Patterico's Pontifications

10/17/2012

Luntz Focus Group: Romney Won, Obama Sucked

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:40 am



Personally, I was frustrated by what I thought were missed opportunities by Romney, and figured others would give Obama the nod. Not these people:

And a CBS flash poll, while showing Obama narrowly winning overall, had Romney winning on economic issues, 65%-34%.

So I’m feeling pretty good today, actually.

How about you?

202 Responses to “Luntz Focus Group: Romney Won, Obama Sucked”

  1. I feel very good today!

    happyfeet (c68c30)

  2. Even if Romney sat there and went “buh, buh buh” all night with drool coming down his chin (not far from the truth, actually) you Bubble Boy Wingnuts would STILL say he won.

    So, yawn.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  3. I think America learned a few new things about Willard last night.

    Did you all know that he is FOR affirmative action in hiring? His story about the “binders full of women” obviously shows he decided a priori, regardless of qualifications, that more women should be in his cabinet. Hmmm….

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  4. I think we learned Obama’s repulsive.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  5. Actually we already knew that.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  6. Notice about how Illman just told a flat out lie. Romney said qualified women, not regardless of qualifications. The exact opposite of the “point” the troll is trying to make.

    JD (318f81)

  7. Obama expertly laying the trap that Willard walked right into:

    MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I – I certainly do. I certainly do. I – I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.

    MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.

    BWAHAHAA! Wait for it…wait for it….

    MR. ROMNEY: I – I – I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  8. It wasn’t that Romney had missed chances but that Crowley was constantly trying to throw Romney off balance with her interruption and other bullshit saves for Obama.

    Kaitian (4e478c)

  9. ” Romney said qualified women, not regardless of qualifications.”

    Nitwit…his actions speak louder than his words.

    He’s for Affirmative Action.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  10. Romney couldn’t close the deal on several issues – none more glaring than Libya. There were two major issues to drive home:

    (1) The appalling lack of concern for adequate security forces in Libya: a report for the year ended June 30th showing a rapidly deteriorating situation in Libya with increased violence and attacks on US and allied presence, repeated requests for additional security that were turned down accompanied by reduction in security in August just weeks before the 9/11 anniversary, Obama skipping 60% of national security daily briefings in his tenure, how the State Department out sourced consulate security to a Wales firm with no direct experience at providing such service at a cost ($375,000) – less than the cost of deploying a single US soldier for a year, the locals were “armed” with Tasers and nylon handcuffs

    (2) The coverup and weeks of deception regarding the cause for the attack: Brett Beirer on Fox provided a detailed timeline of who said what when.

    Romney had his gotcha moment when Obama didn’t refute the claim that he said “terror” was the cause in the Rose Garden. He knew he was in danger of being checkmated, all Romney needed to do was ask why Susan Rice and all the other administration and campaign talking heads kept claiming it was the video for weeks and Obama himself two weeks later at the UN said it was. All Romney has to ask was:

    “When were you being truthful Mr. President? On September 12th when you said it was terror, or for the next two weeks when you insisted it wasn’t? And can you explain why the American people were told two divergent stories by your administration?”

    in_awe (7c859a)

  11. So, now Tillman says the actual words don’t matter, after lying about them. classic.

    JD (318f81)

  12. Did u know you’re not supposed to feed dogs grapes?

    happyfeet (c68c30)

  13. Did u know you’re not supposed to feed dogs grapes?

    happyfeet (c68c30)

  14. “So, now Tillman says the actual words don’t matter, after lying about them. classic.”

    Nope…Romney is the liar Moroni.

    Mitt Romney: “Our party has been focused on big business too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business.”

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  15. Don’t make me ask you again

    happyfeet (0df414)

  16. SQUIRRELS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (318f81)

  17. The biggest soundbite to come out of the second presidential debate Tuesday night (Oct. 16) was Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s comment he approached women’s groups to help him find female candidates for his Massachusetts cabinet and that the groups brought him “binders full of women.”

    The actual quote is, “Can’t we find some women that are also qualified? And so we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks,’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

    But David A. Bernstein of The Phoenix says that that is not exactly an accurate depiction of what happened. Bernstein writes:

    What actually happened was that in 2002 — prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration — a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

    They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

    Bernstein goes on to write that even though then-Governor Romney appointed women to 42% of the cabinet positions, Romney supposedly only appointed women to “head departments and agencies that he didn’t care about — and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about — budget, business development, etc. — went to women.”

