Archive for Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Editorial: Decision time

October 24, 2012

Advertisement

The debates are over. Now voters must decide which man, President Barack Obama or former Gov. Mitt Romney, has the best vision, strength and ability to govern and pull this country out of its economic doldrums and generate enthusiasm and a positive attitude about this country’s opportunities.

Romney won the first debate by a wide margin and he has been able to maintain and possibly strengthen his position through the subsequent debates.

In all the debates, Romney represented himself as a creditable candidate, able to move into the White House, knowledgeable and up-to-date about both domestic and foreign affairs. The debates have provided him an opportunity to present himself in an unfiltered manner as a decent, compassionate and caring individual, not an out-of-date warmonger who has no empathy or appreciation for the importance and role of women in our society.

Following Monday’s debate, a senior GOP spokesperson described the events as “90 minutes of gold” for his party and Romney because the debates provided the opportunity for millions of voters to see what Romney is all about, not what the Obama ads have portrayed.

Debates two and three were much closer than the first. However, the momentum created in the first debate carried over into the subsequent encounters to give Romney a positive position going into the last two weeks of the grueling, rough, tremendously costly and often ugly campaign.

Obama enjoyed the advantage of three years as president, and the prestige and public exposure that accompanies this position. However, he was unable to take advantage of this and seldom gave viewers the confidence he is the clear-cut best possible individual to hold the reins of this country for another four years,

His record during the past three years has been bad, and try as they may, Democratic strategists have been unable to tie all of Obama’s failures to his predecessor, George W. Bush. They tried, but they didn’t gain any traction.

Republicans probably are disappointed their candidate did not come out Monday evening with a strong attack against Obama for the manner in which the president and his aides misled the public about what actually happened in the deadly attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

It appears that rather than take an aggressive stance during the third debate, Romney was determined to take the safe road, not be goaded into making serious mistakes, giving Obama an opportunity to score a decisive win. Romney played not to lose, instead of playing to win.

As it turned out, Obama failed to derail the Romney surge following the first debate and he was unable to present a powerful winning performance that would convince the public he deserved four more years. Totally justified or not, he has failed to measure up on many of his 2008 campaign promises, and this country has slipped into an even deeper hole of debt. Unemployment remains high and millions of Americans depend on the government for aid. There is an embarrassing lack of openness and commitment to work with Republicans on legislation and, in the last several weeks, the sad story of how Obama misled the public about the deadly attacks on the U.S. consulate.

The public has every reason to wonder, if their president finds it convenient to mislead, maybe even lie, about a matter so serious and open as the Benghazi affair, has he been honest with the public on many other matters?

Also, there is the lingering question of whether the president may try to come up with a major last-minute surprise or effort to change voters’ minds just before they go to the polls.

No matter how the debates colored the campaign, it’s not over until the last vote is cast on Nov. 6. It would be a mistake for Republicans to underestimate the lengths to which the president might go to pull off a last-minute, last-second victory.

Aside from a manufactured last-minute “hail Mary” effort by Obama, Romney has presented himself as a candidate very able and prepared to lead this country for the next four years.

Comments

Gandalf 2 years, 9 months ago

This teapub hack is right about one thing. President Obama's "failures" can also be blamed on the party of no, that has given congress a 12% approval rate.

Flap Doodle 2 years, 9 months ago

Don't the Democrats still have a majority in the Senate?

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Do you understand what filibusters are, and how they're used, in our government?

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 9 months ago

Now, now, you are going to be targeted for abuse by mentioning Romney's heros in this forum!
Kansas ls a ;lost cause, this state with it's rubes and hick hayseeds out west will fall unflinchingly for the facist line, such as the writer of this putrid editorial.

We can only hope that some bit of sanity will pervade other states where a mojority of the population will recognize the stench of facism and repression as demonstrated by Kobach, the national trumpet section for repression of non-acceptable voters.

Fortunately another republican terrorist senator has stepped on his appendage again in his crusade to get into our health care and beedrooms on the abortion issue. If more of these morons would speak out about their real agenda, we would not have to worry about jerks like romney, Ryan and Akin. But time will tell whether we remain a free people or a repressed nation.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Warrantless would refer properly to a government search.

The word you're looking for is "unwarranted".

