Patterico's Pontifications

I must have missed that part at the beginning of the debate where someone said “Let the bigger a**hole win!”

Icy (7a4103) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:02 am

Well the voters and the international press have spoken. So has my son. Formerly for Obama, he thought Biden a deranged manic. Absolutely incapable.

Jack (75b00c) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:19 am

Prolly wrote the report before the Debate, even.

Gazzer (177360) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:24 am

If you are a partisan Democrat — someone who finds MSNBC objective — you would have thought Biden was fantastic in that debate. On CNN that night, Paul Begala could just not believe that anyone thought (or cared) that Biden was a boor or disrespectful — after all Ryan is a criminal Republican and deserving of neither civility or respect. He was actually nonplussed when it was brought up. “Really?! You’re kidding!?” he asked.

And of course, there is no one left at the Times who is as centrist as Mr. Begala.

Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/14/2012 @ 12:50 am

Anybody who is stupid enough to still be subscribing to the LAT would have thought Biden won. Let’s face facts; some people are hopeless.

I think the LAT’s only reason to exist, and papers like it, is to help hopeless idiots feel good about themselves. Of course, I doubt the reporters and editors at the LAT realize that; they probably remain deluded they can shape the narrative and if they say Biden won often enough people will believe it.

Yeah. Only those living in the same little terrarium with them.

Did I mention the LAT only exists to help hopeless idiots feel good about themselves? I wasn’t just talking about their few remaining subscribers.

Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:49 am

Mr. Biden could have pulled down his pants and left a big pile of steaming poo on the stage and the LA Times would have called him the winner.

dfbaskwill (c021f2) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:12 am

The Obama biden ticket was going to get more votes via higher turnout by rallying the base or getting the undecided small independent pool to swing over to the democrats. Apparently, the campaign decided the could not get both votes from both camps and decided to rally the base.
Unfortunately, he turned off the undecided middle, especially the undecided women.

joe (93323e) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:28 am

Steve57, you are correct. The business model of partisan newspapers like NYT and LAT explicitly based on making sure they keep their readers comfortable in the blinkered worldview.

SPQR (1b5f6f) — 10/14/2012 @ 8:29 am

I discovered that I used up all my free articles at the LAT at the beginning of last week. Now when I try to open up a link, a notice pops up about subscribing and becoming a member in order to access articles. While I understand this is what they realized they have to do to survive and remain competitive, I realized I can happily live without them.

If a newspaper is going to put up a pay wall, they better make darn sure they are indispensable to the reader.

Dana (292dcf) — 10/14/2012 @ 9:55 am

R.I.P. Sen. Arlen Specter

Icy (2ed015) — 10/14/2012 @ 10:17 am

Icy, have you become the Grim Reaper’s spokesperson? It’s a sad job.

PatAZ (2f4fd4) — 10/14/2012 @ 10:23 am

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/11/3046266/in-a-blur-of-facts-vp-debate-strained.html

narciso (ee31f1) — 10/14/2012 @ 10:37 am

SPQR, that’s true. But not entirely true. Look at the declining readership.

I have friends who used to be in the newspaper business. As Clint Eastwood said about “movie tradesmen” they are not all liberals (some are fun at Christmas parties; I was not making that up about the meth-addled hooker turning tricks in the dumpster on the other thread but I left out the fact she was a midget because I thought no one would believe me).

Let me introduce you to Phil Bronstein. After killing the San Francisco Examiner in the early 2000s deader than dead, he was brought on to turn the declining SF Chronicle around (?!!!?). After four years of stewardship he gave that speech about how the news business is broken and no one knows how to fix it.

He’s Obamaesque in his conceit. Somebody might know how to fix it. But not Phil Bronstein, one of the guys breaking it. Like Obama he can’t be wrong, because his ideology and ego don’t permit that conclusion. Like Obama, his OODA loop is broken.

See, their business model is all about keeping those writing and editing the paper in their comfort zone. They are utterly convinced that will keep the readers happy. When their readership heads for the exits in drove, they become more radical and leftist, thinking the problem is that they’re still being too “conventional” and “commercial.”

When they finally whittle their readership down to blinkered ideologues who already see the world exactly as these lefty journo school grads do, and subscription cancellations slow, they tell themselves, “see, we were right.”

It’s just that core readership that reinforces their own conceits that the editorial staffs of papers like the Chron, LAT, NYT, WaPo, etc, want to keep happy.

