CalvinBall wrote:If Harry enten believes in that poll seems like Romney winning is a certainty.

Youseff was questioning the poll. I thought a liberal guy who writes about polls for a living might be a convincing endorser for it. I am sorry if he did not live up to your exacting standards.

Apology not accepted.

CalvinBall wrote:The Oregon Minnesota Michigan and Pennsylvania stuff is funny.

If you check out his site, he has Obama barely winning NJ which is the funniest one, I think.

Don't pick on JH, he's just trying to get a nice bandwagon effect going for his guy. Karl Rove would give him a stiff slap on the butt and a "nice job, son."

Remember earlier when I said I was worried about a Romney push that would give him momentum and the issues would become secondary to the momentum narrative? Yeh, this is it. I still expected a bigger money push from team Romney, but maybe he knows he has it in the bag.

Yeah, I'm back to worried sick about the election. Good thing I already have a dog, cause I's scared.

Someone hold me and tell me it's going to be alright.

mozartpc27 wrote:Yeah, I'm back to worried sick about the election. Good thing I already have a dog, cause I's scared.

Someone hold me and tell me it's going to be alright.

You gotta get in there and vote like you've never voted before, McGillicuddy

drsmooth wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Yeah, I'm back to worried sick about the election. Good thing I already have a dog, cause I's scared.

Someone hold me and tell me it's going to be alright.

You gotta get in there and vote like you've never voted before, McGillicuddy

Fortunately, I'm registered in Pennsylvania.

And Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Nevada.

I had to vote in TN, dang it. Maybe I helped one of the down ballot dems win, who knows.

mozartpc27 wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:Yeah, I'm back to worried sick about the election. Good thing I already have a dog, cause I's scared.

Someone hold me and tell me it's going to be alright.

You gotta get in there and vote like you've never voted before, McGillicuddy

Fortunately, I'm registered in Pennsylvania.

And Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Nevada.

attaboy

Joss Whedon's endorsement of Romney



"hmmm. Spam has its own key"

drsmooth wrote:dumb question, but I don't attend religious services regularly: do your ministers/parsons/padres/preachers/reverends/rabbis/mullahs ever actually mention anything regarding upcoming elections, beyond "god bless the nation", or "heaven helps those who vote"?

Not at any of the churches I've been. Then again, the Catholic priests I know would only get riled up and take sides if a candidate were proposing reinstating prohibition.

(I'm saying they likes their booze)

drsmooth wrote:no denying the Register's stellar track record for backing high-caliber Republican leadership

Their editorial staff had some kinda big fight with Team Obama last week regarding a scheduled meeting with Barry O, so their endorsement choice isn't surprising.

PPP polls in Ohio and NH showing 4 and 2 point leads for the president respectively. This encourages me less than the fact that he's evidently gained in both since last week.

I was thinking today about the track record of the Republican Party over the last 20 years, from the zero votes for Clinton's 1993 budget through the fight last summer over raising the debt limit that hurt our credit rating. In between, they shut down the government, impeached Clinton over sex after investigating him endlessly, failed to respond to intel leading up to the worst terror attack in US history, enacted policies (tax cuts and wars fought on credit) that transformed enormous projected surpluses into unprecedented deficits, started a war on bad intel, sanctioned torture, and pledged that their top priority was to render Obama a one-term president.

This list is all factual. I left out things I believe as a partisan (e.g. stole Florida in 2000, tried to politicize the Justice Department), as well as stuff they supported but couldn't get passed (Social Security privatization) or stuff where I think the blame is more or less equally shared by the parties (deregulation of the financial sector, the dumber provisions of Medicare Part D, DOMA).

I think the Republicans deserve credit for three major things over this period: welfare reform (Clinton campaigned on it in '92, but it wouldn't have happened without an R Congress), No Child Left Behind (very flawed law, but representative of a good core idea about standardizing and quantifying public education), and the assistance Bush gave to Africa that saved many thousands of lives.

On balance, this is not a good record. And if anything they seem to have doubled down on the bad ideas--de-distributive tax cuts, dumb wars--with little interest in education policy, public health home or abroad, etc.