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

I also wish enough people will say no to Mitt Romney.

lunacydetector 2 years, 9 months ago

when Romney wins, will the democrats be a party of "peace" ?

Kate Rogge 2 years, 9 months ago

When President Obama wins, will the Republicans split into traditional Republicans and radical Tea Party? I hope so.

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

Or will their heads just simply implode?

Keith 2 years, 9 months ago

"In all the debates, Romney represented himself as a creditable candidate, able to move into the White House, knowledgeable and up-to-date about both domestic and foreign affairs."

When your newspaper folds, you can always find work as a comedy writer.

repaste 2 years, 9 months ago

A good portion of that surge is manufactured, we heard the same in '08. "Buy this, everyone else is!" One of Karl Rove's ideas.

kernal 2 years, 9 months ago

Let us not forget that the writer of this editorial is a member of a family that is part of the 1%.

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

"Who is the writer?"

Good point. Apparently, he is so ashamed of his pandering that he refuses to put his name to the editorial.

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

kernal...

You are also likely part of the 1%, when you look at it from a global scale.

booyalab 2 years, 9 months ago

Yeah, let's not forget to hate people just because they are different from us. Sounds great.

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

I saw nothing about hate in that post.

Simply a reminder of who wrote the editorial, and why they might support a Romney/Ryan administration.

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

jafs...

So, if there is a pro-Obama piece, and someone claimed as/he must be a free-loader on foods stamps, you wouldn't have a problem with that either? A comment like that wouldn't be a way to divide people?

jafs 2 years, 9 months ago

Not a question of whether or not I have a problem with it.

I'm just pointing out the difference between the comment and the interpretation.

Also, I believe that it is a factual comment about the Simons' wealth, not a "claim".

It makes a lot of sense that somebody in a group that will benefit from a Romney presidency would support him, don't you think? And, it's clear from the few policy specifics that Romney has released that his presidency would in fact benefit those at the top.

Also, if you look at the editorial, you should notice that while he says Romney won the first debate (which most agree on), he fails to say that Obama won the next two (which most agree on as well), a clear example of his bias.

kernal 2 years, 9 months ago

hooybooy, there was no hate in my statement. My hate is reserved for the likes of Hitler, Idi Amin and others of their ilk. To indicate that Dolph is deserving of hate is just ridiculous.

Get a grip, man!

booyalab 2 years, 9 months ago

I would have said "heartily dislike" but I prefer brevity.

Mike Ford 2 years, 9 months ago

I early voted for Obama......some of you can vote for the person who is such an acting chameleon that he reminds you of the forgetful gipper....it really show how smart (laugh) you are.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 2 years, 9 months ago

What a surprise-- Dolph endorses a Republican. Who could have ever guessed it.

repaste 2 years, 9 months ago

Go back and scan a few LJW stories from about Oct 13 on. We have forgotten where we were.

booyalab 2 years, 9 months ago

It's not worth getting riled up over when Democrats do it.

Getaroom 2 years, 9 months ago

Romney trumps all other contracts known to humankind. His are with Corrupt Corporate America, "the pledged" of Congress, and the Oligarcs that he must fulfill if elected. And that he doesn't know his Middle East Geography worth a damn, or the Navy's strengths, or.............................................................! Obama 2012.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 9 months ago

I liked every part of you post, from the election analysis to your comments about hearing differing opinions.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 9 months ago

Hmmmm....The news of the day is that the housing market is recovering very well and indicating that the economic recovery is going well. Soo, how are the facists going to discredit this issue? What will rush limbaugh say, huhhhhhh?????

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

So is anybody waiting for Trump's October surprise, "really REALLY BIG NEWS" about Obama with bated breath? How much you want to bet it's the news that his father wasn't just black but black black blackity black? No matter. I can see the internet meme's coming from a mile away.

Getaroom 2 years, 9 months ago

and you derived all this from some Facebook postings, which are always true? NOT

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

I hate to throw cold water on your rabid attack over those e-mails, RC1977, but Condoleeza Rice would like a word with you. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/10/25/1089691/condi-rice-pours-cold-water-libya/

somedude20 2 years, 9 months ago

why don't you resurrect some proof of the "god' you state is real

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

And if Romney fails, will that prove that there is no god?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

You know, it's a sign of a psychological failing to live in a fantasy world.
The rest of "Amurrica" isn't Kansas.

