October 13-17, 2012
Oct 13 11:13 Journalistic malpractice, Part MCMXV Oct 15 02:52 Nolan's problems mount after KSTP debate Oct 16 03:17 Hillary takes responsibility for Benghazi assassinations Oct 16 04:17 DCCC to assist Graves Oct 16 07:19 PFAW fanning flames of hatred Oct 16 07:43 Perot endorses Romney Oct 16 19:49 Liveblogging the 2nd presidential debate Oct 17 04:10 Obama wins Pyrrhic debate victory
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Journalistic malpractice, Part MCMXV
During last night's Almanac Roundtable, former State Sen. Ellen Anderson said that the GOP legislature "is getting known as a do-nothing legislature." I expect that type of BS from blowhards like Sen. Anderson because the DFL's list of accomplishments is microscopic.
Unfortunately, that's only part of the story. Unfortunately, the other part of this story is that Cathy Wurzer and Eric Eskola sat there like potted plants while Sen. Anderson rattled off her DFL talking points. The sad part is that I don't expect much from Wurzer and Eskola because they haven't been interested in getting beneath the headlines for a decade.
A real journalist would've highlighted the fact that this GOP legislature passed the most extensive, pro-growth reform agenda in Minnesota history, then asked Ms. Anderson why people would think that the GOP legislature is a do-nothing legislature.
Conservatives understand that the potted plant media isn't interested, for the most part, in being informative and insightful. Conservatives understand that the best they can hope for is an investigative piece filled with gotcha journalism.
The other time that Wurzer and Eskola's silence was disturbing was when the subject of scandals was brought up. They didn't have the journalistic integrity to question why the DFL is sweeping the Gauthier child sex scandal under the rug .
The supposedly fair-minded journalists of TPTAlmanac talked up a storm about the Koch-Brodkorb scandal. They swept the fact that a minor had oral sex with Rep. Gauthier under the rug.
This begs a straightforward question: if Wurzer and Eskola accept DFL talking points like they were etched in stone tablets by God's finger and if they're silent while a sex predator preys on vulnerable victims, what's their value?
Perhaps the better question is whether they have journalistic value.
Tags: Ellen Anderson , Cathy Wurzer , Eric Eskola , Propagandists , Kerry Gauthier , Sex Scandal , DFL , Reforms , Pro-Growth Policies , Jobs , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, October 13, 2012 11:13 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 14-Oct-12 08:39 AM
Huh, a do nothing legislature that has rung up a $400 million dollar surplus. I guess I'd rather have a do nothing legislature than a tax and spend legislature that my former state senator is so used to.
What did you expect from these clowns in terms of reporting though? No one in this town except the bloggers will ask the hard questions or call them out. If you have ever seen the NFL commercial with Ray Lewis and the little girl asking him questions, I liken that to the media asking democrats questions as there is no substance to the questions asked and no substance to the answers either.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Oct-12 10:50 AM
Actually, it's projected that we'll enter the next biennium with $36,000,000,000, which is $2,000,000,000 more than what's scheduled to be spent this biennium.
To steal a phrase from Mitch Berg, if that's what a do-nothing legislature looks like, let's have them do less next time.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 14-Oct-12 12:15 PM
Chad:
It's better than that. We have put over a billion back into our raining day fund! As Gary pointed out because we didn't tax businesses and we made them think some good things might happen we're going to generate 2 billion more.
Just cusious isn't Dayton's badly needed tax increases (the ones that are supported by the DFL) suppose to raise something like $1.5 billion if they work?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 14-Oct-12 12:16 PM
Gary:
Just MCMXV for media malpratice. It seems like a whole lot more than that!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Oct-12 10:31 PM
I pretty much lost track after MCM.
Nolan's problems mount after KSTP debate
Rick Nolan's problems kept mounting during his debate with Chip Cravaack. Mr. Nolan was hit hard on 4 different exchanges, each leaving him vulnerable as the candidates make their closing arguments.
One vulnerability was exposed when Chip Cravaack talked about cutting tax rates for everyone, then eliminating or limiting deductions frequently used by higher income earners, noting that that would help small businesses.
Nolan immediately launched into an attack on how this was about Chip Cravaack was trying to "cut taxes for the super-wealthy." I'm betting that most small businesses, especially those that are just getting established, think of themselves as "the super-wealthy."
