XML FeedsHow Obama Can Win, Romney's Taxes Verified, J-J-Jobs
By Burr Deming on Aug 18, 2012 | In Welcome | 9 feedbacks »
The Heathen Republican applies his thoughtful electoral expertise to unexpectedly helping President Obama win big in November. It hinges on the convention speech. All the President needs to do is acknowledge that he has been a singularly bad President, but point out that there were a few good points, then promise to do better. Heathen generously presents this advice free of charge. It's a wise man who knows the value of his own product.
marindenver at Rumproast puts a CPA to work on what little tax information has been released by Mitt Romney. The CPA is ... well ... marindenver. I dunno. After all, the mystery is solved, right? If the Romney campaign will release 5 more years, Obama's campaign manager has offered to put in writing a pledge that the campaign will not criticize Romney for not putting out more. Romney responds that he has already enlisted an objective observer to verify that he paid everything with complete honesty. The independent observer is reputable and well known. Goes by "Mitt Romney." You can trust him. Would a man who pays all his taxes lie about paying all his taxes?
T. Paine, at Saving Common Sense, documents the economic crisis under President Obama with statistical analysis in chart form. His stats kind of leave out a couple of facts. The economy was not only shrinking when Obama took over, it was later discovered to have been shrinking almost three times as fast as originally thought. We were not heading for a cliff. We had already gone over. But T. Paine has lots and lots of data, so pay no attention to that little omission.
Chuck Thinks Right goes into a rant about Joe Biden. Chuck doesn't get around to saying why, except that ole Joe shore is stoopid. My guess is that it has to do with Biden's quite reasonable observation that taking the chains off financial predators would put the chains on consumers. Those who hunger and thirst after indignation have seized on the "chains" part of it as a racial attack. On the other hand, Chuck may be referring to something else. Hard to say for sure.
Max's Dad can't help but notice the massive set of contradictory values that represents a candidate for Vice President.
Manifesto Joe of Texas Blues dives deep into the philosophy of the object of Paul Ryan's infatuation, Ayn Rand and, when he comes up for air, is unimpressed.
Nancy Hanks at The Hankster goes mathematical. Registration is down. Independent voters are up. That adds up to ... lessee, carry the 4, ... okay, politically Independent Voters are extra quantum leap important this year.
After a colleague at Mediaite offered the silly suggestion that it was wrong for MSNBC to cover the continuing GOP campaign to outlaw voting rights for those whose proof of identity does not include photos, Tommy Christopher takes him on. The fellow's reasoning was that since most voters say yes when asked if ID should be required, it is wrong to offer opposing evidence. Tommy gently suggests that it is the very reason to keep covering the story. Fidelity to truth is closer to Tommy's idea of journalism than it is to his pandering buddy's notion. Perhaps those who don't have photo ID should be allowed to provide other valid proof?
One thing interesting to me is that Tommy just happened to draw a connection between earlier campaigns to prevent minorities from voting, specifically literacy tests, and the current effort to deny this basic right. It also happens to be a connection to which a friend recently refused to respond. When I asked him to provide some moral distinction between this season's denial of rights and literacy tests of the past, he refused to specify even one difference because ... well ... the two are different. Such is the logic of bartering away the rights of others.
Sexual assault is heinous. Sexual assault on a small child is unspeakable evil. At News Corpse, two incidents seem virtually identical. But they are treated by Fox News very differently. A racial component and a professional connection could have some remote, subtle, distant influence.
Jack Jodell, friend of the working blogger at THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST, goes time machine on us, channeling a wonderfully insightful speech of 54 years ago by broadcast journalist icon, Edward R. Murrow.
James Wigderson wonders if there is any possibility that a County official in Wisconsin might have been fired for political partisan reasons. I wonder if James is losing his journalistic skills. It took him three whole sentences to completely convince me.