Katara 2 years, 9 months ago

Lots of people don't like Greek yogurt. Big deal.

BigAl 2 years, 9 months ago

Since Gov Romney was a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam war, why is he now qualified to become Commander in Chief?

BigAl 2 years, 9 months ago

Nope. Clinton was against the war for political reasons. Romney was against the war because of his Mormon faith and his deep personal beliefs. Big difference. Now, since Romney himself won't have to go to a war anywhere, he can somehow put his "deep beliefs" and his religion aside. How convenient.

BigAl 2 years, 9 months ago

By the way Sage, you got Clinton in there but you somehow forgot to blame Hollywood and the press. You are slipping.

Daniel Dicks 2 years, 9 months ago

Didn't he have a Rhodes Scholarship too?

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

BigAl...

In this election are all liberals told to make-up lies about Romney, rather than give a reason to vote for Pres. Obama? If so, you are doing a great job.

Romney was not a Conscientious Objector during the Vietnam War. The LDS (Mormons) are not opposed to serving in war. Missionaries, however did receive deferments.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Ann Romney equated Mitt's missionary work in France to serving in Vietnam. Like going door to door in Paris was somehow equivalent to going in country in the Mekong Delta. One of the biggest defector factions in this election have been white middle aged men who followed McCain. Gee, I wonder why?

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

cait48...

Congratulations on being a typical liberal LJWorld poster and obfuscating to make Romney appear undesirable.

Ann Romney never said they were exactly the same. Ann Romney equated missionary work to serving one's country. Are you suggesting that sacrificing over two years of one's life in order to serve a greater cause is a bad thing? You are right, what sort of a Monster would do such a thing?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

"Are you suggesting that sacrificing over two years of one's life in order to serve a greater cause is a bad thing? "
As I am not a Mormon, Mitt's proselytization in a foreign country means about as much to me as what you had for dinner. It CERTAINLY doesn't mean as much to me as what the men of my generation went through at the time and the wounds, both mental and physical, that they suffered and still carry to this day.

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

cait48...

Are you now claiming that Ann Romney said Mitt Romney's missionary service should mean as much to cait48 as would military service in Vietnam? That is odd. I didnt' know she said that. I thought Ann was talking about the similarity of personal sacrifice and serving something greater than oneself. Apparently she was talking about what it means to you, cait48.

Do you hear other voices?

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

Gandalf...

Liberals seem to be great at making up facts, but horrible about giving reasons to support Pres Obama.

Romney received deferment but was eligible for the draft after 1970. Is anyone who doesn't enlist in the military during a time a war a coward? If so, wouldn't Obama also qualify?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Obama was all of 11 years old when the compulsory draft was a abolished. He still registered with Selective Service, along with a gazillion other young men. Don't compare apples to oranges.

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

cait48...

So, just to be clear - you don't define a "coward" as someone who doesn't serve in the military during a time of war (apples); you only define a "coward" as someone who was eligible for the draft after 1970, and receieved temporary deferments to get an education and serve his church and fellow man on a mission (oranges)?

I have to admit, that is an odd distinction you are drawing (although given the source...)

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

Reasons to support President Obama: He kept the nation from falling into another depression, which is exactly where we were headed. He ended the war in Iraq and has a timeline to get us out of Afghanistan. He killed Osama bin Laden and helped in the overthrow of Gadhafi. We have seen 20+ months of continuous job growth during his watch. We have seen double the number of illegal immigrants deported, with a concentration being on those who commit crimes other than just being here. He oversaw a plan to make sure nearly all Americans have access to affordable health care through health insurance coverage. He helped save the American auto industry...

Lots of reasons to support him.

Daniel Dicks 2 years, 9 months ago

With a wife and kids? No that elgible. Besides it was beginning to wind down from here.

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 9 months ago

Do you ever wonder why in every Presidential election we always spend too much time talking about the Mideast?

It happened again and this time it was related to the Republican strategy to create a "false controversy" in Libya in order to mislead voters.

Here is a little reminder of the history of the Iraq war and how it might have started with Dick Cheney. Go to the website link and study the history of Cheney and Halliburton.

1997 "Cheney contributes to the creation of an influential right-wing policy group called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The group advocates for the removal of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime as early as January 1998, and is later revealed to be the intellectual center of the drive to war in Iraq."