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  18. Did you all know that he is FOR affirmative action in hiring? His story about the “binders full of women” obviously shows he decided a priori, regardless of qualifications, that more women should be in his cabinet. Hmmm….

    And therefore? You seem to be under the misimpression that this is a Romney fan club. Very few of us supported him in the primaries. I expect him to be a bad president — except in comparison with the alternative. And I hope Ryan will be able to do some good, and that he’ll appoint some good secretaries to vital posts, such as Bolton to State and Palin to Energy. But mostly I expect him to be merely bad rather than disastrous; which by the standard of most presidents would make him pretty good.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  19. Comment by P. Tillman — 10/17/2012 @ 8:03 am

    Yes but Obama eats dogs so who cares about Romney’s female appointees?

    Gerald A (138c50)

  20. Bernstein goes on to write that even though then-Governor Romney appointed women to 42% of the cabinet positions, Romney supposedly only appointed women to “head departments and agencies that he didn’t care about — and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about — budget, business development, etc. — went to women.”

    How precious is this? Sure, he had the best record in the nation on this, but since we are partisans, we are going to claim that doesn’t matter, and we will claim he didn’t care about the positions where he put the women. Illman and slurpy have their marching orders. Good little foot soldiers.

    JD (318f81)

  21. “Luntz Focus Group”

    14 male
    8 women
    All white.
    In Nevada.

    This would be funny if you didn’t actually believe this extremely biased group was somehow representative of a larger demographic…you know, America.

    Actually, you DON’T know America, you hate it.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  22. “we are going to claim that doesn’t matter,”

    Not a claim, a fact. Willards actions speak louder than his (constantly shifting) words.

    How can even Wingnuts believe what he says?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  23. Despite idiot poseur claiming he’s for affirmative action, he’s not since poseur just changed the legal definition of what affirmative action meant. Women aren’t a group that suffers from constant discrimination, they just aren’t available in large number compared to men when it comes to the workforce.

    Romney’s story obviously was about his recruiting effort specifically going after women. All businesses in the country practices one form or another of this so-called “Affirmative Action” that idiot poseur made his definition on. For example, want to lay off that old man from the business? Got to lay off a young both sex, middle age both sex, old woman, etc to ensure that there is no age discrimination. It’s just good business practice. Want to ensure that no sex discrimination will happen in the women’s clothing section? Hire women to manage them. The list will go on. It certainly is not “Affirmative Action”.

    Kaitian (4e478c)

  24. The focus group does show that America is prepared to ditch the loser Empty Suit(tm) whose last four years have been an unparalleled failure among US presidents.

    SPQR (768505)

  25. “and that he’ll appoint some good secretaries to vital posts, such as Bolton to State and Palin to Energy.”

    OMG, I almost choked on my coffee! Thanks nitwit.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  26. ” It certainly is not “Affirmative Action”.”

    Yes it is.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  27. Milhouse has a point.

    It’s not like conservatives should vote for Obama because Romney is a moderate. They should vote for Romney. He’s an obvious improvement.

    I detect some desperation and anger in our unhappy troll. It’s probably because Obama can’t debate.

    Dustin (73fead)

  28. Romney specifically avoided appointing men to positions in order to hire women just to “balance out” the gender distribution in his administration.

    I wonder how those qualified men who weren’t hired felt about this?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  29. Dustin, worse than can’t debate, Obama’s record is of abject failure.

    Worst president in modern history.

    SPQR (768505)

  30. “Yes it is.”

    “I know you are but what am I?” Keep trying poseur.

    Kaitian (4e478c)

  31. “Actions speak louder than words.”

    Indeed…thanks George W. Bush and Republicans.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  32. “Worst president in modern history.”

    Wingnut definition of “modern history” = 2008 to present.

    What a nitwit.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  33. Did u know you’re not supposed to feed dogs grapes?

    Also chocolate, onions, and macadamias.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  34. Tell me what your definition of Affirmative Action is, poseur.

    Kaitian (4e478c)

  35. Does anyone think that Illman’s demeanor is that of someone who thinks their Lightbringer was awesome, or is going to win in a few weeks?

    JD (318f81)

  36. Dustin, worse than can’t debate, Obama’s record is of abject failure.

    Worst president in modern history.

    Comment by SPQR — 10/17/2012

    Yup. Worse than Carter, even. He’s got to go.

