Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
October 4, 2012
JON SCOTT, FOX NEWS: You don't think there will be a better prepared President Obama on stage next week?
JOHN SUNUNU, ROMNEY CAMPAIGN: When you're not that bright, you can't get better prepared.
Speaking of "not that bright," Sununu wasn't content with bulletin board material he gave the Obama campaign on Fox. Minutes later, he appeared on MSNBC and called President Obama "lazy," "disengaged," and "incompetent."
Seriously.
Oh, and as far as "incompetent" goes, have these guys ever gone 24 straight hours after a "victory" without stepping on themselves?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1140058/-Romney-campaign-says-Obama-will-lose-next-debate-because-he-s-not-that-bright
Romney Campaign Says Obama Will LOSE Next Debate Because He's 'NOT THAT BRIGHT'
What absolute colossal dicks these guys are: Listen to what this walking nut sack said:
JON SCOTT, FOX NEWS: You don't think there will be a better prepared President Obama on stage next week?
JOHN SUNUNU, ROMNEY CAMPAIGN: When you're not that bright, you can't get better prepared.
Speaking of "not that bright," Sununu wasn't content with bulletin board material he gave the Obama campaign on Fox. Minutes later, he appeared on MSNBC and called President Obama "lazy," "disengaged," and "incompetent."
Seriously.
Oh, and as far as "incompetent" goes, have these guys ever gone 24 straight hours after a "victory" without stepping on themselves?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1140058/-Romney-campaign-says-Obama-will-lose-next-debate-because-he-s-not-that-bright
October 4, 2012
ThinkProgress:
As courts continue to block voter suppression efforts around the county, conservative groups are redoubling efforts to intimidate voters at the polls come Election Day.
New Mexico has started its own voter purge of 177,000 people, including a voting rights activist married to a state representative. However, as the law won’t go into effect until November 2014, the local Republican Party has apparently started training “poll challengers” for this election. A hidden camera caught Pat Morlen, the vice chair of the Sandoval County Republican Party, instructing volunteer “poll challengers” to demand photo ID and force legal voters to use provisional ballots. The video, filmed by the nonprofit ProgressNow New Mexico, shows vice-chair Morlen making several claims that directly contradict New Mexico law:
MORLEN: You can request to see a form of ID. At the request of two or more precinct board members of different political parties, a voter shall still present the required physical form of identification.
VOLUNTEER: What happens if we get people in there who are part of what the media is calling the purge?
MORLEN: They’ll vote provisional. That’s all that’s gonna happen.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/04/961231/video-republican-party-training-poll-challengers-in-illegal-voter-suppression/
.
Video: Republican Party Training ‘Poll Challengers’ In Illegal Voter Suppression
ThinkProgress:
As courts continue to block voter suppression efforts around the county, conservative groups are redoubling efforts to intimidate voters at the polls come Election Day.
New Mexico has started its own voter purge of 177,000 people, including a voting rights activist married to a state representative. However, as the law won’t go into effect until November 2014, the local Republican Party has apparently started training “poll challengers” for this election. A hidden camera caught Pat Morlen, the vice chair of the Sandoval County Republican Party, instructing volunteer “poll challengers” to demand photo ID and force legal voters to use provisional ballots. The video, filmed by the nonprofit ProgressNow New Mexico, shows vice-chair Morlen making several claims that directly contradict New Mexico law:
MORLEN: You can request to see a form of ID. At the request of two or more precinct board members of different political parties, a voter shall still present the required physical form of identification.
VOLUNTEER: What happens if we get people in there who are part of what the media is calling the purge?
MORLEN: They’ll vote provisional. That’s all that’s gonna happen.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/04/961231/video-republican-party-training-poll-challengers-in-illegal-voter-suppression/
.
October 4, 2012
Democratic surrogates in the cable TV spin rooms Wednesday night seemed to have trouble explaining President Barack Obama's weak debate performance. By Thursday morning, however, the Obama campaign had settled on a explanation for why their guy lost: Mitt Romney lied. "On Wednesday night, some saw Mitt Romney sounding polished," a 4:15 AM press release conceded. "But when the dust settles, Romney's dozen flat-out falsehoods will be the only thing remaining from his debate performance -- because avoiding the truth has been the very definition of Romney's candidacy, and he can't escape that with a single smooth appearance."
An accompanying web video said the former Massachusetts governor had "played fast & loose with the facts."
On cable shows Thursday morning, meanwhile, Obama surrogates touted the same line. Senior adviser David Axelrod told MSNBC that Romney's debate performance was a "shell game" and gave him "an 'F' for being honest with the American people." Martin O'Malley, Maryland's governor, said on CNN that Romney had promised "We can all eat cake and lose weight."