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/about_hal/chronology.html

Romney wants to send arms to rebels in Syria and jump in with both feet even though he has little sensitivity to complexities in the region. He is relying mostly on advisors from the Bush-Cheney administration.

There are many reports available on the close association between Romney and Cheney and it is certain that Cheney will have influence in the Romney administration. Romney's comment about Syria being Iraq's path to the sea underscores his ignorance and lack of interest in foreign affairs. He is planning to delegate this to former Bush-Cheney officials.

There are many plans underway by the right wing which they will implement after their election which will be disturbing to most Americans. That is why their strategy has been to avoid any details and to focus on attacking Obama and blaming him for the economy which was created by the failed policies of the previous administration.

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Even sadder that Halliburton was the one that sold Iran their nuclear centrifuges. Anything for a quick buck, huh?

jhawkinsf 2 years, 9 months ago

I'm still putting my money on Obama. Two months ago, I thought it would be a landslide, something like 54%-46%. Now I'm guessing at 52%-48%.

jonas_opines 2 years, 9 months ago

That's a poor bet, as even if you lose you'll just get a different name and be right back on here. As, likely, would anyone else who would offer or take that bet.

. . . and no, I'm not going to take your bet, either. I'm not seeing any certainty to predict a win for either, past empty bravado, and I see too little difference between the two candidates to care that much, past the personal preference of a gridlocked government.

jayhawklawrence 2 years, 9 months ago

Do you want to support a new gilded age for the global and super rich who do not care where their company acquires its labor or do you want to learn more about what is at stake for middle class americans if we simply let the wealthiest Americans determine domestic and international policy?

Look what is happening in Kansas. Your boss pays no taxes. You pay the taxes.

Your kids are going to schools that are struggling for teachers and funding and you cannot afford to send them to the expensive private schools. When the teachers ask for help they get blamed for being selfish, stupid and wasteful.

If we actually focused on the negative effects of right wing policies, we could talk for days and days and days. Instead, we get false controversies such as whether an isolated event in the Mideast was caused by a demonstration, terrorists, criminals, etc. Meanwhile, just as many people were killed in a shopping mall in Wisconsin just this week.

Why didn't we spend 2 weeks debating whether that was Obama's fault?

Fred Whitehead Jr. 2 years, 9 months ago

I think Obama will win easily. NOT in bleeding flyover Kansas of course, but you must look at reality, this state has an idiot for a governer, a slacker for a secretary of state and two senators who would be judged totrally imcompetant in anyone's workforce (except the Koch company)

Polls, [polls, polls are like posterior openings, everyone has one. Polls for Romney, polls for Obama, and polls for that hair dude in Texas, whatzisname......Oh! Perry!!!

When was the last time YOU were even asked for a poll question? Do you know anhyone who has been asked?? Probably not.

These "polls" are dreamed up to give the frenetic and blathering 24 hour news outlets something to chew on and expectorate an an hourly basis. Not much more.

As one wag once said, "There are lies, there are damned lies, and there are statistics" I would add polls to that statement.

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

Yeoman2...

I like it how when a liberal on LJWorld criticizes the Governor they tend to use derogatory phrases, like "idiot;" but when a conservative criticizes the POTUS, liberals will cry "racism," or "person X isn't being respectful to the office of the Presidency", or demand "civility."

Glad to see liberals keeping hypocrisy alive and well.

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

Sati, you appear to be the one bringing up racism.

However, when racist comments are leveled against the President, do you really believe they should be ignored? Is that what you are arguing for, or are you claiming that nobody has ever made "racially tinged" comments about Obama?

I will agree that civility toward the office of elected officials is in short supply coming from both sides. Remember, it isn't all people of any group who are to blame. After all, I don't see you too frequently criticizing the birther arguments by SaegonPage, but I wouldn't argue you agree with him just because you never criticize he representation of conservative views.

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

beatrice...

Yes, I did bring up racism claims...what is your point?


When did I say racist comments should be ignored? When did I say nobody has ever made "racially tinged" comments about Obama? What do your questions have to do with my claim of hypocrisy by many liberals?


