[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 48°F  
High: 60°F ~ Low: 36°F
Wednesday, Apr. 16, 2014

Willard Romney - Oppurtunist Politician

Posted Tuesday, September 25, 2012, at 11:20 AM

I have been watching the Romney campaign from the very beginning. Since he entered the race both sides have tried to label him. Right leaning Republicans believe him to be liberal. Left leaning Democrats believe him to be conservative. The correct answer, in my opinion, is that they are both right. He leans whatever direction he believes gives him the best chance to be elected President. He is, to put it simply, and opportunist.

During the 2004 campaign for the presidency Republicans labeled John Kerry a flip-flopper for his stance on the Iraqi War. He voted for the war but suddenly when it became time to run for President he decided that he was against the war. This was on one issue and the Republicans were able to turn the election on that one issue.

This cycle Democrats are attempting the same thing with Willard Romney but they are having issues. Romney has changed his mind on so many issues they can not seem to pick just one.

Take Obamacare for instance. In one day (right after the Democratic Convention he changed his position three different times. In an interview he noted that there were certain provisions in Obamacare that he would not overturn. By mid-day his base had let him know that they did not agree with that position and he suddenly reversed himself and announced that his job was to overturn all of Obamacare. Before the day was out, however, he was once again touting portions of the Health Care Law. Keep in mind that a large percentage of Obamacare is based of Romneycare, the Health Care Law enacted in Massachusetts by then Governor Romney.

Romney's taxes have been a constant story for almost this entire cycle. He broke protocol (and even his father's own actions) when he refused to release more than one year of taxes. There is no law, of course, about having to release any taxes to run for president, but every major candidate for president has released several dozen years worth of taxes. This probably would have run it's course but two things happened to keep the tax issue front and center. First it was revealed that the Romney camp requested and received ten years of tax returns from Paul Ryan who is running as his Vice-Presidential candidate. Secondly, when Romney finally released his taxes for last year they also released a "laundry list" of sorts of what his taxes reportedly looked like for the several years before hand which of course begged the question: If they could release an overview of those taxes why not just release them?

The answer is obviously because he was looking for something to district from his disastrous 47% comment. He was looking for an opportunity to look good and his campaign's answer was to release a year's worth of taxes.

While the attacks in Libya were happening, the Romney team saw a Tweet by American officials trying to quell the protests. Romney saw this as an opportunity to attack the President. His remarks were widely panned as opportunistic considering at the time of his remarks the protests were beginning to ramp up and by the end several US diplomats would be dead. What got a lot of people was his constant smirking during and after his remarks.

His own track record from the 90s as opposed to today is where one really sees the opportunism that is Willard Mitt Romney. As a the governor of liberal Massachusetts he was pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, pro-union and pro-universal healthcare.

Since he began running for president in this cycle he knew that he would not get far in the Republican Party if he blew off the Republican base. So he naturally became anti-choice in all cases including something called "legitimate rape", he suddenly viewed marriage as a union only meant for a man and a woman, he suddenly decided that unions were at the root of a lot of problems in the work force, he suddenly came to the conclusion as recently as yesterday that simply going to the ER was a good as any kind of health care (which is a reversal of a position he held just a few years ago).

In the end he is a career politician that saw success on the state level being an opportunist, whether he can parlay that into success at the national level by winning the presidency we will find out in November.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Michael, what would you call Barack "Hussein" Obama's pandering for the gay/lib vote? First he was against same-sex marriage, now he's for it.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 4:00 PM

Watch out for the one who uses people as 'Bumps in the road.'

-- Posted by Navyblue on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 4:41 PM

Obama was never against same-sex marriage. He favored civil unions over same-sex marriage once upon a time, but favoring one over the other does not mean you are against it.