Another vulnerability for Nolan was exposed on the topic of Medicare. Nolan started with his saying that Medicare was good enough for his parents and it should be good enough for future generations. Chip Cravaack immediately pounced on that, saying that it isn't good enough for anyone because it's going broke within the next decade.
Nolan, sensing his vulnerability, responded by saying "We'll fix it. We'll fix it." It's amazing that Nolan went from "it was good enough for our parents" to "We'll fix it" in less than 2 minutes.
Another major Nolan vulnerability was exposed when the topic of trade came up. Specifically, he touted his experience as the president of the Minnesota World Trade Center. Cravaack immediately highlighted the fact that Rudy Perpich, the man who hired Nolan to be the president of the MnWTC, didn't attend the ribbon-cutting of the Minnesota WTC.
The WTC was originally funded by the state. The minute they stopped supporting it, it went bankrupt. That's the last type of leadership we need in DC.
The other vulnerability exposed during the debate was Nolan's insistence that the ACA was needed. That means Nolan supports hundreds of billions of dollars worth of middle class tax increases because the ACA is filled with middle class tax increases.
Tags: Rick Nolan , Mediscare , Tax Increases , ACA , Tax the Rich , DFL , Chip Cravaack , Tax Reform , Medicare Reform , Small Businesses , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Monday, October 15, 2012 2:52 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 15-Oct-12 04:41 PM
Gary:
Wow what a case of showing that Nolan is clueless and doesn't understand what is going on. Hopefully every single voter in the 8th district saw it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Herschel Lies at 21-Oct-12 09:12 AM
Jon Jr. is also a director at Huntsman since Feb. 1
Hillary takes responsibility for Benghazi assassinations
Monday night in Lima, Peru, Hillary 'manned up' and took responsibility for the Benghazi assassinations of the diplomats at the Benghazi Consulate :
Lima, Peru (CNN) -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday tried to douse a political firestorm over the deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya, saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts.
"I take responsibility," Clinton said during a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."
That's fine but it doesn't take President Obama off the hook. I've said for over a week that this wasn't just a single scandal. I said that it's really 3 scandals.
The first scandal is that the State Department pulled security teams for Libya at a time when Christopher Stevens was telling the State Department that terrorist threats were increasing. That's certainly within Hillary's realm of responsibility.
The next scandal is the White House, not the State Department, sent Susan Rice out to the talk shows to lie about the first scandal. That's the White House's responsibility because they're the people that grant permission for the interviews.
Tonight on Special Report, Brit Hume said quite correctly that Susan Rice didn't just recite the White House's chanting points. He said that Rice recited the White House's chanting points almost verbatim on each of the talk shows. That's proof, Hume said, that this was rehearsed, not something that she said spontaneously.
The third scandal is this administration relying on the media to ignore the scandals. This administration wouldn't have tried pulling off this scandal if they thought the media was going to take the investigation seriously.
Despite her taking responsibility for the Consulate scandal, Sens. John McCain, Kelly Ayotte and Lindsey Graham spoke forcefully against Clinton's statement:
Clinton's statement of responsibility was "a laudable gesture, especially when the White House is trying to avoid any responsibility whatsoever," the Arizona senator said in a joint broadside with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. However, they added, "The security of Americans serving our nation everywhere in the world is ultimately the job of the commander-in-chief. The buck stops there."
Again, Hillary is attempting to act like a team player. That's a noble gesture but it isn't a substitute for presidential leadership. Attempting to assist in a cover-up isn't leadership anyway.
This is just another futile attempt to take this disaster off the front page. It's a despicable attempt to look noble. It's a poor attempt to look noble.
Tags: Benghazi , Cover-up , Scandal , Hillary , President Obama , Terrorist Attack , AQIM , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:17 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 16-Oct-12 09:43 AM
Hillary sets herself up for 2016. If she 'takes responsibility', it means Zero isn't in charge.
If Zero fires Hillary or asks her to resign, he angers his base. If he keeps her in her post, he's seen as weak.
The Clintons don't pull punches when they play politics. And this is very much a political move.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 16-Oct-12 05:30 PM
Bob:
If Hillary didn't make that statement I would believe that. Unfortunately that's not true.
Her biggest claim will be that I have the foreign expertise to handle our affairs.