    And you bring up a valid point… perhaps Obama can debate, but in this situation, where he’s hampered by his atrocious record, he loses anyway.

    But what I saw was that Obama’s supporter, moderating the debate, felt so bad for Obama she had to desperately cut Romney off from discussing his record, for example Fast and Furious or Obama’s dissembling about the recent 9/11 attacks and his failure in the war on terror. I think the amount of coddling Obama was getting makes him look like a weak debater.

    Dustin (73fead)

  37. Kaitan – it is just throwing feces. Making shlt up. That is what it does.

    JD (318f81)

  38. “Tell me what your definition of Affirmative Action is, poseur.”

    “My” definition…LOL.

    How about the commonly accepted one?

    Affirmative action refers to policies that take factors including “race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin” into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group “in areas of employment, education, and business”,usually justified as countering the effects of a history of discrimination.

    Romney admitted that women were under-represented in his applicant list so he sought to balance it by hiring women.

    Why would he do this if he didn’t agree with the principles of Affirmative Action?

    Perhaps you’re arguing that he did it for political reasons….if so, which is worse nitwit?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  39. I thought Romney did even better on the economy and jobs in the second debate than he did in the first debate, and that helps explain the focus group’s response. (The much smaller MSNBC focus group was more divided overall but also gave Romney an edge on economic issues.) I find this very reassuring and it gives me confidence that Romney will master the Libya issues before the next debate.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  40. Dustin – he even asked Candy for help at one point.

    Candy?!

    JD (318f81)

  41. JD, I know the poseur is making shit up. It’s funny that he wants to change the legal definition of AA to claim something that isn’t true.

    Kaitian (4e478c)

  42. You’re missing another critical part of Affirmative Action, poseur. Please see the Michigan case.

    Kaitian (4e478c)

  43. “Kaitan – it is just throwing feces. Making shlt up. That is what it does.”

    Buffalo Bill comes out of his dark cave to make Grand Pronouncements again…a sociopath has found a comfortable home here hasn’t he/she?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  44. This is really a comical line of asshattery that Illman is pushing today.

    JD (318f81)

  45. 10. Comment by in_awe — 10/17/2012 @ 8:00 am

    All Romney has to ask was:

    “When were you being truthful Mr. President? On September 12th when you said it was terror, or for the next two weeks when you insisted it wasn’t? And can you explain why the American people were told two divergent stories by your administration?

    But Romney didn’t realize that the story had gotten worse after Sept. 12!

    It got less accurate with time before it later got better. A U shaped curve.

    Sammy Finkelman (762ee4)

  46. “You’re missing another critical part of Affirmative Action, poseur. Please see the Michigan case.”

    WTF are you blathering on about? Was the debate in Michigan? Did Romney make his decisions before or after the 2003 case you refer to? Do you even have a high school education?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  47. Well, more like a hockey stick.

    Sammy Finkelman (762ee4)

  48. Libs: OMG 47%!!!

    Everyone else, including people in the 47% think there’s too many people getting government money. It’s not like wounded veterans are going “man, I’m glad the welfare people are getting more” or medicare people are saying “glad the welfare people are getting more”

    But President PuffyChest Tryhard bloviated which is what the party of perpetual outrage wants (except when it comes to terrorism then we should be meek and blame a youtube video and not actually address it).

    Hawkins (1fc204)

  49. Kaitian – it does not care one iota about what it actually is. It is pushing a meme, facts be damned.

    JD (318f81)

  50. Comment by P. Tillman — 10/17/2012 @ 8:08 am

    Actually moonbat I think they’re supposed to be representative of undecided voters.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  51. I understood Romney’s recruitment of women to be a form of enhanced networking, not affirmative action. He wanted to get the word out that qualified women applicants were welcome.

    The really interesting part of that segment is that Romney found he had to make special accommodations for women because of their childcare responsibilities, not their executive abilities. He was willing to make that accomodation but it is the challenge with and for professional women. They aren’t as willing to put their jobs ahead of their families.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  52. “Kaitian – it does not care one iota about what it actually is. It is pushing a meme, facts be damned.”

    Now you’re referring to Willard as “IT”…wow.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  53. Why would he do this if he didn’t agree with the principles of Affirmative Action?

    I don’t see anything wrong with hiring qualified women and well as qualified men. If Romney made sure to evaluate candidates based on their qualifications, which he said he did (this is what you lied about, btw), then what’s the problem?