It is interesting that I propose the reasons why Willard is an opportunist and your answer is to wrongly characterize Obama's stance on one issue as some kind of proof of something.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 5:03 PM

How can Willard "Mitt" Romney possibly even be a factor in this race? Why do his poll numbers go up with each supposed gaffe? If the poll numbers are to be trusted, why is the uber-liberal mainstream media still on a "destroy Mitt at all costs" mission? If the poll number are to even to be believed, why is PBO even bothering to campaign! He could actually be meeting with world leaders and help come up with a plan to combat muslin terrorism.

Instead they are campaigning like they sense deafeat. The numbers at unSkewedpolls.com seems to confirm those fears.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 5:20 PM

I didnt actually say "here's proof". I asked what you would call it.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 5:27 PM

Sorry Michael. Got ahead of myself; I see his position is "still evolving".

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Sep 25, 2012, at 5:29 PM

It is interesting how much Obama and Romney have in common actually. NPR cites political wonks as referring to the two as 'Obamney', or my personal favorite, 'Barack O'Romney'.

Here are more than a few similarities (adapted from NPR):

1) Neither O or R was in the armed forces. This will be the first time since 1944 neither candidate was in the service.

2) Both O and R had fathers born in other countries (Kenya and Mexico) and mothers born in the rural midwest (Kansas and Utah).

3) Both O and R have unordinary religious upbringings. O is the Christian son of a Muslim father. R is the Mormon son of a Mormon father.

4) Both men earned law degrees at Harvard.

5) Both politicians have been heavily funded by Goldman Sachs, Bloomberg reports.

6) Both served as advisers to their communities: O as a community organizer in Chicago; R as a Mormon bishop in the Boston area.

7) Each man lost his first federal election. R lost to incumbent Ted Kennedy in a 1994 Massachusetts senatorial contest; O lost to incumbent Bobby Rush in a 2000 Illinois House of Representatives election.

8) As Michael points out, both men have championed comprehensive health care initiatives. "Romneycare and Obamacare are essentially the same," Gingrich told ABC News.

9) Both are political pragmatists who are willing to say about anything to get themselves (re)elected.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Wed, Sep 26, 2012, at 12:26 AM

So CPB IF the numbers are skewed as you say they are (a typical Republican complaint when they are loosing but no issue when they are winning), does that now mean that Fox News can not be trusted? After all their numbers tend to fall in line with the rest of polls.

It's quite obvious that the offer of this website has not clue about what polling entails and I can predict that since this website only recently showed up that if Romney were still leading he wouldn't be making a big deal about "skewing" of the polls.

After all the same complaint was made in 2008 that the pollsters were giving Obama too much of a lead when in fact (in their minds) McCain held the lead.

People will always complain about how polls are skewed if their candidate is losing and they just can't accept it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Sep 27, 2012, at 8:35 PM

When one poll is consistently at odds with the rest of polling it is called an outlier. That is what Rasmussen is. It is interesting, though, CPB that you "found" this website almost immediately after it was touted on Fox News by two of the websites "favorite people".

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Sep 27, 2012, at 8:37 PM

If Gold has a down day today we will sell 1/4 of our position. There is a small probability that day 135 could be a high. The more likely scenario is 180 days and this rally will last until November but the 90 day to 135 day is a small probability. We have rallied 45 days.

The counter trend in the dollar index should be 7 to 11 days then a fast move down. Yesterday was day 7 of the rally. I am expecting a new low basis the monthly chart. I am getting short the open.

The falling dollar could ignite the S&P 500. That index is at an important juncture. Still expecting a more traditional topping pattern to occur. Will study stocks in the index this weekend.

Natural Gas has given many long term secular bull market indications. Have a 35% probability that Natural Gas could top $10 in 18 months.

Oil is becoming tricky. A greater probability we rally from here. Looking at high 90's for now. Still looking for the setup that launches the rally to $125 WTI. This market isn't for Rookies with the volatility. Natural Gas is a safer play with big upside.

If anyone cares. These markets have been very predictable with obvious outcomes.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Sep 28, 2012, at 5:40 AM

Strange, but I don't watch Fox News.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sat, Sep 29, 2012, at 3:30 AM

The way most polling is done is that the pollsters make calls to a selected group of say, 3500 people.If the people don't answer the phone they keep calling until they do. Rasmussen does not do it that way. If no one answers they just call someone else until they get the result they want. That's why MOST reputable media outlets won't use them.