The campaign has a good point: Romney's policy explanations, particularly about how he was going to pay for $5 trillion in tax cuts, were vague, misleading and riddled with falsehoods. But he delivered them with conviction. Obama supporters will probably be asking themselves how their candidate failed to rebut Romney during the debate, rather than after, until the next meeting between the two on Oct. 16.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obama-romney-lied_n_1938926.html
Obama Campaign: Romney Won Debate Because HE LIED!
Democratic surrogates in the cable TV spin rooms Wednesday night seemed to have trouble explaining President Barack Obama's weak debate performance. By Thursday morning, however, the Obama campaign had settled on a explanation for why their guy lost: Mitt Romney lied. "On Wednesday night, some saw Mitt Romney sounding polished," a 4:15 AM press release conceded. "But when the dust settles, Romney's dozen flat-out falsehoods will be the only thing remaining from his debate performance -- because avoiding the truth has been the very definition of Romney's candidacy, and he can't escape that with a single smooth appearance."
An accompanying web video said the former Massachusetts governor had "played fast & loose with the facts."
On cable shows Thursday morning, meanwhile, Obama surrogates touted the same line. Senior adviser David Axelrod told MSNBC that Romney's debate performance was a "shell game" and gave him "an 'F' for being honest with the American people." Martin O'Malley, Maryland's governor, said on CNN that Romney had promised "We can all eat cake and lose weight."
The campaign has a good point: Romney's policy explanations, particularly about how he was going to pay for $5 trillion in tax cuts, were vague, misleading and riddled with falsehoods. But he delivered them with conviction. Obama supporters will probably be asking themselves how their candidate failed to rebut Romney during the debate, rather than after, until the next meeting between the two on Oct. 16.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obama-romney-lied_n_1938926.html
October 4, 2012
Romney Won! The Debate is Over and the Spin Begins
People watching last night’s debate will form their own opinions and those who missed it can still do so; they can watch video or read the transcript. Everyone will have reacted differently. Emotion will no doubt play a roll in perceptions, as will ideology.
Full Transcript:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-in-denver-on-oct-3-full-transcript/2012/10/03/62e8bb4c-0d93-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html
But how people reacted is perhaps less critical than how the media will spin the result, because more people will read about the debate than will have watched it. Pundits began this process even before the opening salvo last night according to the ancient precept that battles are won or lost before they are fought. But sometimes battles are won after they are fought. For example, how will the candidates use the results of last night’s contest to their best advantage to shape voter’s perceptions, not only of the debate but of their overall position? Of more immediate concern is how the mainstream media used last night’s debate to shape the narrative: Romney won, they all seem to proclaim, whether they make that their headline or not. And whether it is intentional or not, the media perception seems to be that somehow, by being aggressive, Romney won. Rather than focusing on what was said, they focus on how it was said.
For example, CNN says that Mitt Romney won the debate. They say he’s the more “forceful” debater (he’s certainly the more energetic liar).
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/debate-5-things-learned/index.html
And then they say something curious:
However vaguely…
Did vague suddenly become a positive attribute? I’ve never heard of vague being held up as a virtue in a debate. Forceful and vague? And this is good? And outlined. That’s been the problem all along. Romney and Ryan won’t do more than outline their plans. Ryan said he has no time for details. Romney just says he doesn’t care to give them. He said a debate isn’t the place for it but Obama had no plan providing the details for him. As Democratic strategist Paul Begala observed, Obama debated the Etch A Sketch man. It is sadly indicative of Republican politics these days that when the Romney campaign said they wanted to create “moments” in the debate, what they really meant was “lies.” Everyone knew the zingers were coming. It would be more helpful to the American people, if less helpful to Mitt Romney, if the mainstream media would focus a little more on substance and less on flash.
http://www.politicususa.com/romney-wondebate-spin-begins.html
" The MEDIA Perception Seems To Be That Somehow, By Being Aggressive, Romney Won "
Romney Won! The Debate is Over and the Spin Begins
People watching last night’s debate will form their own opinions and those who missed it can still do so; they can watch video or read the transcript. Everyone will have reacted differently. Emotion will no doubt play a roll in perceptions, as will ideology.