    If Romney favored women over more qualified men for positions because of their sex, I think that is wrong. But Romney didn’t say he did that. It’s possible that these women applicants were not being given consideration or not applying for some reason, and efforts to make sure the entire pool of candidates was represented actually increased the quality of staff.

    You’re simply not making your case. That you have to say Romney said the opposite of what he did say shows you’re aware you can’t make your case with honest facts.

    But in the alternative, suppose by some miracle you were actually right for once? Obama’s much more liberal than Romney, so conservatives and moderates and independent voters are still more likely to support Romney.

    All the anger coming from you makes me worry that you’re miserable. Perhaps you should go outside.

    Dustin (73fead)

  54. “I understood Romney’s recruitment of women to be a form of enhanced networking, not affirmative action. ”

    Sure, whatever you want to believe that allows you to go to sleep at night comforted by the thought that he’s your salvation against the Black Kenyan Socialist.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  55. “WTF are you blathering on about?”

    Then you really have no clue about the history of affirmative action.

    I’ll tell you what affirmative action is. It’s giving more points to people who are lacking critical requirements for jobs or education slots that more qualified people can do.

    Contrast that to Romney hiring women who were JUST AS QUALIFIED as the men were.

    Are you telling me that you are against the practice of hiring women to run women-related sections of stores and therefore should run afoul of all sexual discrimination issues?

    Of course not.

    I knew you were intellectually deficient anyways. Hence why you never of the Michigan case.

    Kaitian (4e478c)

  56. Hate-filled dishonest trolls are really rather pathetic. Illman, I hope your acting out, lying, and ranting is cathartic for you, and helps you fill that void that you feel.

    JD (318f81)

  57. illman’s right about the definition of “affirmative action”. And what Romney said he did is AA, and it’s wrong. That some do even worse doesn’t excuse him. There’s a reason most of us opposed him in the primaries, four years ago and again this year. And yet when it’s him or 0bama there can’t be any question. Four years ago we held our noses and supported McCain, who’s even worse.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  58. If lots of qualified candidates aren’t applying, it’s good that Romney sought ways to bring them in.

    It’s sad that some democrats are so angry with Romney that they will find a problem with this.

    Anyway, our troll is trying hard to take attention away from the topic of the post, in my opinion.

    Romney’s earned a lot more support with his serious performance in the last two debates. Doesn’t that say something great about the American people? I had given up on debates being able to change minds. I’m pleased to have been mistaken about that.

    Dustin (73fead)

  59. Sometimes dogs just mindlessly eat what’s there and looks good to them –whether it actually is good for them or not, Mr Feets.

    elissa (219bc4)

  60. “I’ll tell you what affirmative action is. It’s giving more points to people who are lacking critical requirements for jobs or education slots that more qualified people can do.”

    You’re clearly re-defining the term to suit your biases and to support a weak argument.

    Michigan case has NOTHING to do with Romney’s decision, made long before the ruling came down.

    You can “tell me” and everyone else all you want but as usual for a Wingnut your view conflicts with reality. Of course that explains why people like you gravitate to an echo chamber such as this so that your fragile self-image is not challenged too often.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  61. “Worst president in modern history.”

    Wingnut definition of “modern history” = 2008 to present.

    OK, how about “worst president in at least a century”. Is that specific enough for you?

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  62. illman’s right about the definition of “affirmative action”.

    No, it is not. Were that the case, Romney would have had to have brought in less qualified women, that wouldn’t have been hired but for their gender. He specifically wanted qualified women, made no effort to change the standards for qualification. It is the opposite of affirmative action.

    JD (318f81)

  63. And what Romney said he did is AA

    If he hired someone who was less qualified than another candidate, you’re right. If he found a way to get more applicants and hired the most qualified people, some of them being women who had not been considered, that is just good business and I don’t see the problem with it.

    Seeking demographics that are underrepresented for a fair meritocracy selection is not affirmative action.

    Finding ways to accommodate your qualified staff, such as child care, sounds like a great way to keep a qualified staff.

    I’ve had my share of criticisms of Romney, but I’m not worried about this one.

    Still, we agree that those who have a problem with Affirmative Action would still have good reason to support Romney over Obama even if you’re correct.