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sat, Sep 29, 2012, at 9:37 PM

Willard's wife Ann had this to say about her hubby:

When asked what her biggest concern is if her husband should succeed, Ann Romney said, "You know, I think my biggest concern, obviously, would just be for his mental well-being."

She's worried about his "MENTAL WELL-BEING"???

If she's worried we should be terrified that corporate money want's his shaky,unbalanced finger on the button.How is this guy going to be when he's face to face with Putin or some other hard liner.Here's another quote from his wife:'We call the rope line now the advice line because everyone cares and everyone wants to help and everyone wants to just give their piece, a little piece of advice.

'So I feel like my best advice is just to bring peace and calm to him and just trust in him and just say, "I know you can do it", but not to give him any advice because it gets too overwhelming."

The rope line get's "too overwhelming"?? If Willard can't handle rope line pressure he has NO business whatsoever running for President.

These are quotes from HIS OWN WIFE!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Sat, Sep 29, 2012, at 10:02 PM

You know what's even weirder CPB? That is the same defense ALWAYS given when someone has taken something almost verbatim from Fox News, "I don't watch Fox News."

But okay.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 3:36 PM

Michael, you calling CPB a liar?

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 5:16 PM

Michael,

Just out of curiosity, which part of CPB's post was taken verbatim? I am just wondering if you might be having problems with latin....again.

-- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Sep 30, 2012, at 5:27 PM

Nope not calling him a liar at all. Just simply stating that the excuse of posting something on here the same day or shortly there after it appeared on Fox News by saying that the person has never watched Fox News or doesn't watch Fox News is an old one on this site.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 11:58 AM

Interesting. Last Tuesday you characterized one of my questions "as proof of something". I see your statement as the same thing; you imply that CPB is lying about watching Fox News. Thats what I love about you Michael; whine about the way someone posts something, then within the next two or three posts, turn around and, in my opinion, do the exact same thing.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 12:19 PM

Oh, well thank you for the love doodle.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 9:40 PM

I got it from PJ Media, September 23, article by Charlie Martin.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 10:35 PM

Willard Mitt Romney is a successful business man, and as such has the knowledge and skills to turn our economy back on.

Barack Hussein (don't use that name it's racist) Obama has spent his entire presidency damaging our economy.

It seems the choice is pretty clear.

-- Posted by MrsSmith on Tue, Oct 2, 2012, at 10:58 AM

If that were true, why did Romney run Massachusetts debt up to one of the highest in all 50 states?

Another way to look at it is, if Mittens can't run a state's budget, what makes you think he can run a country's?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 2, 2012, at 12:51 PM

What did Willard do to become so"successful"?

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Tue, Oct 2, 2012, at 6:59 PM

It's silly MrsSmith because the only people seemingly tied up in Obama's middle name are fully on the right.

Considering that the economy has improved under Obama I can hardly say that he has been damaging it. Another alternate reality vision I suppose.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Oct 3, 2012, at 10:53 AM

Obama was torched by Clinton in 2008 now torched by Romney. Will it matter? It didn't in 2008 but the caucus were a wildcard that Clinton wasn't prepared for.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 7:09 AM

Romney looked more prepared last night. It is of course easier to win a debate if you out and out lie. Biggest lie of the night? Romney denies his proposal of a $5 trillion tax cut with no details re: which loopholes he'd close. Unbelievable.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 12:30 PM

It's easier to prepare when you are an opportunist politician and change your stances at any given moment. His plan for health care sounded remarkably like Obamacare. He couldn't keep his numbers straight. They have already had to "adjust" some of what Romney said last night because it just flat out did not match up with anything he has said previously.

There were no winners in last nights debate, just four losers. It was tough to watch. Whether it was Obama attempting to stay on his script of talking about his plans while virtually ignoring every lie Romney spill, whether it was Romney who lied throughout the debate and actually at one point agreed with Obama on Medicare before he realized he was against what Obama was for, or whether it was Lehrer who as the debate moderator had no control of the debate.