"I will agree that civility toward the office of elected officials is in short supply coming from both sides." - beatrice

BINGO. You can't demand civility from one side, but then fail to do so yourself. Before 2008 I thought liberals didn't believe in civility to elected offices (see comments towards Bush), but then I realized many liberals only believe in civility when doesn't apply to them.


"I wouldn't argue you agree with him just because you never criticize he representation of conservative views." - beatrice

When did I say one must condemn every uncivil attack from every source, or be seen a supporting said uncivil attack? I said Yeoman2, and many liberals who demand civility when referring to Pres Obama, fail to do the same for the Kansas Governor. Hypocrisy.

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

I point out that you are the one to mention racism because it isn't coming from someone else based on generic or pointed criticism of Obama. Sometimes the criticism of Obama does cross a line -- Alex recently said he removed someone's comment for being "racially tinged" -- and in those cases it should be called for what it is. However, by calling those comments for being racist does not mean ALL comments against Obama are thus racist. It really needs to be a case by case issue. I find it odd to accuse others of calling conservatives racist for criticizing Obama when the context of any of those situations are not at hand.

I agree that many were completely foolish about the way they attacked Bush, which I stated frequently when he was in office. I criticized his policies, but I still called him President Bush, or W. because that is what he called himself. As you point out, conservatives hated the things said about Bush, but when they got the chance many turned around and did the exact same toward Obama. That is just a case of behaving like the thing they claim to hate. The hypocrisy is on both sides on this issue, no doubt.

On the last part, it was a poorly worded sentence on my part. I was attempting to say that I recognize that if you personally don't criticize ugly statements made by conservatives, that I still know you don't also share those statements. I don't always criticize stupid statements by liberals, but that doesn't mean I share their views. It was my way of saying that you and I have had enough exchanges for me to know that you are a conservative, but not a hater, as it were. Again, poorly worded on my part. Hope this makes a little better sense of where I was headed with that.

So let me say it as Mitt Romney stated it in the last debate -- "I agree." : )

Armstrong 2 years, 9 months ago

You need to get out of Larry more often. Barry is in deep doo doo - again

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

And you need to get out of Kansas more often. It's narrowing your world view.

Armstrong 2 years, 9 months ago

Barry is having a busy week. Domestically he is now in hot water with Ohio voters for screwing non-union workers out of pensions. Secondly i believe there was that foriegn debacle that just came to light today ? The bowl is starting to swirl Barry. Nov 7

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

Trumps big "announcement"? He's offering 5 million for Obama's college records and passport applications. Heck, Obama only makes 400k/year as prez. 5 million is more than what he would make for 8 years in the office. If I were him, I'd figure out a way to get those records to Trump through a third party, claim the reward and laugh all the way to the bank. What's he going to find? That once upon a time our president made a C in Trigonometry? HAHAHA!

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

"Islama"?

Why do so many conservatives resort to childish name calling?

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

Mine was a figure of speech -- conservatives' heads imploding is a way of saying they will be very, very upset. Calling President Obama a name like "Islama" is simply calling someone names and basing it on really ugly behavior from someone who is still claiming our President was not born in this country. If you feel that they are examples of the same behavior, I would strongly disagree.

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

rochchalk1977...

While I usually don't waste my time correcting every statement on the LJWorld, I agree with beatrice. As you can tell from my comments I am a Romney supporter, but I believe the POTUS (whoever s/he is) deserves our respect.

Furthermore, the name calling undermines your position. When you engage in name calling, most people will think you are not a rational adult, will think only non-rational adults oppose the POTUS, and will not pay attention to your arguments. If you want to influence others, draw attention to your arguments, not to yourself.

Flap Doodle 2 years, 9 months ago

What's Neil MacDonald saying? "...How, then, did he arrive at the place from which he debated Monday night in the third and last of this election's televised debates? Resorting to rehearsed zingers and smallish attacks, as the rather awkward fellow who couldn't even capture the Republican nomination four years ago sat, taciturn, across the desk, politely deflecting him? How to explain the undertone of desperation (go back and listen closely, it's there) from a man who was, just a month ago, the personification of cool, brainy confidence?..." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/10/23/f-rfa-macdonald-moderate-mitt.html

Janet Lowther 2 years, 9 months ago

I guess it's understandable that the Lawrence Daily Journal World endorsed the Romney/Ryan ticket, having been a Republican paper since the days when Republicans stood for freedom and fairness, over a century before they morphed into the mean-spirited entities they now are.