Full Transcript:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/2012-presidential-debate-president-obama-and-mitt-romneys-remarks-in-denver-on-oct-3-full-transcript/2012/10/03/62e8bb4c-0d93-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_story.html
But how people reacted is perhaps less critical than how the media will spin the result, because more people will read about the debate than will have watched it. Pundits began this process even before the opening salvo last night according to the ancient precept that battles are won or lost before they are fought. But sometimes battles are won after they are fought. For example, how will the candidates use the results of last night’s contest to their best advantage to shape voter’s perceptions, not only of the debate but of their overall position? Of more immediate concern is how the mainstream media used last night’s debate to shape the narrative: Romney won, they all seem to proclaim, whether they make that their headline or not. And whether it is intentional or not, the media perception seems to be that somehow, by being aggressive, Romney won. Rather than focusing on what was said, they focus on how it was said.
For example, CNN says that Mitt Romney won the debate. They say he’s the more “forceful” debater (he’s certainly the more energetic liar).
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/debate-5-things-learned/index.html
And then they say something curious:
“He aggressively criticized the president’s record while also outlining, however vaguely, his own ideas about taxes and the deficit.”
However vaguely…
Did vague suddenly become a positive attribute? I’ve never heard of vague being held up as a virtue in a debate. Forceful and vague? And this is good? And outlined. That’s been the problem all along. Romney and Ryan won’t do more than outline their plans. Ryan said he has no time for details. Romney just says he doesn’t care to give them. He said a debate isn’t the place for it but Obama had no plan providing the details for him. As Democratic strategist Paul Begala observed, Obama debated the Etch A Sketch man. It is sadly indicative of Republican politics these days that when the Romney campaign said they wanted to create “moments” in the debate, what they really meant was “lies.” Everyone knew the zingers were coming. It would be more helpful to the American people, if less helpful to Mitt Romney, if the mainstream media would focus a little more on substance and less on flash.
http://www.politicususa.com/romney-wondebate-spin-begins.html
October 4, 2012
- " What remains is one key question that the next 48 to 72 hours will answer: Did this debate change the minds of significant numbers of voters? Assuming that the flash polls are right—that most viewers thought Romney won the debate—did they regard that as a loss for “their” team, or did it persuade some of them to change their minds about whom they are supporting,
One of the enduring myths of campaign analysis is that you can actually count the number of “undecided” voters by asking voters if they are undecided or not. Sometimes, significant numbers of voters actually change their minds. That’s how Reagan turned a small lead into a landslide in 1980. It’s how Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and how Kerry got back into the race in 2004."
http://news.yahoo.com/after-the-debate-debacle-for-obama--we’ll-find-out-if-we-have-a-race.html
If Obama Retains A Small But Measurable Lead, It Means That The Election Is More Or Less Over
- " What remains is one key question that the next 48 to 72 hours will answer: Did this debate change the minds of significant numbers of voters? Assuming that the flash polls are right—that most viewers thought Romney won the debate—did they regard that as a loss for “their” team, or did it persuade some of them to change their minds about whom they are supporting,
One of the enduring myths of campaign analysis is that you can actually count the number of “undecided” voters by asking voters if they are undecided or not. Sometimes, significant numbers of voters actually change their minds. That’s how Reagan turned a small lead into a landslide in 1980. It’s how Gore won the popular vote in 2000, and how Kerry got back into the race in 2004."
If this debate—as one-sided as any I have ever seen—does not change the landscape, if Obama retains a small but measurable lead, it means that the election is more or less over (barring some overwhelmingly consequential event), that voters have decided they are going to stick with the President. That is thin gruel on which the Obama campaign must dine for the next few days; but after this debacle, it’s the only sustenance on the menu.
http://news.yahoo.com/after-the-debate-debacle-for-obama--we’ll-find-out-if-we-have-a-race.html
October 2, 2012
This is a song by Bill Collins of New Haven sung by protesters in front of the Linda McMahon for Senate Headquarters in North Haven, Connecticut. The protest is to speak out against Linda McMahon's plan to "sunset" Social Security.
LYIN' Linda McMahon
This is a song by Bill Collins of New Haven sung by protesters in front of the Linda McMahon for Senate Headquarters in North Haven, Connecticut. The protest is to speak out against Linda McMahon's plan to "sunset" Social Security.
October 1, 2012
This shill talking-camel needs to APOLOGIZE.
Think Progress busted Meet the Press host David Gregory today, as he “twice asserted that, in May, President Obama declared that “al Qaeda has been defeated.” But apparently, President Obama never said that. As Think Progress points out, Gregory used this false assertion as a premise for laying the Libya attacks on Obama, claiming Obama wasn’t paying attention.
Watch here via Think Progress:
Think Progress’ Judd Legum corrected the record, noting that in a televised address from Bagram Air Base on the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama specifically warned us that “difficult days” and “enormous sacrifices” yet to come.
