This joke of a story made the front page (click image for pop-up view):
It's called rhetoric. It's the continuous broadcasting of an idea to sway an opinion. I harp on this constantly. If CNN constantly displays negative Romney headlines and articles, without even reading the articles, the population's opinion will slowly change. I don't doubt this is happening. Whether it's an "opinion" piece, a headline, or a not-so-outward title like the image above, CNN is laying on the negative themes on pretty thick. It doesn't have to explicitly say "Mitt Romney is bad," but the negative association is there. From headlines like "Mitt's Texas-Sized Problem" to "Why Romney Can't Get the Latino Vote," it seems CNN is falling to the way of MSNBC. Again, if I have time, I will start a count.
What do you think? Have you noticed this? Or am I way off base? It's not a scientific analysis; just my opinion. I'd love to hear some opinions on this.
It is this kind of work that gets CNN to 10 and 15 year milestones in their ratings. Of course those milestones are their lowest ratings in a decade and a half.
ReplyDeleteJust be glad that Gloria Borger didn't write the article. She would have some how worked 0bama into the story as "the adult in the room". I don't think she can write an article without referring to Republicans as children and of course the Democrats as the adults.
I am just curious though, did Romney write a book and then have his publisher advertise him as a Unicorn for 17 years? You know, like 0bama's publisher published for at least 17 years that he was born in Kenya and raised in the US and Indodesia.
Maybe if 0bama wasn't a pathological liar some of these issues may not exist for him.
Is this another birther blog? I don't even recognize the GOP anymore, so sad.
DeleteNo - where do you see any hint of "birther" anything?
Delete"You know, like 0bama's publisher published for at least 17 years that he was born in Kenya and raised in the US and Indodesia."
DeleteYou do know how to read, right? I keep taking these things for granted.
The story about the unicorn is a tongue in cheek retort against AZ's Attorney General, who on just 1200 emails, prompted him into yet another pointless birther issue. The AG was threating to leave Obama off the AZ ballot unless he got a valid birth certificate. AZ also had a county sheriff send his own people to Hawaii to investigate. The AG has since said "that he is satisfied with the investigation. The point of the unicorn joke was that the AG is swayed into action by a relatively small(1,200) emails. The liberal website countered by saying they could get alot more emails (14,500) to investigate if Romney was a unicorn. It was a slam on AZ that was meant as a joke.
DeleteThis blog is full of stupid. Please stop spamming your link all over the interwebs. Not a single fuck is given about what you think. Good day!
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of "adults in the room"...........LOL
DeleteI don't know though, maybe Anonymous is the a dolt in the room.
32slim32 - Good morning, sir! I hope all is well with you.
DeleteYeah, Slim, I have little tolerance for this kind of thing. I don't want to label this junk as "left," but it's hard not to. We exist to skirt the attacks, name calling, vitriol, etc (and yes, I see more of it on the left than the right), but, of course, people will be dumb as always. Of course, I'd rather see people engage civilly, using facts and intelligence-based arguments, but people like the Anonymous poster above don't really paint a good picture for "his/her" side. I don't even understand the purpose. Oh well. If this was a debate and points were awarded, I think the Anonymous poster would be automatically disqualified. It's not my worry, though. It makes him/her look really, really ignorant.
The GOP is a dying party, quite literally. Your voting base is old, white people. Bad news, they are getting older and dying in huge numbers. In 15-20 years, a lot of them will be gone. Who will replace them? The young and more importantly, the minorities. 50% of all US births are now non-white babies. In 2008, 9/10 of blacks voted for Obama and 2/3 of hispanics voted for Obama. I realize math is not the GOP's strength, but it should be painfully obvious that the GOP is entering a political ICE AGE in which there will be catastrophic losses at all levels of government in the next 15-20 years. It isn't hard to imagine a future in which there is never again another GOP president, it is simple math. Well, simple for democrats at least.