It's really less about Romney--whose positions and "real" beliefs are unknowable anyway--than the people of proven bad will and bad judgment who advise him and whom he would empower.

That sums up a lot of people, for better or worse. No problems with how Romney governed, yet willing to have 4 more years of Obama because of the policies of the GOP over the last 20 years. I mean really... Guantonimo, tax cuts, warrantless wiretaps, Afghanistan... is Obama even that different from a Republican there? If Obama gets re-elected and pre-emptively attacks Iran (after they kick out weapons inspectors, a very real possibility) based on bad intel, we basically have George Bush II with Obamacare being his Part D. Ok, so Obama will wait an extra year and try to get the UN to do something before moving forward, but you get the picture.

And you're also gonna blame the GOP in general, and hold it against Romney in particular, for 9/11? Do you hold Obama responsible for Benghazi? I don't, and neither should you.

And then you both give the Republicans credit for No Child Left Behind and then criticize them for lack of interest in education policy??? There may be some disagreements on how to circumvent the power of the teachers' unions, but democrats and republicans both recognize some of the problems. I dont have a problem with saying that Democratic solutions are superior, thanks to some of the developments pushed forth by Democrats. But I found the juxtaposition of the 2 statements interesting.

Which party is in favor of humanitarian intervention?
Which party is in favor of simplifying the tax code?
Which party would approve the Keystone pipeline?

I know you think that the decision is clear, which is why you wrote your post, but I could write a similar post about Democrats standing on the wrong side of important issues, or, refusing to oppose the worst policies of the GOP. Part of this election is Democrat vs. Republican, but part of it is Romney vs Obama.

What is the Democratic record in the last 20 years.... Clinton allowing genocide in Rwanda, lying under oath about a stupid affair, being President during an internet driven economic boom. Then after 2000 we have nearly a decade of Democratic yes-men on torture, Patriot Act, and being for a war before being against it. And yet, it has NO bearing on whether Obama should be re-elected. Nada. It would be almost as dumb as voting for Romney because you like'd Reagan.

There are plenty of reasons to vote for Obama over Romney. 9/11, Iraq, the Clinton impeachment, or the recession of 2001 don't seem like compelling ones. I know this post reads a lot more bluntly than you deserve, but your entire post is a collection of terrible reasons to support Obama over Romney. I'm kinda confused. It would be like if Jerseyhoya randomly posted a list of things that Clinton, Carter, and Pelosi have supported as reasons to vote for Romney.

the reason to vote for obama is to prevent a change

What if it's a change we can believe in?

I DONT BELIEVE IT

Are you saying that because Democrats are nearly as bad as Republicans on a few issues--or at least were willing to be "yes men" on some of those awful things--the differences on torture, equality, investment, starting wars vs. ending wars are meaningless? Or because Obama might make some similar mistakes--though I doubt it, given the judgment he and his team have shown on the big stuff vs. that of Romney's Bush advisers--in future? That's nihilistic even for a when-i-feel-like-it (IOW, when women's rights and reproductive choices aren't involved) libertarian.

And on education policy, you need to read my post again. I am pretty much sure the good instinct that informed NCLB (and aid in Africa) is dead on that side in the Tea Party age. That's what I'm saying. They're actually getting worse, as the Bennetts and Lugars give way to the Mourdocks and Akins.

Timing and context matter. Obviously I don't like Romney, but I think 30 years ago someone of his profile would have been a fine president: he's smart, manages well and seems to have some personal ethics (no big scandals during his governorship). But the modern Republican Party is unhinged, and I don't imagine he'll do much if anything to restrain the absolutists. Things we might both want--overhaul of the tax code or immigration reform--won't happen in the established form (bipartisan, product of compromise) when the governing authority doesn't even recognize the legitimacy of their opposition. You in particular, as a pox-on-both-houses type, should oppose them as you would any group that believes it has a monopoly on truth and righteousness despite the lousy track record I described.

imagine that, independents dont exist