    Dustin (73fead)

  64. Tillman may be purposely over-looking that the Luntz’ group last night was specifically chosen from currently “undecided” voters. I would guess that might limit the field of participants to some degree.

    elissa (219bc4)

  65. JD, you’re wrong and illman’s right. Affirmative action was introduced by Nixon, and it specifically means making special efforts to recruit among certain demographics. That he looked at a pool of candidates and said this is bad because there aren’t enough women is wrong. It’s based on a feeling that there ought to be some larger number of women in the pool, that there is a correct percentage of women, blacks, asians, handicapped people, etc. that ought to be in the pool, and if there isn’t then we need to go out searching for them. A perfectly qualified white man who wasn’t in the pool will be ignored, while an equally qualified black lesbian in a wheelchair will be aggressively recruited and asked to submit an application. That’s Affirmative Action. Romney believes in it, and I don’t. And I’m OK with that.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  66. Actually, P. Tillmann, I think of President Obama as the Hawaiian-Chicago Socialist.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  67. Comment by Hawkins — 10/17/2012 @ 8:23 am

    It’s not like wounded veterans are going “man, I’m glad the welfare people are getting more” or medicare people are saying “glad the welfare people are getting more”

    I know, but that’s what that stupid 47% theory says:

    As I said in comments 185 and 187 in the https://patterico.com/2012/09/19/seckrit-romney-video-sekritly-edited thread:

    ….this is political nonsense, even if it has a long pedigree, going back to British Socialist writer George Bernard Shaw.

    “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

    – George Bernard Shaw, (1856 – 1950) Everybody’s Political What’s What? (1944) ch. 30

    Or this:

    http://thethinkerblog.com/?p=1905 (Robbing Peter to Pay Paul? October 7th, 2009)

    where you can find the 47% statistic.

    Only it’s wrong that they never vote a Republican As the graphs on that very page demonstrate. (in some of these charts, the Republican side has been corrected to blue)

    Bush in 2004 still got about 35% of the vote of people with under $15,000 of annual income, and he didn’t get above about 62% of any income group.

    In 2008, the disparity was somewhat greater, related maybe to higher poor black turnout or possibly due to worry about the economy, or simply due to the fact that the Democrat had around 10% more of the vote in that election.

    The same 10% drop shows up in all income categories, although proportionately it’s a bigger drop (close to one third as opposed to one sixth) in the lowest income category.

    187. Legal Insurrection said the same thing on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 4:23pm in a post entitled “Tax Free Tyranny”

    Of course, it’s one thing for William A. Jacobson to say this. It’s another thing for a major Presidential candidate to say that.

    Then it becomes an exploding cigar.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 9/23/2012 @ 11:26 am

    Sammy Finkelman (762ee4)

  68. That he looked at a pool of candidates and said this is bad because there aren’t enough women is wrong.

    Why would that necessarily be wrong?

    , that there is a correct percentage of women, blacks, asians, handicapped people, etc. that ought to be in the pool, and if there isn’t then we need to go out searching for them.

    I don’t think he said there was a correct percentage. I think he said that he sought a way to get more qualified applicants. Wouldn’t this improve his staff even if he hired based on qualifications alone?

    If you know you’re missing a lot of good applicants or customers or whatever, should you avoid solving that problem because of another version of political correctness?

    Dustin (73fead)

  69. I liked that Romney pointed out that women, even qualified women, often need more flexibility in their schedules, and that if we can grow the economy so that there are more jobs overall, it will make it easier for women with family commitments; more jobs than workers makes it more likely that an employer will work with an employee to find a compromise that works for everyone rather than simply fire them and look for someone who doesn’t have those issues. With 26 million unemployed right now, in most cases it’s an employers’ market, and they have no need of trying to accommodate otherwise qualified workers.

    And I did notice that the one time Ø relapsed into his “uh, uh” bit was at the beginning of the Libya section, when I imagine he was trying to remember which lie he was supposed to be touting now.

    LibraryGryffon (06c781)

  70. What we learned about affirmative action last night is that no amount of it has yet produced a capable female what can moderate a debate without making an ass of herself.

    Is it time to move away from the failed policies of the past?

    happyfeet (0df414)

  71. Tillman for all the nitpicking on Romney’s choice of women in his state – how many qualified women did clinton have in his cabinet
    Janet Reno of Waco fame and of false child moslester accusations of florida or m albright of pretty please arafat fame.