Infidel 753 examines the rift between nice tolerant Christians and ugly hate filled Christians. He concludes that the haters have scripture on their side, while tolerant ones only have Jesus. I think Jesus pretty much summed up scriptural law, and Paul was quite specific. Most Christians would regard both as scripturally sound. One side seems to me to play a bit selectively, leaving the definitive summary out of consideration. I ask Infidel to reconsider his purchase of what literalists are selectively selling.
Ryan at Secular Ethics disposes of the occasionally heard argument that what science cannot explain is proof of God. As you might expect, Ryan does not fall into a straw man trap. Disproving a false argument offered to support a proposition does not disprove a proposition.
On the other hand, Gary William Green of Mad Mike's America really doesn't much care for religion. It is the enemy of science and so those who believe fear all things scientific. If we who worship are doomed to believe every episode of the Flintstones was a documentary, then he must be right.
PZ Myers, writing for Pharyngula, contemplates an unattractive characterization of bloggers as controversy trolls. PZ Myers discovers compelling alternate evidence.
Kent Pittman, writing from Open Salon exposes in memo form what is left of an organization most of us had never heard of plotting for ethics in the computer world.
I'm back to trying to forgive Vincent of A wayfarer's notes. He writes a review of a movie, then rejects it. Then he is inspired by the movie he reviewed to rewrite the review. But his review is a review of the process of re-writing a review. How can anyone be that good at anything?
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
9 comments
Do you deny that he has failed to lead and has lost the hope and change feeling he created in 2008?
Do you deny that a speech like I proposed would bring Independents back to his side?
I know you like to offer drive-by comments without backing them up, but why don't you try commenting on the substance of what I wrote?
I re-read your piece and I stand by my interpretation.
As to whether your implication was crazy, I would agree if we could substitute "humorous" for "crazy".
I should add that, as usual, your post was well written. But, then, that is what we have come to expect from The Heathen Republican.
As for Biden’s latest act of verbal stupidity, I assume you mean the “chains” comment. Why is that bad? Well aside from the race baiting from this post-racial administration, it is flat out false and disgusting. Can you imagine if ol’ crazy Joe had been a Republican and said such a thing? I think there would have been a whole lot more people all of a sudden thinking that the comment was “bad” then.
Lastly, Mr. Deming, I find myself in agreement with Heathen's analysis on his excellent Obama "speech" over yours, my friend.
“Despite your tongue in cheek comments, you are indeed correct that the facts do indeed speak for themselves. The fact that Obama is not behind in the polls by 40 points right now only proves that there are far too many Americans that are completely oblivious to facts and reality.”
That’s because they don’t have telling enough charts in front of them. You, and now, me, and Burr Deming, and the Heathen Republican all now know the facts. I suspect none of us will be voting for Obama any time soon.
“Well aside from the race baiting from this post-racial administration, it is flat out false and disgusting.”
Oh, I agree that it was in bad taste. He should have used a euphemism. On the other hand, just the other day, you implied that euphemisms muddy the waters so I really don’t know.
“Can you imagine if ol’ crazy Joe had been a Republican and said such a thing?”
Good exercise. Let me try.
Ooooommmmm.
The GOP would have pushed him out of the party like they do all conservatives who express a progressive thought.
“Lastly, Mr. Deming, I find myself in agreement with Heathen's analysis on his excellent Obama "speech" over yours, my friend.”
That statement is a little off-putting. Disagreeing is one thing, but saying, and “I agree with person X over you,” seems like you are not confident in your opinion and you are obsequiously agreeing with someone else in a desperate effort to add weight to it. Better to just give your opinion than to profess to being a wild dog joining the pack.
Hmm, now that I look back in time to a few minutes ago, my comment about your comment was also off-putting. Too late now. I am committed.
I re-read his piece and I stand by my interpretation.
What we can question is his tactfulness. I imagine that there would be some controversy if a Republican politician suggested that Democrat policies will put people--or specifically black people--back in chains. Both sides should be consistent: either it is acceptable to use slavery metaphors to make a political point or it is not.
Still, this is much ado about nothing.
Leave a comment
| « Introduction - The Lily of the Valley | The Romney Standard: He Can Stay Ahead of the Law » |