The biggest loser, though, was Big Bird.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 9:20 PM

History has actually shown that the debates do not matter all the much. George HW Bush was seen as winning his debates with Clinton but lost. George W Bush was seen as losing almost all of his debates in 2000 and 2004 and yet he won.

I think the last debate is the most important because it will be the last one people see or hear about. By the time the final debate rolls around most will have forgotten last night's debate.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 9:23 PM

Michael,

My understanding is that if you look through history, it it true that some debates have mattered more than others. So I am not sure that the statement "debates do not matter much" is all that accurate.

I don't disagree with you regarding Romney's nebulous 'plans'. My inexpert opinion though was that in terms of style and delivery, Romney was (I think surprisingly) clearly superior to Obama last night. In terms of substance, Romney was fairly disingenuous about his support of the tax cuts he's been advocating for, but beyond that the two candidates seemed to overlap quite a lot.

There were philosophical differences to be sure, but I heard "the president and I agree" and "Governor Romney and I agree" an awful lot. Romney did a good job distancing himself from Obama with rhetoric, but I find it interesting that few are talking about how similar the candidates were last night in terms of substance.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Oct 4, 2012, at 10:40 PM

On another note, I did think that Obama left a lot of bullets in his gun. Granted most of Romney's embarrassing moments came in foreign policy areas (the Olympic flub, the Palestinian gaffe, the embassy embarrassment). However, this being a domestic debate, Obama could have hit Romney with the 47% comment. But curiously he didn't. Why?

Apparently the Romney camp has some insight because they have preempted the Obama 47% strike with an apology. Of course, this is a purely nonsense sentiment...but they are clearly still expecting an Obama attack, and they are trying to take the teeth out of a troublesome accusation by ole' Mitt.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201...

What this should tell you is that very little in national politics right now is an accident. Is Romney trying to head off a rope-a-dope? The next two debates will be very interesting now that finally Romney admits (dishonestly) that he was wrong.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 12:37 AM

The Gold trade is still on. $1801-$1821 are circled for now. Have taken some profits in this big move.

The dollar rallied for 11 days before it rolled over. The dollar index is setting up for a fast move down and a breakdown to a new low in this bear campaign. We are in a full short position.

The S&P 500 have given a small possibility of a top BUT stocks in the S&P do not confirm this topping pattern so still expecting this index to move higher.

Nat Gas has been a real winner. Up 30% in the last 3 weeks.

Oil has continued to be volatile as expected. Had a $3 down day followed by a $3 up day. This market is for pro's only and still confusing. As a producer I will hedge when I get a strong signal we are about to collapse or a high is made.

The Election is a month away. Job approval polls suggest the President has about a 35% chance of being re-elected. With real inflation at 8% (including food and energy) the only way the President can win is to have a near record turnout of registered Democrats vote. Historically when an incumbent has numbers at the current level voter apathy is 28%-33%. Unless that trend turns around Romney has a 65% chance of winning.

Wallis

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 5:55 AM

http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_21698...

Gasoline shortages in California as discussed in 2009 on one of Mikes blogs. Cars can't run on sunshine.

The market is so big in So Cal and the blending is so specific to that local market that there is zero room for a daily disruption to prevent a major shortage. We have that disruption and "normal" grades of gasoline don't meet the So Cal specs.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 6:08 AM

I have to make a correction, I wrongly stated that George HW won the debates against Clinton but lost the presidency. That was incorrect. He lost his debates to Dukakis but soundly defeated him in the election.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 11:11 AM

Benevolus, I agree completely with your statements. Obama left a lot to be desired. I heard it early (I was listening to the debate on the radio on the way home) and saw it. He honestly did not sound interested in debating with Romney only hitting him on key points (all of his plans to help the economy and cut the debt without actually offering any plans on how he will do it) and focusing on his policies. Obama came into this debate with a lot of ammo that he could have used against Romney and chose not to, and I really don't have an explanation as to why.