ReplyDeleteAnd Social Conservatives, I’ve got bad news for you too. Gay people will eventually have equal rights in every state (the South will be the final holdouts, just like during civil rights, you just can't fix stupid). Women will always have the right to make their own medical decisions (you lose, Susan G. Komen). Science is real and vital to our future (so long bible-thumping Creationists). And Church and State will always be separate (thank the fucking lord!).
Yawn... is this all the left has? Attacks? "I realize math is not the GOP's strength?" Based on? Keep ranting and spouting factless claims... your ignorance is showing.
DeleteIt's obvious math is not the GOP's strength or else they would be doing more to include blacks, hispanics, gays, and women into their party. When your main voting block is old white people who will soon be dead, and more than 50% of all babies born in the US are non-white, you don't need a PhD in mathematics to crunch the numbers. Can you imagine a blue Texas? It's easy if you try. Of course, I don't expect somebody who supports Santorum to have the capacity to think critically about these big picture issues, just keep your head in the bible. Fairy tales are your friend, everything will be ok. And enjoy your political ice age! I am the future and I'm laughing at you.
DeleteAgain, thank you for proving me right. Facts always win. You know, if you took a fact-based approach to an argument, you might sound intelligent.
DeleteThe fact is, Texas has, throughout history, been a blue state: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Texas
Governors... hmmmmm
And look at how TX has voted in each presidential election... more blue than red: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_maps
Facts don't lie. They just make people without facts look really, really dumb.
The conclusion: TX is recently red. That establishes a trend from blue to red. Thanks for showing you have no clue what you're talking about, and thank you for showing that any further argument you try to present will be worthless, too.
Did I say Texas has always been red? Nope. Did you address the heart of my point that the GOP is entering an ice age because their policies fly in the face of minorities, women, and gays? Nope.
DeleteYou need to work on your reading skills. Spend a little time on your critical thinking too. Then come back to me and tell me how the GOP can solve this party-killing problem.
I never said that you said Texas has always been red. Maybe you should work on your reading skills. You claimed Texas has the potential to be blue based on some goofy interpretation of minority - democrat birth rates. "Can you imagine a blue Texas."
DeleteI simply countered that Texas was blue, and is now red, which shows a trend, and, like a good conservative, I use facts to draw the conclusion that the TREND is that Texas went from blue to red, meaning it is a far cry from being blue.
Facts win, your ignorance loses.
Hey VoteRobot.......but the left keeps aborting their future voters so it should all work out. Blacks and Hispanics while only 24% of the population account for nearly 2/3rds of all abortions.
ReplyDeleteI love abortions, I wish they were free for everybody! Hopefully someday they will be, until then, you keep clinging to that hilarious abstinence-only policy.
DeleteI think they are great too Anonymous. They are free if you have a long enough coat hanger.
DeleteAs far as an abstinence only policy, I don't think I ever promoted that but since you bring it up; how many people can you name that didn't have sex that got pregnant or got an STD?
We all wish your mother would have made a different choice on you. She probably does too.
32slim32. I'm a doctor. My mother is quite proud. Who the fuck are you?
DeleteWell gee Doc, why don't you just give abortions for free since you want them to be free. Or, do you want the taxpayers to pay you for your time and effort.
DeleteDo you kiss your mother with that potty mouth Doogie Howser?
He is not a doctor. No doctors are this unprofessional. No doctors make empty statements without facts behind it. Please ignore the troll.
DeleteDid I say I was the kind of doctor that performs abortions? Also, I don't participate with any insurance plans. Private, medicaid, medicare, you name it, I don't accept it. Tax payers don't pay me shit. Everybody who sees me (and there is a very long waiting list) pays out of pocket or out of network. I make a killing and pay more in taxes than you earn in a year. And I don't mind one bit. Watch me laugh all the way to the bank.
DeleteOh yeah, by the way Doc, you didn't answer my question. This is even better now knowing you are a doctor and all. In your years of medical experience how many pregnant women or women with STD's have you treated because they DIDN'T have sex?