    How many qualified women does qualified women does obama have – zero

    At least the affirmative actions of romney produced some qualified women as opposed to zero in the last two democrat presidents administrations.

    Joe-Dallas (ea8609)

  72. As long as Romney doesn’t believe in Affirmative Action for political affiliation and feels compelled to appoint Communist Party members and those with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood we’ll be much better off with hi than Obama anyway, so what’s the point?

    Did u know you’re not supposed to feed dogs grapes?
    Also chocolate, onions, and macadamias.

    I knew about chocolate, never thought about grapes or macadamia nuts.
    We had a cat once that loved grapes, and peaches. She would climb up on your lap and shoulder to get onto an outstretched arm to get to them. Of course, I think we always only gave her half a grape.

    My daughter’s pet rat loves grapes, though Percy seems to like red seedless better than green. We’re not into affirmative action for grapes, never tried black grapes with him.

    And it you think this dialogue is meaningless, it is more informational than some comments here.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  73. I don’t know about cats but grapes can be as much or more dangerous than chocolate for dogs, although dark chocolate is also dangerous.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  74. Great, now Mayor Bloomberg will be banning grapes and chocolate in New York.

    SPQR (768505)

  75. Are grapes dangerous because of the choking hazard?

    Comment by SPQR — 10/17/2012 @ 9:13 am
    Let him try. Banning chocolate would be a ban too far, even in NYC and SF.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  76. “feeling pretty good today”

    More red meat for Indies with “I’m going to focus everything I do on small business.”

    He keeps saying the right things to this inbred knuckledragger.

    Some poll has Willard up 11 in OH R+1, right about where turnout will be.

    While WA may still come thru for Dog, I look for CA to be the only state he carries south of the Ohio, or west of the Mississippi.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  77. But, but, but Romley is an out of touch rich guy, isn’t he? Yahoo news reports that obama takes charge and wins debate but it may not be enough. Who you bumpkins gonna believe, Jeff Greenfield or your own lyin’ eyes? If Obama doesn’t know what his pension is, how does he manage to afford a $30-40 million dollar Hawaiian pied a terre? I don’t give a rat’s ass what Romley does with his loot. Oh no, he only pays 14%! The horror! But with charitable donations it is up to 56%.
    Saw the Luntz group with a couple of women complaining Romney will take away their reproductive rights.
    I think if you’re an Obama fellator-wannabe like sleeeepy or Lovey, you are ecstatic that Choom mentioned the 47% thing. Because I see plenty of liberals heralding it as an Urkel smackdown of Mittens.

    Calypso Louis Farrakhan (e799d8)

  78. 77. Forgot HI but thats Asia.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  79. This thread is 25% Tillman. No wonder it seems so polluted.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  80. Is there an ignore feature on this blog? I was wondering because I am tired of plowing through P. Tillman’s idiotic trolling. People on the left can make good arguments for their positions and be funny about it, or dead serious. I have plenty of friends who are to the left, and they are usually a lot less annoying than Tillman.

    He’s not even comedic in his incompetence. It’s just annoying.

    OmegaPaladin (f2d931)

  81. Actually I am hung over but thanks for asking.

    Ipso Fatso (1e3278)

  82. OmegaPaladin, Milhouse came up with one. I used to use it.

    Install Greasemonkey first (this requires Firefox).

    Then the site specific script.

    There are Chrome plug ins that claim to run Greasemonkey scripts, but I haven’t tried them yet.

    Dustin (73fead)

  83. OmegaPaladin:

    Patterico Ignore List

    I can’t vouch for it but I think others have used it.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  84. According to the link, it’s been downloaded 493 times so a lot of people can vouch for it. It is available courtesy of Milhouse.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  85. Regardless of the efforts of the pathetic, blackshirt troll brigage, undecided voters are breaking to Romney.

    Obama has lost the election.

    We’ve got a chance to start working to get America through the damage he and the Democrats have done to it.

    SPQR (768505)

  86. DRJ, the reviews amuse.

    SPQR (768505)

  87. Has anyone out there changed an opinion because of something P. Tillman has said? Anyone? Please tell us your story.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  88. . . . a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

    I lived in Massachusetts. “Bipartisan” in the Bay State means both the Democrats and the Greens.