Sure!
* We pretended for weeks because of her (if her story is believed) that a video did it.
* Hillary has shown she can't guard one consulate so how can she guard the country?
* Hillary claims she's a forceful leader, but she won't confront Obama (unless she wants to claim after the election she did and try to throw Obama under the bus then)about the danger or reality in Libya.
Bob she's doing this because she is being a team player like she was to Bill in 1998 when she tried to pretend the attacks on Bill were a right wing conspiracy.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DCCC to assist Graves
Though recent polling shows Michele Bachmann with a solid lead, the DCCC has decided to assist Jim Graves :
Buoyed by internal polling that shows hotel magnate Jim Graves within striking distance of tea party favorite Michele Bachmann, House Democratic leaders are set to pump resources into the race to help the Democratic-Farmer-Labor candidate knock the three-term incumbent off her perch.
The DCCC's definition of "within striking distance" is interesting:
Israel cited internal poll numbers from Graves' campaign showing he trails Bachmann, a former presidential candidate, by just two percentage points. The poll also shows Bachmann with a 57 percent unfavorable rating and a 20-point swing against her among independent voters.
'Voters are experiencing buyer's remorse with Congresswoman Bachmann and her relentless desire to put ideology over solutions,' Israel said.
A KSTP-TV poll released Monday suggests Graves still has some ground to make up between now and Nov. 6. The poll conducted Oct. 9-11 of 598 likely voters shows Bachmann up 50 percent to 41 percent, with 9 percent undecided. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percent.
Graves has talked endlessly about being competitive. The KSTP-SurveyUSA poll shows what's reality. When Graves attended a fundraiser hosted by Barney Frank, he lost 2-4 points in the polling. That's because people know that Frank is the man who brought the housing market to its knees.
The KSTP-SurveyUSA poll is an extremely reliable poll. In 2010, their final polling showed Tim Walz with a 9 point lead and Jim Oberstar with a tiny 1 point lead. Walz won by 9 and Oberstar lost by 4,000 votes. In 2006, they predicted a 9 point victory for Rep. Bachmann. Michele won 50-41 against Patty Wetterling.
Let's dispel some myths about the internal polling. First off, the 57% disapproval rating for Michele is utter myth. Thanks to redistricting, the district is more conservative this time than 2010, when Michele won with 53% of the vote. Michele's supporters are just as committed today as they were in 2010.
For the 57% figure to be true, Michele's approval would have had to drop 10-12 points in 2 years. That's BS. The business community is just as solidly behind her this time as they were 2 years ago. She's still the TEA Party's darling. Those two groups comprised 90+ percent of Michele's support.
Second, independents aren't as big in the Sixth as in other districts. A 20-point swing of independents isn't as big a swing of actual votes as it would be in the Third, Seventh or Eighth.
Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, announced Monday the DCCC has elevated Graves' campaign to its 'Red-to-Blue' program, which targets the most highly competitive challenges to Republican-held seats.
That's pure spin from Rep. Israel. A 9-point Bachmann lead isn't competitive, especially when she's reached the magical 50% mark. In 2010, Michele campaigned hard in the district. This year, she's campaigning harder this time around.
Tags: Jim Graves , Steve Israel , DCCC , Red-to-Blue , DFL , Michele Bachmann , TEA Party , Business Community , MNGOP , KSTP-SurveyUSA Poll , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:17 AM
No comments.
PFAW fanning flames of hatred
People for the American Way, one of DC's most liberal special interest groups, is trying to kick Michele Bachmann off the House Intelligence Committee with trumped up charges. Here's what they're saying:
In an Oct. 3 paid message in The Nation magazine, People for the American Way said 'these fringe conspiracy theories and McCarthyite fear tactics have no place in Congress and especially have no place on the House Intelligence Committee.'
Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Lynn Westmoreland, Tom Feeney and Trent Franks asked the IGs of several cabinet departments to investigate whether the Muslim Brotherhood was gaining undue influence on US foreign policy. That's what PFAW characterizes as "fringe conspiracy theories and McCarthyite fear tactics."
