues (which Santorum is not saying are that imortant) as a SMEAR to avoid "debating" Santourum on the real issues. It is worse than that. The whole idea is to keep the American peole from even considereing what kind of President Rick Snatorum would make on the tinngs they CARE about most. The idea is to OPREVENT Santorum from getting his message out, so that the SUBSTANTIVE issues are NEVER JOINED. This is EVIL. It is DSHONEST. And it is SELLING OUT THE COUNTRY. Did I jsut call Bill O'Reilly an EVIL person? Darn right I did.
"But, Skip, O'Reilly would say that it is NOT HIM doing this smear, but that he is only testing" Santorum on how he will handle what OBAMA and the mainstream media will throw against him--not to mention his GOP opponents lol on this one)."
Ah. Do ou see lhow DISHONEST this i? BillO'Reilly, again, is a DISHONEST HYPOCRITE. The whole idea of these SMEARS is to keep the focus on THEM, reather than on the importtant issues. How is it any different for O'REILY to focus his interview solely on the SMEARS, and CNN to do so--with the diffrence that O'REilly was WORSE? It is no different. O'Reilly has made himself part of the SMEARS. As O'Reilly is wel aware, the only way for Santorum to DEFEAT the smears is to focus his campaign on the IMPORTANT issues. To the smear merchants, including O'REilly and the unfair and unbalanced network, it DOES NOT MATTER how Santorum "reponds" to the smears. Santorum can't win on that ground. The whole essence of the SMEARS is to make the Snatorum campaing all aobut "responding" to the smears, and NOT about informing the American people what kind of Preisdent he would make (the supposed "missioin" of "journalists", whchO'Reilly and the rest have abandoned long ago.
I repeat: I have watched my last minu;te of O'Reilly, and the entire prime time programming of the unfair and unbalanced network. I will continue to "surf" the unfair and unblanaced networkin the daytime, simply for purposes of this blog (and NOT to get any real information, whcih they don't give). I advocate that YOU BOYCOTT both O'Reilly and the unfair and unbalanced network, unless lyou watnt to surf a maxi=imum of two minutes a day--my policy for this new year--just to ssee how bad they have gotten.
P.S. No proofreading or spell ckhecking (bad eyesight). Remember this truest of axiooms, which applies to today's Muslims and yesterday's non-Nazi Germans): "All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." O'Reily is NOT a "good man", but he and the unfair and unbalanced network have clearly embraked on a policy of ENABLING and ENCOURAGING SMEARS, as they SELL OUT this country. I have no respect for them. You can believe that Rick Santorum should nto be Presdient, based on his overall positions. For ou to try to PREVENT Santorum from even making his case to the peole is an EVIL thing, and it is DESTORYING this country (this idea that every conservative should be TORN DOWN without even having a chance to make his or her case on the merits).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)