Steve57 (c8ac21) — 10/14/2012 @ 10:50 am

Jenny Granholm on MTP claims there was no request, nor denial of request, for increased security in Benghazi. Now they are apparently going with the idea that the dead Ambassador lied.

JD (318f81) — 10/14/2012 @ 11:21 am

Steve57, a different way of expressing my point.

SPQR (1b5f6f) — 10/14/2012 @ 11:52 am

Obama says if you read the transcript, he won the debate.

JD (43ce10) — 10/14/2012 @ 11:53 am

_________________________________________

See, their business model is all about keeping those writing and editing the paper in their comfort zone.

There are parts of the economy that are like cockroaches, meaning they’ll survive no matter what. In some cases, that’s good (eg, famous companies with a long pedigree), in other cases, that isn’t (parts of the media).

The SF Chronicle was hemorrhaging money even before the advent of the Internet and an even greater decline in readership. But it somehow manages to keep its doors open. There also are a lot of equally mediocre (and no less political) smaller newspapers throughout America that do well enough to survive indefinitely.

Then there are specialty publications like the National Review on the right, Mother Jones on the left. They’ve never been big in terms of readership and advertising support, yet they too also somehow generate enough support (mainly through benefactors) to keep the lights on.

Again, there are portions of the economy that are similar to cockroaches or rats, or zombies that never die. I always keep that in mind when dealing with issues related to the economy.

Mark (6d5e0d) — 10/14/2012 @ 11:57 am

They sent us Michelle Gillen, from the Dateline
‘exploding car’ fiasco

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/10/06/3037393/channel-6-reporter-fired-over.html

narciso (ee31f1) — 10/14/2012 @ 1:09 pm

the debate was unwatchable it was worse than The Master

happyfeet (91a217) — 10/14/2012 @ 3:37 pm

Biden: “Can you guarantee that no one making less than $100,000 would have a mortgage deduction impacted?”

No answer. But he did get Ryan to admit that the idiots would like to privatize social security. Let the market handle it! How would that have worked if Bushco had succeeded in doing that? Total fail.
What about specifics on the Tax Plan??
No answer.

Ed G. today:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2012/10/14/david-axelrod-white-house-response-libya-attack-ed-gillespie-defends-romney-tax-plan

WALLACE: All right. Let’s talk about what David Axelrod brought up in the question of taxes. In the vice presidential debate, Paul Ryan, once again, got roughed up for failing to explain how you’re going to pay for the 20 percent cut in tax rates by limiting deductions.
Let’s take a look. Here it is. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R-WI), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: We want to work with Congress and how best to achieve this, that means successful.
MARTHA RADDATZ, MODERATOR: With no specific, yes.
RYAN: What we are saying, lower tax rates 20 percent, start with the wealthy, work with Congress to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Ryan is saying, we don’t want to get hemmed in. Let’s leave it to negotiations with Congress to get into the details.
Here’s my question: Why is it all right to tell voters about the candy — hey, everybody is going to get a 20 percent tax cut — cut in their tax rates, but let’s not tell them about the spinach, which is you’re going to lose some deductions.
GILLESPIE: We have talked about losing deductions. We’ve talked about — WALLACE: But you haven’t given specifics.
GILLESPIE: Well, because, Chris, in a campaign environment, to start negotiating in a campaign environment, you’re going to lock in Republicans, you’re going to lock in Democrats —
WALLACE: You locked in on the 20 percent tax rate.

-snip-

GILLESPIE: Six different studies have said —

WALLACE: Those are very questionable. Some of them are blogs. Some of them are from the AEI, which is hardly an independent group. Those are not —

GILLESPIE: These are very credible sources, and, you know —

WALLACE: One of them is from a guy who is — a blog from a high who was a top advisor to George W. Bush. These are hardly nonpartisan studies.

GILLESPIE: Look, Chris, this — I think if you look at Harvard and AEI and other studies, are very credible sources for economic analysis.

WALLACE: You wouldn’t say that AEI is a conservative think tank.

GILLESPIE: I would say it is a right-leaning think tank. That doesn’t make it not credible.

WALLACE: It doesn’t make it nonpartisan.