DeleteIt's funny how any two-bit troll can come on here and anonymously claim anything. Hey Doc, did you know I'm an astronaut?
DeleteUnless you have proof, you're nothing. Got a link to your website, practice, etc? I doubt it
Hey MN 4 Rick. How are you today?
DeleteI know Doogie Howser ain't no stinking doctor. He's a lying left wing loon living with his mommy.
Hey wait, I know. We could ask ole Doogie some questions and he can cut and paste the answers from WebMD.com to prove to us he is a doctor. LOL
Why would I tell you who I am? Are all folk in MN this stupid or just you?
DeleteSlim, doing well. Just stepping away from work to my favorite blog. It's now doing double duty for me. It's serving as a source for laughs. We have fools like Robot and this anonymous guy who says he is a doctor. I nearly fell out of my chair.
DeleteHow are you today?
And thank you for letting the truth be known that you're not a doctor. You should have just said it from the start.
DeleteIf you're a doctor, I'm an astronaut. There, I'm playing along in your weed-induced liberal fantasy world.
Gee Doc, your story seems a bit strange. There are "doctors" around here who only accept cash. They call them pain management clinics. Yes they have a long waiting list of people wanting to get their pain killers. The police are always shutting them down.
DeleteIs that what you are Doogie; a glorified drug dealer?
Hey DOC.....please do tell, how many women with STD's and pregnant women practicing abstinence have you treated in your long and illustrious (I'm sure) career?
ReplyDeleteSlim and MN 4 Rick - I'm a little disappointed in you. Why are you both feeding the troll. I mean, hell, if RKen came in, he has good stuff to say (without the attacks and violence) even if I disagree.
ReplyDeleteWhat you SHOULD be focusing on is this: http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/31/news/economy/jobs-unemployment-benefits/index.htm?iid=Lead
It's all that really matters. Checkmate Obama
Romney 2012
Good morning Texas Tea. I agree we shouldn't be feeding the troll. But, when he claimed he was a doctor that made it fun.
DeleteCut us some slack Texas Tea. Playing with the trolls is fun for a few minutes.
I'll check out your link Texas Tea.
Texas, what was Romney 2012's solution to this problem?
DeleteMore of what got us into the problem?
Tax cuts (worked so well for bush)
Deregulation (worked so well for wall street)
Smaller government (i heard that line from bush and it never happen)
Id love to hear what new ideas he has, the old stuff ill pass on , I've seen how well that worked.
on a side note
(i do agree with you though dont feed the trolls , they love that stuff)
Well, Loyal. I have to disagree with you on most of this.
Delete1. Have you read Romney's economic plan. I have. It's at his website. You shouldn't talk until you get facts.
2. Tax cuts did work. They worked under Clinton (1998), and when GWB enacted them - See the post on this blog about the unemployment rate in the 4 years following the Bush tax cuts. If they didn't, why would we ever cut taxes? And please explain to me how taking MORE money out of people's pockets would somehow help the economy.
3. Deregulation would absolutely help. Explain to me how MORE government control and MORE government power would help anything.
4. Same as 3. Explain to me how MORE government control and MORE government power would help anything.
You should learn something. For a small-government supporter (you claim to support Ron Paul), you really don't know anything about how this stuff works.
And yes, stop feeding the trolls.
Texas Tea, were you awake during the financial crisis? That was caused by a bubble that was caused by deregulation.
DeleteI support the right type of small government,
DeleteI just commented on the "will GOP unite" post about this topic
http://loudmouthelephant.blogspot.com/2012/05/will-gop-unite-please.html
I spoke about how bush (with the help of both parties) increased the size of government
and about how both previous republican presidents increased taxes
Obama has already done HUGE amounts of tax cuts
(the "stimulouse" included huge tax cuts)
http://projects.nytimes.com/44th_president/stimulus
you said "Deregulation would absolutely help. Explain to me how MORE government control and MORE government power would help anything. "
I never claimed MORE government power would help. If you are implying that we should not have any regulations I would hate to live in your ideal world.