They did agree a lot in the debate, but it was mostly because Romney was changing a lot of his previously stated positions to seem more centrist (and opportunistic play).

I will say this, it has been interesting watching and listening to hard line conservatives applauding Romney's performance despite the fact that we was throwing many of their positions under the bus in the debate (that he has since walked back).

I do believe that by the end the only debate that will truly matter will be the last one.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 11:20 AM

Jobs report comes out today (a little too late to be helpful in the debate about the economy) and unemployment dropped rather sharply to 7.8%. This is the lowest it's been since 2009 when Obama was inaugurated.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news/eco...

And as the liberal hacks at Reuters and Fox Business point out, the housing sector (a good indicator of economic growth) has come back reasonably well in recent weeks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/1...

http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/10/...

This news may have been more helpful to Obama last month.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 12:27 PM

As always, the jobs number are released on a Friday. By Monday, after critical analysis is done, the revised number will go higher. If I'm wrong, I'll vote for Rosanne.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 4:20 PM

Anyone is a better vote than Mittens.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Oct 5, 2012, at 11:21 PM

Al Gore said the altitude effected Obama in the debate. Not surprised he did not blame Bush as well. It is incredible to me that anyone can say the economy is improving. I think all Obama lovers must have their head high on something.

-- Posted by Ed on Sat, Oct 6, 2012, at 4:09 AM

Yes, it is incredible that the commies and marxists at Fox business are reporting that the economy is improving.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Oct 6, 2012, at 5:14 AM

Benevolus, aren't you fearful that Michael will be calling you disrespective?

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Oct 6, 2012, at 9:47 AM

My apologies; I keep forgeetting that Michael has no problem with disrepect directed at conservatives.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Sat, Oct 6, 2012, at 11:26 AM

eds a conservative? I thought he was just a whacko

-- Posted by president obama on Sat, Oct 6, 2012, at 11:29 PM

Doodle,

I am not fearful because I wasn't being disrespectful (or disrespective). I was merely pointing out to Ed that it is not only "Obama lovers" that are pointing that the economy is, as a matter of absolute fact, continuing to improve. If Fox business points this out, even the most thick-headed Reps should be at least paying attention.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 1:13 AM

I was referring to "Mittens" and "Mitt the twit"; and still no response from Micheal.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 9:28 AM

Oh, no, I am not fearful of that...besides, ole' Mittens isn't concerned what folks like me think (or the working poor, the elderly, and returning Vets for that matter).

Only a terrible moron (or "twit") would insult 47% of the nation, a good portion of whom are his supporters, and expect to be president.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 11:18 AM

Ed, only in your alternate reality could increasing job numbers and decreasing unemployment actually point to a fact that the economy is not improving.

This is the first time in my memory that I have seen a group of people, the Republicans, actually get mad when good jobs numbers come out. It is absolutely mind boggling, that is the same group that for years called anyone that was against war anti-American and rooting for the other side and then turn around and literally boo when good jobs numbers come out.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 1:14 PM

Benevolus; I have no problem with your impression of Romney. I, and millions of other Americans, have the same opinion of Obummer. It's Michael's whining about conservative reactions to his blind allegience that is galling. His opinions are his opinions and there is nothing wrong with that either. Have the courtesy to allow others to have their opinions without calling them stupid; liars and whatever other adjectives he chooses to lable us with. And yes, you may call my rant tne same whining as Michael does.

And still no response from Michael.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 1:51 PM

Doodle,

Are you speaking of a different blog? I searched for the word "stupid" and it is only used once (prior to this post) by you. Also, the word "liar" is brought up three times (before now), twice by you and once by Michael. In the post where Michael uses the word liar, he responding to your question, denying that he was calling CPB a liar.

I won't call your "rant" anything...I just find it surprising that (1) you seem desirous of Michael's respect and (2) that you aren't equally galled the blind allegiances of those posters who share your political opinions.