PFAW is nothing more than another fringe lefty organization. They've got a patriotic-sounding name and a radical leftist agenda. PFAW's board of directors reads like a who's who of committed leftists. Alec Baldwin, Mary Frances Berry, Julian Bond and founder Norman Lear are the highest profile board members. This key paragraph from PFAW's statement on John Roberts' confirmation as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court speaks volumes:
We are disappointed with those Democrats and moderate Republicans who chose to support Judge Roberts, despite his long record of working to undermine rights and legal protections, his evasive answers to the Senate, and the Bush administration's continued refusal to release key documents that would have illuminated his record and approach to the Constitution.
That's BS. John Roberts was a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals for 2 years before his confirmation as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. It's impossible to accumulate a "long record of working to undermine rights."
Now PFAW is criticizing Michele Bachmann, arguing that she's using McCarthyite fear tactics.
"Rep. Bachmann's reckless behavior is an abuse of her sensitive position on the committee, a threat to our national security, and an discredit her office and to our great nation ....I think the time has come for her to be removed from Congress once and for all."
Graves' statement sounds awfully similar to PFAW's statement. That's proof he isn't the new Democrat he's said he is.
Tags: PFAW , Ralph Neas , Julian Bond , Mary Frances Berry , Alec Baldwin , Norman Lear , Jim Graves , Liberalism , Michele Bachmann , John Roberts , Conservatism , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:19 AM
No comments.
Perot endorses Romney
This morning, H. Ross Perot endorsed Mitt Romney :
Our country faces a momentous choice. The fact is the United States is on an unsustainable course. At stake is nothing less than our position in the world, our standard of living at home and our constitutional freedoms.
That is why I am endorsing Mitt Romney for president. We can't afford four more years in which debt mushrooms out of control, our government grows and our military is weakened.
This is a major endorsement for Mitt. There's no doubt that the Obama campaign will call H. Ross Perot a far right nutjob. That's silliness. In 1992, H. Ross Perot's run for president cost George H.W. Bush re-election. He ran on raising taxes. In fact, he applauded President Clinton for raising taxes as part of his deficit reduction plan.
That's hardly the resume of a far right nutjob.
It is for these reasons that I am endorsing Mitt Romney. He has spent most of his career in the private sector. He understands how jobs are created. He understands how government can get in the way of that process. As a president, he would do what this administration has been unable to do, which is reform our federal government, pare it back, and, most critically, keep it from acting as a brake on economic growth.
Deficit reduction will lead to a flourishing economy. That's what we need ASAP.
Tags: H. Ross Perot , Mitt Romney , Deficit Reduction , Endorsement , Jobs , Reforms , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:43 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 16-Oct-12 05:33 PM
Gary:
The simple way to explain the endorsement.
* The United States can't survive running trillion dollar a year deficits.
* Perrot acknowledges what millions of Americans know (even the ones voting for Obama) that only Romney - Ryan are serious about getting the deficit under control.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by eric z at 17-Oct-12 12:23 PM
Gary and Walter - How come every time there's an election words like "momentous" get dragged out of the cliche closet?
Walter - Yes, there are deficits; so tax the rich and make them pay a fair share. Romney-Ryan are serious, yes. Serious about screwing over folks like Eric and Walter, but at least Eric can see it coming.
Explain for me Walter, or Gary, why the Republicans did not say jack about any deficit while Bush was President. Go back. When Reagan was President. Then it's borrow and spend and appease every desire of the uber-rich. Remember Reagan had his two phase plan; cut taxes big time for the rich. Then come back and cut taxes for everyone else. But he came back and said, "We cannot now afford to do that." Say it ain't so, Joe. But it is.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Oct-12 02:30 PM
Eric, I wish you'd pay attention. Republicans complained about Bush's spending & deficits. It isn't our fault you didn't pay attention to what we said.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 17-Oct-12 06:41 PM
Eric:
Um it was Perrot who used the term "Momentous" not me or Gary.
Eric if you haven't heard even if you get the President's tax increase you will get enough money to operate the government for less than three months.
For the fairshare are you aware that richest 1% pay 39% of all income tax payments. That is up 2% since 2000 when Bush slashed their taxes to make them pay less than their fairshare according to you and President Obama. Um 39% for the top 1% seems more than their fairshare. The top 50% pay 97% of the income tax so the bottom 50% which Obama claims Romney is trying to screw is only paying 3%. It looks like they aren't paying a fairshare.
Today we aren't deciding if we're firing Bush since he is no longer President. Bush only let the deficit climb up despite the wars and the tax cuts to $250 billion (still bad). The last year before tarp is $400 billion.