    JVW (f5695c)

  89. Why oh why did Romney not describe the plight of the 20,000 former Delphi Corp. workers (GM’s auto parts supplier) who had their pensions voided by Obama as part of the UAW bailout, merely because they weren’t union members? Ditto for the network of GM dealers who were similarly screwed over. This is a powerful narrative that gives the lie to Obama’s fatuous and hollow claims about sticking up for “the middle class.” The Delphi workers have had to sue to get transparency regarding the corrupt decisionmaking that led to their pensions being eliminated, and the Obama Administration has fought them every step of the way.

    This was a perfect rebuttal. Heck, I had even e-mailed the Romney campaign months ago, to tell them to use this narrative in their debate prep! Major missed opportunity to hit Obama right in the mouth and expose him for the hypocrite that he is. Spread the word, folks; people need to hear about this.

    Guy Jones (4fd547)

  90. I’m feeling good, too. Remember that the average person does not dwell on all these fine points day after day like we do!

    Patricia (e1d89d)

  91. Great observation: MEGAN MCARDLE: What Exactly Would Barack Obama Do With a Second Term? The president has done shockingly little to lay out his second term agenda. “I suspect that Obama’s advisors knew all this months ago, and just figured it was too difficult to come up with a second term agenda that was both plausible and novel. Of course, it’ll be even harder now.”

    SPQR (768505)

  92. 88. Originally, when Tilly popped, the race seemed tight and I thought it was a he having chosen that handle, and here to discourage thugs and depress turnout, part of OFA or something.

    Now that two debates nominally on the economy have passed without explanation of the last four or proposals for a subsequent DNF there are no more opportunities for the Comeback Kid.

    So the former raison de etre is obviated, I now would guess it is a post-pubescent Turner’s syndrome, off school due to funding cuts or being expelled. Like I care.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  93. Pillman gags at the prospect of Bolton at State, and Palin at Energy.
    The thought of competent executives in place really frightens it.
    I actually agree with having Bolton at State, but would prefer Palin at Interior – that department has a lot of influence on energy extraction.
    For Energy, like Education, I want Romney to appoint a Wall Street Raider to those positions.
    We need someone who is experienced at gutting organizations, and selling off the bits.
    YMMV!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  94. Energy is a department that should be dismantled. Its useless. And Steven Chu has been astonishingly and unexpectedly corrupt.

    SPQR (768505)

  95. 94. Hot Pr0n to these ears.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  96. What Exactly Would Barack Obama Do With a Second Term?

    They’d take a lot more, and more expensive, vacations!

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  97. Romney won’t do it, however.

    Tammy Bruce found a great clip from the debate where Obama is already using the past tense for his tenure as President. Of course, I think he gave up on doing the job about two years ago.

    SPQR (768505)

  98. Comment by SPQR — 10/17/2012 @ 10:17 am

    And the only bigger disaster than Salazar @ Interior, has got to be Sibelius @ HHS –
    but they’re only doing their master’s bidding.

    In fact, I’m hard-pressed to name one competent Cabinet Secretary in this Administration.
    It seems they are all political hacks.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  99. Ah, don’t let the trolls worry you. I think that trolls are worried. Which is good.

    So here is something to amuse. I think Patterico posted on this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlwilbVYvUg

    I like the Mitt Romney one, where his motto appears to be “Stuff the Ice Chest.”

    We need to smile more. Not like Joe Biden, but like real human beings.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  100. Thanks for the script. Now I can ignore the poseur.

    Kaitian (4e478c)

  101. Simon, the trolls are completely terrified. Its clear that Obama lost all momentum. That Obama did it to himself, blowing a lead with his lame performances in public. Obama and his syncophants have had months to create explanations and excuses for their failures, and they’ve come up with nothing.

    SPQR (768505)

  102. I was livid at how Crowley aided and abetted BHO’s lying AND her “moving on” (as you said, Pat) at critical junctures when BHO’s pathetic record was about to see the light of day.

    I knew her from my year in DC. She allllllways portrayed herself as the most reasonable and fair journalist in the Capitol media pool. Her foundational bias was every bit the statist position the Democrats have proferred for generations.

    Then, she pulled that “referee” crapola. Unconscionable.

    Please recall that the commission expressly warned her to not intrude. It was a yooooge story on Monday. She did it anyway.

    This performance may stand as Exhibit A in Caddell’s case that she, and her sisters and brothers, are enemies of our constitutional America.

    Ed from SFV (4a2220)

  103. Unfortunately, the admonition given by Henry Fonda to John Wayne in the movie “In Harm’s Way” applies:

    Well, you can’t shoot (her)! – even if that is what she deserves.