Obama:
And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set — to defeat al Qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild — is now within our reach. Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/01/remarks-president-address-nation-afghanistan
The problems with this are manifold, not the least of which is Gregory’s failure to address his inaccuracy. Raw Story pointed out “Gregory did not reference the question on his Twitter account or his post-show recap on NBC News’ website.” There is also the issue of the desperate hypocrisy of the underlying argument from the President’s opponents in calling the attacks a terrorist attack. It should come as no surprise that just a few days ago, Paul Ryan was making this argument, saying that Obama’s foreign policy was “blowing up in our faces”. Juan Cole made a definitive argument against Paul Ryan’s attacks on Obama’s alleged foreign policy disasters being based on the violence against our consulates:
http://www.politicususa.com/meet-press-destroys-credibility-letting-david-gregory-misquote-obama.html
MEET THE PRESS Loses Credibility by Letting David Gregory MISQUOTE Obama
This shill talking-camel needs to APOLOGIZE.
Meet the Press should correct David Gregory on the record next Sunday. Otherwise, they risk their credibility, which is already skating on thin ice with Gregory having headlined for a major Republican advocacy group. NBC said Gregory wasn’t paid, but they failed to address the matter of his travel, accommodation, meals, swag, etc.
Think Progress busted Meet the Press host David Gregory today, as he “twice asserted that, in May, President Obama declared that “al Qaeda has been defeated.” But apparently, President Obama never said that. As Think Progress points out, Gregory used this false assertion as a premise for laying the Libya attacks on Obama, claiming Obama wasn’t paying attention.
Watch here via Think Progress:
Transcript from TP:
GREGORY: The President has said as recently as May of this year that al Qaeda has not had a chance to rebuild, that al Qaeda has been defeated. There is an election on, as we’ve been talking about, and the President’s challenger said plain and simple, the President failed to level with the American people and call this a terrorist attack, because you had to be concerned about another terrorist attack from al Qaeda in the Middle East after the President said that al Qaeda had been defeated.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/30/931421/nbcs-david-gregory-misquotes-obama-falsely-claims-president-said-al-qaeda-had-been-defeated/
GREGORY: The President has said as recently as May of this year that al Qaeda has not had a chance to rebuild, that al Qaeda has been defeated. There is an election on, as we’ve been talking about, and the President’s challenger said plain and simple, the President failed to level with the American people and call this a terrorist attack, because you had to be concerned about another terrorist attack from al Qaeda in the Middle East after the President said that al Qaeda had been defeated.
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/30/931421/nbcs-david-gregory-misquotes-obama-falsely-claims-president-said-al-qaeda-had-been-defeated/
Think Progress’ Judd Legum corrected the record, noting that in a televised address from Bagram Air Base on the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden, Obama specifically warned us that “difficult days” and “enormous sacrifices” yet to come.
Obama:
And one year ago, from a base here in Afghanistan, our troops launched the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. The goal that I set — to defeat al Qaeda and deny it a chance to rebuild — is now within our reach. Still, there will be difficult days ahead. The enormous sacrifices of our men and women are not over.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/05/01/remarks-president-address-nation-afghanistan
The problems with this are manifold, not the least of which is Gregory’s failure to address his inaccuracy. Raw Story pointed out “Gregory did not reference the question on his Twitter account or his post-show recap on NBC News’ website.” There is also the issue of the desperate hypocrisy of the underlying argument from the President’s opponents in calling the attacks a terrorist attack. It should come as no surprise that just a few days ago, Paul Ryan was making this argument, saying that Obama’s foreign policy was “blowing up in our faces”. Juan Cole made a definitive argument against Paul Ryan’s attacks on Obama’s alleged foreign policy disasters being based on the violence against our consulates:
By the way, does Ryan always consider attacks on US embassies a sign that an administration’s foreign policy is blowing up in our faces? For instance, if if the US embassy in Athens, Greece, was attacked in 2007,, would that have been an indictment of George W. Bush’s foreign policy? What about if the US embassy in Serbia was burned down early in 2008? If the US embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, were attacked in September 2008? If the US consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, was attacked in 2004? What if thousands of anti-American Iraqis were regularly demonstrating and even shelling the Green Zone in Baghdad where the US embassy is, in 2008? Did all that mean that Bush’s foreign policy, the most recent foreign policy outing of the Republican Party, blew up in our faces, according to Ryan?
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/is-paul-ryan-right-that-obamas-foreign-policy-is-blowing-up-in-our-faces.html
http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/is-paul-ryan-right-that-obamas-foreign-policy-is-blowing-up-in-our-faces.html
http://www.politicususa.com/meet-press-destroys-credibility-letting-david-gregory-misquote-obama.html
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