So since Obama has refused to cut the deficit in half like he promised I'm voting to fire him.
Oh I forgot you voted for him. You voted to want trillion dollar deficits! You voted to give us real unemployment of 14%
So Eric you're in no position to lecture me, Gary, or anybody else.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Liveblogging the 2nd presidential debate
7:45 -- I'm watching the livestream from Heritage's website while liveblogging tonight's debate. When I can, I'll post tweets to the #Debate2012 hashtag.
7:57 -- Three minutes until debate start. NRO is reporting that Team Obama is already trying to win the post-debate spin.
8:01 -- Jeremy asks about finding employment after graduating.
8:02 -- Mitt Romney starts by explaining his position on education. Talks about getting the economy going, "not like the last 4 years."
8:07 -- President Obama "Jeremy, your future is bright." Seriously? Then talks about "betting on America" while highlighting Mitt's position on Detroit.
8:10 -- Mitt says that he talked about taking Detroit through bankruptcy. President Obama actually took Detroit through bankruptcy.
8:13 -- Obama asked about energy policy. Says that energy production is increasing under his administration. Talks about winning the future. Thus far, Factcheck will be working OT on Obama's answers.
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:25 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Oct-12 09:02 AM
Did not see it. Was it that short, or did you at the last interest say, "Not worth it to me"?
My guess would be you saw it through to the end, but the show gave two lite beer candidates - diluted, watered down, unappealing compared to custom designer blends.
I think the Biden-Ryan debate helped people see exactly who Ryan is, even though he was not vocal in his theocracy views. That "little bean" thing really was his high point, wasn't it.
Have to start calling the ticket vulture and little bean.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Oct-12 02:28 PM
Eric, I stopped liveblogging about 30 minutes in because I was having trouble with the livestream feed.
President Obama lost more credibility because his fictional stories about being pro-coal & his increasing oil drilling permits were proven false by factcheckers this morning.
President Obama also got drubbed when he challenged Gov. Romney about his tax reform, saying that the numbers didn't add up. Gov. Romney fired back, saying that it President Obama promised unemployment would be 5.4% at this time & that he'd cut the deficit in half.
Romney then informed him that unemployment was still almost 8% & that Obama had doubled the deficit.
Credibility isn't the president's long suit these days. More importantly, these aren't allegations; they're verified statistics from the BLS & Treasury Department.
Obama wins Pyrrhic debate victory
Last night, Mitt Romney and President Obama engaged in one of the most spirited debates in presidential history. According to CNN's snap poll, President Obama won the debate, though it's a Pyrrhic victory.
From the outset, it was apparent that President Obama was fighting against Gov. Romney's momentum. The first question was from a college student named Jeremy, who wanted to know if he'd have a job when he graduated. The first thing President Obama told Jeremy was that his "future is bright." After that, President Obama talked about the need for a good education, creating manufacturing jobs, getting energy costs under control and cutting the deficit.
Gov. Romney responded by highlighting the fact that "23 million people are struggling to find a job" before saying that the "president's policies have been exercised over the last four years and they haven't put Americans back to work." That was a recurring theme with Gov. Romney throughout the night.
Though he missed some opportunities, Gov. Romney hung President Obama's economy around President Obama's neck like a millstone.
Perhaps the oddest-sounding news was that CNN's snap poll showed 37% of viewers saying President Obama won the debate, 30% saying Gov. Romney winning the debate and 33% saying there wasn't a winner. That's odd-sounding because another CNN snap poll gave Gov. Romney a 31-point lead in handling the economy.
The debate quickly devolved, with President Obama making the outlandish claim that "Governor Romney doesn't have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That's been his philosophy in the private sector, that's been his philosophy as governor, that's been his philosophy as a presidential candidate."
The next question was about energy policy. President Obama talked about production levels. Gov. Romney highlighted the fact that oil production is up because of the Bakken oil field:
And the president's right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands, and in federal waters.
So where'd the increase come from? Well a lot of it came from the Bakken Range in North Dakota. What was his participation there? The administration brought a criminal action against the people drilling up there for oil, this massive new resource we have. And what was the cost? 20 or 25 birds were killed and brought out a migratory bird act to go after them on a criminal basis.