Regulation is needed to prevent everything from abuse of financial companies to protecting american's from foreign companies dangerous goods.
So yes regulation is needed, Is every type of regulation needed no. But yes some is. Otherwise our kids would still be playing with led filled toys and insider trading would be even more dramatic of an issue.
Romney sounds just like bush to me, and bush was nothing like what the "republican" party stands for (at least what they say they stand for)
Why should i believe Romney after his constant flip flops on MAJOR issues
(see links on previous article post)
He is another weasel, just like obama is.
but ill stick with the weasel that supports social welfare over the weasel that supports corporate welfare
(http://realrepubs.com/content/all-signs-point-yes-romney-supports-tax-giveaways-oil-companies)
Hiya and good day,
DeleteI suppose this is where I want to chime in on all of this, in regards to bullets TexasTea addressed.
***********************************
1. I've read details of Romney's economic plan, but unfortunately it's not much different from earlier versions of Obama's in that it merely lists a whole bunch of ambiguous actions and goals without detailing the real meat of how exactly it will be accomplished. This is actually my main problem with Romney in particular right now; as I've seen more specifics on what Obama wishes to do and how than I have seen from Romney (which, to be fair, is expected as the current POTUS).
Here is Romney's for reference:
http://www.mittromney.com/jobs
My point is that it's one thing to say 'I will drastically cut spending/debt AND taxes', which sure, that sounds great! But it's another thing to point out how exactly you plan to do this, and we’re at the point now where we should have more details and less of the ambiguous statements to rally around.
The fact of the matter is that by promising to both cut spending/deficits along with taxes, the amount of spending that will need to be cut is incredibly substantial (because by cutting taxes at the same time, to ensure we don't magnify our already excessive deficits/debt we will have to have major spending cuts to counter it in addition to the already large amounts to rein in our deficit).
So, where exactly are we going to cut this hypothetical, potential $1-2 TRILLION a year in spending to match the framework of this bold of an economic plan? You can't save that kind of money from regulating food stamps/welfare, even if you eliminated both programs completely. Even eliminating Medicare/SS in their entirety would fall short of that amount of savings. And the only cuts/framework of this plan provided on that website adds up to a max of a theorized and again ambiguous $250 bil (with only ~$60b guaranteed and certain).
And all of this without even touching (possible even expanding) the defense budget? As in line with his foreign policy statements?
So the realty is that I don't see his promises here working out in any practical manner, and until details are provided showing otherwise I don’t see this is any more of an empty promise as any other political plan.
And in regards to Obama vs Romney, while people will openly pick apart and criticize what Obama has done and wished to do in regards to his specific plans (as expected and I encourage), I don’t feel you can fairly bash Obama and praise Romney on that topic without even knowing what Romney truly will do. I expect with the debates though, we’ll learn more soon.
***********************************
2. The employment growth following the Bush tax cuts was actually overwhelmingly driven by the expansion of government/public sector jobs, and not private. I wasted all my time on point#1 or I’d find the sources for you, but you can verify the data on public vs private jobs created in that time.
Which does speak to the point that, the tax cuts did little to truly ramp up private sector job creation.
I don’t think anyone has ever tried to say tax cuts wouldn’t do anything at all, ever, but it’s just the argument over the true value and effect of it (some seem to believe it can drive a full economic recovery overnight).
***********************************
3/4/5. Regulation isn’t all bad; I do concede that sometimes the involvement can be detrimental. But at the same time, it can be good.
Example of it being good? Anti-trust/price-fixing/collusion/monopoly laws. There is no scenario where any of those benefits the consumer or population as a whole in any way.
Real quick cuz I gotta get to work, but your point 2 is factually off. The drop in the unemployment rate experienced in the 4 years following the tax cuts was not because the government increased its payrolls. The rate didn't drop from 5.0% to 4.9%, but it dropped several percentage points. It dropped from around 6.2% to 4.6% At 400,000 jobs for every 0.1% drop, that means the government would have expanded by 6,400,000 jobs. That's factually incorrect. The private sector added most of those jobs.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09charts.html
Delete"IT is not exactly a distinction that he had in mind, but seven years into his presidency, George W. Bush is in line to be the first president since World War II to preside over an economy in which federal government employment rose more rapidly than employment in the private sector."