Actually, now that I think about it, I guess I am not all that surprised by number two. But I think you might agree that as far blind allegiances go, Michael hasn't exactly cornered the market around here. I would submit that posters without blind allegiances are actually a rather rare species on the McCook Gazette.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 3:09 PM

Not on this blog Benevolus. Michael, and at times you, have been very free with the liar and stupid moniker. And you are correct about the blind allegiances. And I dont give a whit about Michaels respect; as I have stated before, I believe Michael defines liberalism the way Sam defines conservatism and that seems to upset Michael. I enjoy needling him about his hypocrisy when he so detests it in the rest of us.

And still no response from Michael.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 3:44 PM

Doodle,

What would you call someone who lies? Especially, someone who lies consistently?

Also, is it possible that opinions can be stupid? And if so, is there a difference between calling a person stupid, and calling an opinion stupid?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 5:43 PM

PS Doodle...

I think Michael would be justifiably upset if someone compared him to Sam. They both may represent folks far from the center, but that's about where the similarities end.

Michael's posts at least present coherent and measured arguments. Michael also replies to commentators in ways that are far and away more courteous than Sam. He seems genuinely interested in debate. Also, on several occasions I have seen Michael admit that he was mistaken. And I have disagreed with Michael quite a few times and never have I been called "capitalist pig" or "GOP sheep", etc. All it takes is one point of contention and Sam goes absolutely crazy with the insults then takes down his blog so nobody can be witness to his insanity.

Maybe your history with Michael is different than mine, but I really see very little to compare between him and Sam.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 5:57 PM

Benevolus,

Are you joking or is it just that your sample size is too small?

Maybe you don't realize that Michael has selectively removed several of his blogs as well and that this isn't even the original incarnation. I'm not sure if the Gazette originally took down his first blog or if he did it on his own.

For those of us who've been around longer the comparison between the two extremist bloggers is apt as I've pointed out several times over the years.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Oct 8, 2012, at 6:55 PM

SWNebr,

I am not joking. I didn't see any changes to this blog (but then again I don't watch-dog him like you do...you know for kicks), and I see very little to compare between Michael and Sam, other than they seem to both be far from the center.

Actually, Sam is insane. Michael will at least engage his readers with something resembling civility. This has been my experience anyway. I really haven't seen a ton of insults from Michael...not like Sam's, and none that are particularly mean-spirited like Sam's. If you have some evidence or excerpt to the contrary it would help your cause.

You can see the examples above regarding my interactions with Michael for an explanation of where I coming from. We have disagreed and he has been civil. Maybe its because I don't attack him "for fun" or "needle him" for kicks like you and Doodle do? Just sayin...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 12:05 AM

Michael-We will wait and see what the revised numbers are when they come out. And if you think adding 114,000 jobs is an improving economy go take a class in economics 101.

Amazing how many jabs you try to get in on Republicans in a paragraph going all the way from the economy to war.

Lastly, mad at jobs numbers?? You have a very distorted view of what the average Republican thinks.

-- Posted by Ed on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 12:45 AM

Benevolus, Michael has chided me and Mikel (and rightfully so) for being disrespectful; I have yet to see him do the same re disrespect directed at conservatives. Yes, we all do it. My impression is that Michael has no problem with disrespect as long as it is directed at the right (pun intended) group. When I see him chide you and the left wing respondents, I MAY change my mind. Until then, I maintain that Michael is no different than Sam.

And still no response from Michael.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 9:35 AM

Addendum Benevolus: I have gone back over two or three of your last posts. I will disagree that Michael is interested in debate. I have the impression that Michael is mainly interested in espousing his viewpoint (which is his perogative, since this is his blog), but I get no impression that he is interested in a different viewpoint. And yes, Michael has admitted mistakes. Haven't all of us?

And still no response from Michael.

-- Posted by doodle bug on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 10:55 AM

Doodle,

I personally have seen nothing from Michael to support your (or SW's ) claims, but I am not saying that Michael hasn't been excessively rude or obtuse in the past. He just hasn't been since I have been posting.

