drsmooth wrote:Turns out supremely self-congratulatory arch-reactionary uber-apologist Dinesh D'Souza has been up to some unChristian hanky-panky.

must have been his brush with the sleazy business of making movies

here's laughing at you, you tiny-dicked hypocrite

dajafi wrote:Am watching the Connecticut senate debate, as NFL Network seems to have migrated within or disappeared from my cable package and I've reached the Joe Buck saturation point.

To any Nutmeggers here, I am really, really sorry. Both of these people are *horrible*. They're actually making Lieberman look okay by comparison.

dajafi wrote:Lieberman is an appalling human being. But I wouldn't say he's dumb. Murphy and McMahon just seemed like total fucking dimwits.

jerseyhoya wrote:Newspaper endorsements generally don't mean much, but I kinda liked this one from the Orlando Sentinel. Hits the high points on why disgruntled 2008 Obama voters should switch.

Orlando Sentinel editors wrote:We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race...Romney is not our ideal candidate for president....If he doesn't produce results — even with a hostile Senate — we'll be ready in 2016 to get behind someone else who will....

drsmooth wrote:

dajafi wrote:Lieberman is an appalling human being. But I wouldn't say he's dumb. Murphy and McMahon just seemed like total #$!&@ dimwits.

I dunno, this feels like one of those "great trade, who'd we get" kinda deals, so long as rasslin' lady loses, as polls suggest she might. Getting shut of Leiberman & shutting down the Grappling Grannie are plusses, and the cipher will probably not do too much harm for at least the 1st 6 yrs.

drsmooth wrote:Can you clarify how that editorial hits any high points for either candidate?

Economic growth, three years into the recovery, is anemic. Family incomes are down, poverty is up. Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, highlighted these and other hard truths in this week's second debate. Even the September jobless numbers deserve an asterisk, because more than 4 million Americans have given up looking for work since January 2009. And while the nation's economy is still sputtering nearly four years after Obama took office, the federal government is more than $5 trillion deeper in debt. It just racked up its fourth straight 13-figure shortfall.

We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race. Obama's defenders would argue that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and would have made more progress if not for obstruction from Republicans in Congress. But Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate during his first two years. Other presidents have succeeded even with the other party controlling Capitol Hill. Democrat Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom and balanced the budget working with Republicans. Leaders find a way.

With Obama in charge, the federal government came perilously close to a default last year. Now it's lurching toward another crisis with the impending arrival of massive tax hikes and spending cuts on Jan. 1. The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans. It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years. Two years ago, a bipartisan panel the president appointed recommended a 10-year, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. Rather than embrace it and sell it to the American people, Obama took his own, less ambitious plan to Congress, where it was largely ignored by both parties.

Now the president and his supporters are attacking Romney because his long-term budget blueprint calls for money-saving reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. Obama would be more credible in critiquing the proposal if he had a serious alternative for bringing entitlement spending under control. He doesn't.

CalvinBall wrote:Silver has Obama back above 70 percent.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:Can you clarify how that editorial hits any high points for either candidate?

Economic growth, three years into the recovery, is anemic. Family incomes are down, poverty is up. Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, highlighted these and other hard truths in this week's second debate. Even the September jobless numbers deserve an asterisk, because more than 4 million Americans have given up looking for work since January 2009. And while the nation's economy is still sputtering nearly four years after Obama took office, the federal government is more than $5 trillion deeper in debt. It just racked up its fourth straight 13-figure shortfall.

We have little confidence that Obama would be more successful managing the economy and the budget in the next four years. For that reason, though we endorsed him in 2008, we are recommending Romney in this race. Obama's defenders would argue that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression, and would have made more progress if not for obstruction from Republicans in Congress. But Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate during his first two years. Other presidents have succeeded even with the other party controlling Capitol Hill. Democrat Bill Clinton presided over an economic boom and balanced the budget working with Republicans. Leaders find a way.

With Obama in charge, the federal government came perilously close to a default last year. Now it's lurching toward another crisis with the impending arrival of massive tax hikes and spending cuts on Jan. 1. The next president is likely to be dealing with a Congress where at least one, if not both, chambers are controlled by Republicans. It verges on magical thinking to expect Obama to get different results in the next four years. Two years ago, a bipartisan panel the president appointed recommended a 10-year, $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. Rather than embrace it and sell it to the American people, Obama took his own, less ambitious plan to Congress, where it was largely ignored by both parties.

Now the president and his supporters are attacking Romney because his long-term budget blueprint calls for money-saving reforms to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, three of the biggest drivers of deficit spending. Obama would be more credible in critiquing the proposal if he had a serious alternative for bringing entitlement spending under control. He doesn't.

That's the swing voter case against Obama, in a nut shell. Well and succinctly stated. In my always very humble opinion.

jerseyhoya wrote:I only post things I believe. Most of you are lost causes. I don't waste time spinning shit I don't care about. I really think that's a neat bow on the case against Obama.

You aren't convinced by it because there's nothing that'd convince you. Congrats to you.

CalvinBall wrote:Silver has Obama back above 70 percent.