People don't believe President Obama wants a robust domestic fossil fuel energy plan because they've seen gas prices go from $1.84 a gallon to $3.81 a gallon.
Gov. Romney accused President Obama of cutting permitting for both offshore and onshore oil drilling. Though President Obama disputed that, FNC's Chris Wallace verified Gov. Romney's statements, saying that the Bush administration issued 995 offshore oil permits from 2006-2008 vs. "374 new well permits in the first 3 years of the Obama administration."
President Obama said "With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology, to make sure that even as we're producing more coal, we're producing it cleaner and smarter." President Obama simply isn't credible on coal production.
President Obama's EPA has put in place regulations that have caused almost 100 coal-fired power plants to either shut down or announce that they're shutting down. People remember that President Obama is the candidate that said his cap and trade plan would cause "electricity prices to necessarily skyrocket."
Gov. Romney clearly struck a nerve when he said that he'd just been to "a coal facility, where some 1,200 people lost their jobs." President Obama responded, saying "He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting.
So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess."
That's what petty, peevish men sounds like when they're getting their lunch handed to them.
Perhaps Gov. Romney's strongest moment came when President Obama said the math didn't add up on Gov. Romney's tax plan. That's when Gov. Romney said "When we're talking about math that doesn't add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, $5 trillion? That's math that doesn't add up. We have -- we have a president talking about someone's plan in a way that's completely foreign to what my real plan is."
Yes, snap polling shows President Obama winning but it'll be the Romney campaign who will cut ads of President Obama's biggest whoppers.
Tags: Debate , President Obama , Unemployment , Deficits , Gas Prices , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Tax Reform , Energy Independence , Jobs , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:10 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 17-Oct-12 08:56 AM
Any idea what the ratings were?
I managed to miss it. Went to the city council/HRA meeting in Ramsey instead. Watched those Republicans in their spending frenzy. Big time getting, or claiming closings were iminent, for a McDonalds and SuperAmerica gas station in their Town Center. If they'd only spend a bundle they could get this.
I think your party has some problems apart from Romney-Ryan vs. Obama-Biden. The Ramsey ones at least.
And Gary, this is not an attempt to hijack the thread.
Back to the opening sentence, ratings and who cares?
From the editor: I deleted this paragraph because it contained unsubstantiated allegations of a criminal activity. If you're going to accuse someone of committing a felony on this blog, it has to be based on more than chanting points or allegations.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 17-Oct-12 06:26 PM
Ratings slightly lower than the first debate. Generally accepted outcome was that Obama&Crowley eked out a victory overall, but Romney won the argument on the economy, on jobs, on guns, on health care, and on foreign policy, among others.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 17-Oct-12 06:46 PM
J:
I think if you watched the Luntz focus group on Fox Romney won a big victory!
The key thing is right now who are undecided voters?
Most of them are people who are deciding not to vote or to vote for Romney. Romney is making the sale to get their votes.
The big thing I hope is that when they show up especially in states with a senate they vote for the Republican in the senate race at the same time.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z at 18-Oct-12 09:23 AM
It is late in the process and the TV is awash with negative advertising. Clearly we are nearing election day.
I think debates mid-September might have mattered more and attracted more attention.
I still disbelieve people calling themselves undecided. My betting is some of taht is like I am an "independent" because I believe both major parties are debased and mirror images, at the control level, if not at the basically inconsequential but propagandisticly pliant and useful the Tea pot.
Which means I liked Wellstone, as a well intentioned moderate. Someone whose ideas can be built on in moving the nation leftward.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 18-Oct-12 04:24 PM
Eric:
Wow what universe have you been living in? Obama and the media declared the election over. Then the debates took place and all of sudden Obama's reelection changes have blown up faster then the Hindenburg.
The debates finally forced Obama to be answering questions which if we had a real media would've been asking for months and forcing Obama to answer.
Undecided voters are people right now people who voted for Obama who are positive they won't for him and aren't sure that Romney is okay, people who know we need a change but have falled for Obama's lie that Romney's policies won't work, and some people who have avoided television to see those negative adds. Bottom line most undecided voters are people who will vote for Romney or not at all. Not many for Obama to pick up to get up to 50%.
Wellstone was a liberal, but unlike Obama he was willing to say what he stood for and answer questions if the policies didn't work.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