Also, my argument is one of degree. I am saying that relative Sam, Michael is an open-minded and measured intellectual. That is not to say that he is those things per se, simply that Sam is coo-coo for coco puffs.

"And yes, Michael has admitted mistakes. Haven't all of us?"

All of us but Sam.

I am happy to agree to disagree on this. Debating Michael's open-mindedness is not exactly why I spend time reading and commenting here.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 12:32 PM

Benevolus,

Since you admit to not joking, I am forced to conclude that you simply don't know what you are talking about in regard to Michael's history. As you say you haven't seen it. The real question is whether just because you haven't seen it does it mean it doesn't exist (The Santa Clause argument).

Would you please show me in recent blogs where Sam has issued particularly mean-spirited insults?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 1:21 PM

"Debating Michael's open-mindedness is not exactly why I spend time reading and commenting here."

This is probably a good thing, I imagine you would find it a losing proposition.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 2:06 PM

You can conclude whatever you like, SW. I haven't seen anything from Michael like the hostility that came from Sam on his recently removed blogs.

This is something funny you might not know about yourself: you have lots to say about personalities, and use of language, and rudeness, but you actually post very little in the way of substance related to the political topics of these blogs. You tried to on the Columbus blog, but when I presented you with a set of contradicting information, instead of debating, you took your ball and ran home. This is in keeping I suppose with your self-stated purpose for posting: i.e., to childishly prod Michael.

You don't have any better ideas to present, so being a child is what you are forced to resort to, is that right?

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 2:20 PM

Benevolus,

I think the problem is I'm too subtle for you at times, for that I apologize, I should just rail away like others. I try to get people to think and analyze thier own statments and positions.

You apparently either don't recognize or refuse to allow the possibility that Michael has later self (or perhaps the paper did it for him) censored his blogs and has removed blogs where he's gone as batty as Sam. You speak of childishness yet are blind to things that aren't directly in front of you (rather like a child I think).

In your defense of Michael and castigation of Sam you have missed what Doodle and I learned long ago, they are the opposite sides of the same coin. Look at Michael's responses to serious questions or rational comment for debate with people who disagree, you'll find them lacking. He gave up responding to people who actuall make a legitimate argument long ago. He only responded to me when I make a facially outrageous comment clearly intended to not be taken seriously and in doing so he insults me, I have asked him serious questions and get ignored that is why I've decided he doesn't want to debate. Maybe he wants to debate you because you are only arguing fine points of the same side rather than contrary views. I don't know.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 2:35 PM

SWNebr,

Talk about ignoring what is right in front of you...

"Maybe he wants to debate you because you are only arguing fine points of the same side rather than contrary views."

In a recent debate Michael and I took opposite positions on whether Obama had fulfilled his promises or not. I maintained that he has not, while Michael maintained that he has.

These are polar opposite positions, not "fine points of the the same side".

In the past, I have debated Michael with regard to my advocacy for some of Ron Paul's ideas and his for Obama. Again, these are not fine points. My political affiliations are different from Michael's as yours are.

The difference is that I don't get pleasure from (am not obsessed with?) teasing Michael.

In any event, I will not comment further on this discussion. If you have anything of substance to add I will be happy to "think and analyze" your statements and mine.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 3:50 PM

Benevolus,

I vaguely recall you disagreeing about the president's promises. How did that debate between you two work out? I'm afraid I don't remember.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Oct 9, 2012, at 4:31 PM

Wallis,

"...Job approval polls suggest the President has about a 35% chance of being re-elected."

Obama is sitting at 53% approval according to Gallup. This is the same as Bush's in 2004.

http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx

There is a statistical tie in almost every major poll.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...

Walk us through your math please.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Oct 11, 2012, at 6:48 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

Elections Matter
(13 ~ 3:31 PM, Dec 22)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)

Keep Them Close
(6 ~ 1:08 PM, Oct 17)

I .... Disagree
(10 ~ 11:33 PM, Sep 30)