Good afternoon RKen.
DeleteI have to refute your claim in point #2. ". The employment growth following the Bush tax cuts was actually overwhelmingly driven by the expansion of government/public sector jobs, and not private. "
For this I will offer the May 2003 Employment Situation:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_06062003.pdf
And the December 2006 Employment Situation
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01052007.pdf
I refer to Table A-5 which is found on page 13 of the May 2003 report and page 12 in the Dec 2006.
In May 2003 when the cuts were passed the employment Numbers were:
Government Workers 19,552
Private Industries 106,683
In Dec 2006 those same numbers were:
Government Workers 20,734
Private Industries 112,888
So yes government did add 1,172 jobs (times a thousand of course) but private industries added 6,205 jobs (times a thousand again). I don't think I would call 1,172 out of a total of 7,377 jobs the "overwhelmingly" majority of the jobs. I would call it about 16%.
I reference only to Dec 2006 because the Democrats took control of the House and Senate in 2007. They raised the minimum wage by 40% over a 3 year span. I think that may have had a negative effect on the job creation/retention.
Regardless of how you argue government debt did not go down.
DeleteDecreasing taxes did not result in the government paying off more debt and being more financially stable.
With that said spending has to be taken care of before you can even consider "tax cuts" as some type of deficit reduction tool.
Romney wants to decrease revenue by continuing current and adding new tax cuts as-well as increase spending to the military and continuing to attack social welfare while supporting corporate welfare.
There is no real plan to do anything about the deficit.
The only plan is the normal plan that did not work for bush, increase military spending, deregulate, and increase tax breaks.
That did not work for bush, and will not work for Romney.
Texas Tea: There was a discussion on this in another blog post, having trouble finding it though. On a similar one, I did have this point to add (paraphrased):
Delete"The very same data that shows unemployment decrease after the Bush Tax cuts also shows that unemployment decreased steadily after 1993, despite Clinton's major tax increases. In fact, unemployment steadily decreased year after year from 1993 at 6.9%, to 2000 at 4.0%."
Which, is an even greater decrease in unemployment than the 6.2% to 4.6% after the Bush cuts.
As far as private vs public growth after Bush's tax cuts, a quick search brought me to a range of 150-300k public jobs added per year during the four years after the Bush cuts.
Which, needless to say, at nearly half of the total jobs added to the economy each year is extremely bloated past normal.
Bunch of info:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/01/09/the-remarkable-public-sector-depression/
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2311451/posts
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/http:/truthfulpolitics.com/comments/u-s-job-creation-by-president-political-party/
Loyal Watcher, with all due respect Loyal, you are worse than a troll.
DeleteFollow me closely Loyal. The revenues for the years following the 2003 tax cuts are as follows:
Year Revenue
2003 $1,782,314
2004 $1,880,114
2005 $2,153,611
2006 $2,406,869
2007 $2,567,985
Incidentally, 2005-2007 were consecutive record setting revenue years. If revenues increased by $800 Billion over 5 years, how did they COST us anything?
The spending continued to grow but the deficits were falling. If we would have cut spending and taxes just imagine the possibilities.
Deficits by year:
2004: $412 Billion
2005: $318 Billion
2006: $248 Billion
2007: $161 Billion
2008: $458 Billion (Democrats in charge of House)
Here is a little nugget for you Loyal Watcher; Our national debt has not decreased (from one year to the next) since Eisenhower was President. Even in the surplus years of Clinton the Federal Debt at the end of the year increased every year.