GILLESPIE: It does make it nonpartisan. It’s not a partisan organization. I can tell you, there have been many instances where there are things that AEI has come out with and said, I didn’t find to be necessarily —

(CROSSTALK)

GILLESPIE: — with the Republican Party.

WALLACE: Would you say the Brookings Institution is nonpartisan?

GILLESPIE: I would say the Brookings Institution is left leaning and that they are nonpartisan.

sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:17 pm

Slurpy woke up long enough to copypasta. Again.

Hush, idiot.

JD (43ce10) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:22 pm

I love the nonpartisan study they claim which is a former Barcky politico.

JD (43ce10) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:23 pm

sleeepy’s whining about privitizing social security is as hilarious as Obama’s claim that he’d never issue vouchers for Medicare … the same day the Obama administration announced a pilot program of vouchers for Medicare.

SPQR (768505) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:26 pm

I quote people, including you you defend. Respond to them not to me.
You want the right to your own facts. Sorry.
If you want a rundown on the 6 “studies” go here.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-12/the-final-word-on-mitt-romney-s-tax-plan.html

sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:28 pm

Medicare vouchers announced as Obama says he’ll never issue vouchers for Medicare.

Probably the shortest time from speech to “inoperative” in Obama history.

SPQR (768505) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:28 pm

Slurpy – you copypasta and you hate and you lie. It is what you do. We laugh at you, and have pity for you, it is what we do.

JD (43ce10) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:41 pm

Its hilarious, JD. Biden dumped more lies, more fabrications and more made-up BS pulled from his ass in this debate than can be counted.

But sleeeepy wants to ignore the lying, dementia patient that is the Democratic VP.

SPQR (768505) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:43 pm

There was no “intelligence” suggesting a movie protest in Benghazi. All the on-site reports made plain what had happened — and by the following morning. The second highest official in the Government of the United States looked the citizenry in the eye on Thursday and said something he knew to be completely false.

But sleeeepy doan care.

SPQR (768505) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:45 pm

Oh, and that drop in jobless claims that the Obama admin was bragging about?

BLS forgot to include California’s jobless claims. Who was it that was making fun of people who were skeptical of BLS’ numbers recently …

SPQR (768505) — 10/14/2012 @ 5:48 pm

SPQR,
from your link:
“So, who’s right about today’s jobless claims number?
It seems everyone’s right!
Jobless claims were better than expected, even after adjusting for a possible unusual anomaly
There may have been an unusual anomaly that made this week’s jobless claims look better than they would otherwise have been.”

We’ll see.

JD, where do I lie? You’ve been proven a liar before (by SEK). Stay in your basement, where you belong.

As to medicare, are you telling me that Obama is wiling to betray his base? We know that already. But how is that going to make his base vote for Romney? Romney is worse, that’s all. If you don’t want Romney to win, you vote for Obama. If you don’t care, you don’t care.

sleeeepy (b5f718) — 10/14/2012 @ 9:32 pm

If you don’t think, life is easy breezy, peasy!

Icy (2ed015) — 10/14/2012 @ 9:43 pm

Obama’s base won’t vote for Romney no matter what. I think that Romney may have mentioned that at some point.

So, I really don’t have an argument with the sloth. Except, Romney is worse, based on what?

How in the world can he or she or it (there’s nothing wrong with that)can suppose how undecideds might vote. It said itself: If you don’t want Obama to win, you don’t vote for Obama. Oops. I meant Romney. If you don’t care, you don’t care.

I would say we have had a better class of trolls in the past, but we haven’t.

Ag80 (b2c81f) — 10/14/2012 @ 9:55 pm

sleeeepy, it wasn’t an “unusual anomaly”, it was failure to include data. BLS’ numbers have been becoming less trustworthy in recent years for concrete reasons.

If you want incompetence to continue, to the point of putting more Americans out of work and on food stamps, vote Obama the Empty Suit(tm).

SPQR (768505) — 10/14/2012 @ 9:56 pm

“But how is that going to make his base vote for Romney?”

sleeeepy – Is his base 47%?

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/14/2012 @ 10:17 pm

Slurpy apparently has chosen to remain ignorant. It’s response to the fact that the BLS did not include the California numbers is “we’ll see”.

JD (43ce10) — 10/15/2012 @ 4:07 am

10/13/2012

How did the L.A. Times See the Biden/Ryan Debate?

35 Responses to “How did the L.A. Times See the Biden/Ryan Debate?”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out