Romney "won" the first debate only 'cause no one called him on his um. . . untruths. It's a wonder his pants didn't catch fire!

Romney's performance in the second debate was much worse, mostly 'cause Obama & the moderator both called Romney on his. . . untruths.

The last debate showed Romney as a candidate without a clue with respect to foriegn policy.

A five word sumary of my oppinion of Romney is simple and succinct: Flipper Flopper tells a whoper.

Kate Rogge 2 years, 9 months ago

Good lord. Republicans kept saying their campaign was going to get ugly, but who would have believed this? You open your political tent to crazy, and you get crazytown on billboards and delivered to voters' mailboxes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/us/politics/strident-anti-obama-messages-flood-key-states.html?nl=us&emc=edit_cn_20121024&_r=0

Satirical 2 years, 9 months ago

sunflower-voter...

Perhaps they should have tried something more subtle, like running a commercial blaming Pres. Obama for a woman dying of cancer. Pres Obama and his Super-Pacs have spend way more money attacking Romeny than highlighting the President's record. (I wonder why).

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/white-house-wont-denounce-anti-romney-ad/1#.UIhlqcXA9To

Kate Rogge 2 years, 9 months ago

Calling the President's mother a whore is okay with you?

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

I have an idea! How about if Obama offers to release his school records if Mitt Romney releases his tax records? Fair trade?

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

I don't recall any president or presidential candidate to be asked to show his school records, but all presidential candidates of the modern era have provided several years worth of tax returns until Mitt Romney.

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

If that were true, then Mitt would have released his returns a long time ago, just as EVERY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE OF THE MODERN ERA HAS DONE PRIOR TO MITT ROMNEY.

In the eyes of many, including many undecided or independent voters, if Romney didn't have anything to hide he would have released his returns. Instead, he keeps them hidden, which may leave just enough suspicion about him among independent voters that Romney may lose the election over this single issue. Noboby but FoxNews conservatives who hate everything about Obama and would never vote for him no matter what care about seeing school transcripts. Can you recall what grade Bush Sr. got in Botany, or which semester McCain took Art History? Of course not, because the school transcripts of someone in their teens and early 20s means little about who the person is as an adult.

So keep bringing up school transcripts and tax returns. It doesn't help your cause.

Armstrong 2 years, 9 months ago

So let me guess bea, by Mitt making his private tax returns public that will be just what is needed for you to change your mind and vote for him. That's as far fetched as me voting for Barry because he made his college transcripts public. Keep dreaming

beatrice 2 years, 9 months ago

If Romney is so great, why isn't the state where he was governor supporting him?

kernal 2 years, 9 months ago

Ditto for the major newspaper in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Armstrong 2 years, 9 months ago

Libs seem to keep provinig that in your posts

Flap Doodle 2 years, 9 months ago

In other news: "THE CONSEQUENCES OF BENGHAZI POSTED BY BLACKFIVE • [OCTOBER 24, 2012] Without a doubt, there are more consequences than are listed here, and we certainly should understand why certain decisions were made to do nothing, to reduce security, and, for weeks, to blame the enchillada on radical youtube video... First of all, we lost four very good men during the attack. Men that are irreplacable. Second, we know now that the President, the VP and the SecDef knew what was happening within a relatively immediate timeframe. The way it should have worked was that the SecDef should have given the President options. Of course, one option is to do nothing. Apparently, even after knowing what was happening and having drone footage ~2 hours into the fight, the President decided on nothing. This is problematic if you work for State in the ME. You know now that the President won't help you in times of dire need. You will either stop taking any risks or you will decide to use more force than might be necessary. Either way, it's not good for our State people over there. The President made the decision to not use F18s (even in a flyover to shake the resolve of the terrorists). The President made the decision to go to Vegas to a campaign dinner. So what is worse than our State people now knowing that the President will do nothing if they are attacked? Al Qaeda knows that now, too." http://www.blackfive.net/main/2012/10/the-conseqeunces-of-benghazi.html

Cait McKnelly 2 years, 9 months ago

It's so fun to see a right wingnut frothing.

Armstrong 2 years, 9 months ago

It's due to the left constantly drooling

Commenting has been disabled for this item.