Something else for you to consider before you come back with some sort of ignorant reply; If we completely eliminated all national defense spending we still would have a deficit of over $800 Billion. So don't give me any if we just cut military spending BS rhetoric. Think long and hard about that. If we completely eliminated the military industrial complex (I think that's how you guys refer to it), we still have an $800 Billion deficit.
so the deficit did not decrease..... that's what i thought.
DeleteI appreciate your blabbering that pointed out exactly what i said.
"Decreasing taxes did not result in the government paying off more debt and being more financially stable."
but we are supposed to believe Romney will magically make it decrease with the same policy's.
am i missing something?
"If we completely eliminated all national defense spending we still would have a deficit of over $800 Billion"
I also never said we should "completely eliminated all national defense spending"
I just pointed out that Romney wants to spend MORE MONEY while he preaching spending LESS MONEY.
and your right i am worse than a troll because i actually questions your delusional ideas that Romney will pay down the deficit doing the exact same thing bush did.
Whats the definition of insanity again..... ohh yea ....Think we all know that one
Loyal Watcher, first, I never said Romney would do anything. I tried to give you some facts which apparently are like light to a vampire to you.
DeleteSecond, you don't question anything; you just spew typical MSLSD bull crap here. Which one do you watch Ed Schultz or the Fred Savage look a like?
My point about the elimination of the entire National Defense spending was an illustration. I never said that you even hinted we do such a thing. Most people that have the same level of ignorance that you display on a routine basis here think that if we just cut military spending and do the Buffet Rule we are back in the black again. That simply isn't so. Hence the absurd illustration that I used. My mistake was taking the time trying to explain it to a known imbecile. I will try to refrain from it in the future.
LME, I love that fact that I have single-handedly ruined your site. Have fun moderating every single comment on your blog. It will be a perfect echo chamber in which you only approve comments you like. Censor much?
ReplyDeleteNot really, but thanks anyway. All you did was show how intolerable, ignorant, and hate-filled the left is. It just shows that you can't debate ideas, but instead you attack. It shows how weak-minded your positions are, and it shows that, though you come from the party of "tolerance" and "peace," there is nothing "tolerant" or "peaceful" from someone who chooses to attack another person or their work. Thank you for exposing this disgusting side of the left.
DeleteYour comments are moderated because we do not allow the posting of any personal material about any poster or commenter on our blog. And moderation is fine, we have a staff of three for this.
Good luck.
Seriously Anonymous/VoteRobot - why attack? One thing that LME didn't mention was how you come from the party that is about tolerance, but you don't tolerate speech that doesn't match yours. You're truly sad.
DeleteAnd you got told.
Texas Tea.....I looked at your article. It does not surprise me in the least. I have been calling BS on the unemployment numbers for months, here on this blog.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I bet the CNN economists don't factor in people giving up on finding a job. I furthermore would dare to say that the number of people giving up on a job is more than the number of "jobs created" and the rate falls again. We'll see in a week or so.
Hi Slim -
DeleteThey're also not addressing the massive increase of people who have started drawing SS Disability as soon as their unemployment benefits ran out. (Sorry, I lost the link - and I forgot the exact #'s)
@VoteRobot.org - That leftie lie that the GOP is old and dying just doesn't fly.
FACT: Conservatives today outnumber Liberals 3-1...
and even though you 'progressives' like to claim that the GOP/Tea Party/Conservative Community consists of nothing but 'angry old white people' you are dead wrong.
You 'tolerant liberals' spout trash like 'Uncle Tom' at patriots such as Allen West and Thomas Sowell - and while Obama ignores the 'middle class white' segment of America - our ranks quietly, steadily swell - and include people of ALL colors from every walk of life.
Additionally, Conservatives of all 'colors' do NOT kill their unborn children - instead we raise them to be self-sufficient and productive CONSERVATIVE members of society.
So just because you don't see us in the streets, squatting/destroying property, fighting with police, shouting Socialist taglines and generally creating a public nuisance with absolutely NO clear message - do NOT think that we've not been busy.
Still waters run deep.
The Elephant pooped in the room again.
ReplyDeleteGet him out of here