    She is just another reason why the msm is so distrusted, and is self-failing.
    If they ever ask “why is this happening to us” she will be just another example to point to.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  104. “Simon, the trolls are completely terrified. Its clear that Obama lost all momentum.”

    LOLOL! This is nothing more than the desperate blatherings of a delusional wingnut afraid that their little false-reality bubble might burst. Trying to reassure one another that it’s not by fabricating utter idiocy like this.

    Do you think people like SPQR (whose screen name ironically pays homage to the Roman empire who Republicans seek to model in their efforts to bring about the downfall of OUR republic) actually believe this fantasy?

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  105. “I was livid at how Crowley aided and abetted BHO’s lying ”

    How DARE she point out that Romney was WRONG!

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  106. Except, dear Pillman, she was wrong about Mitt being wrong.
    So, I surmise that once-again, two wrongs make a right – which you wouldn’t know if it crawled up your backside and rang your belly-button.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  107. That he looked at a pool of candidates and said this is bad because there aren’t enough women is wrong.

    Why would that necessarily be wrong?

    Because it’s based on the idea that there’s a “right” number of women that there “should” be. If there isn’t then how can you say the number of women in the pool is not enough? Maybe it’s just right, or even more than it should be.

    I think he said that he sought a way to get more qualified applicants.

    No, he sought a way to get more qualified female applicants. Why should he be seeking them rather than all qualified applicants, male or female? It’s one thing to say “there aren’t enough candidates in this pool, go find me some more; there have got to be good people out there who for one reason or another haven’t applied”. It’s quite another to say “there are enough male candidates in this pool, we don’t need any more, there aren’t going to be any good men out there who haven’t applied, or maybe there are but I don’t care about them; but there have got to be some good women out there who haven’t applied, go find them”.

    Wouldn’t this improve his staff even if he hired based on qualifications alone?

    If would indeed do so somewhat (if we ignore the increased time, effort, and expense of interviewing or considering a bigger pool), but not as much as would a similar effort to find more good candidates regardless of sex, race, etc. If the purpose were simply to enlarge the pool in order to improve the quality of the eventual hires, the expansion would look for all suitable candidates; the fact that it looks only for female ones proves that this was not the purpose. Rather, the purpose was to achieve something closer to the “right” number of women. And that is wrong.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  108. P.T., you are an ignorant moron in so many ways. Not least when you show your ignorance while attempting snark. The acronym SPQR does not pay homage to the Roman empire. It is the acronym of the Roman Republic.

    And Romney was not wrong. He made the mistake of thinking that Jay Carney spoke for the White House.

    SPQR (768505)

  109. PS: None of the above applies if you already know that there was a specific flaw in your search that led to some demographics being irrationally ignored. For instance if you ran ads in Boston but not in Worcester, you would expect a preponderance of candidates from Boston, and you might correct that by running more ads just in Worcester, assuming that any decent candidate in Boston will have already seen the first ads. But first you need to know that this happened; you don’t just look at the list and say “why are only 10% of the applicants from Boston, when there ‘should’ be 30%”, at least not without a good a priori reason why there should be 30%.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  110. I liked that Romney pointed out that women, even qualified women, often need more flexibility in their schedules,

    There are plenty of men who also need flexibility in their schedules. Maybe there aren’t as many of these as there are women, but the needs of the ones who do exist are just as important. If you’re going to be flexible for everyone, this will disproportionately help women, and that’s fine; but it’s not fine to be flexible only for women and not for men.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  111. “The acronym SPQR does not pay homage to the Roman empire. It is the acronym of the Roman Republic.”

    Sure, whatever you say.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  112. “And Romney was not wrong. ”

    Of course not, a High Priest of Wingnuttia cannot, by definition, be wrong, since to judge them on the validity of their statements is not the purview of mere mortals of the 99%.

    Not everyone, however, thinks it’s OK to Lie for the Lord.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  113. Your ideological comrades, terrorist America-haters:

    Pakistan’s Taliban insurgency faces a spate of bad press in mainstream Pakistani outlets related to the jihadists’ failed assassination attempt of Malala Yousafzai, a young blogger who dared protest the Taliban’s ban on educating girls. Now the Taliban are plotting terror strikes on TV stations and other media organizations, but local newspapers refuse to stay silent.

    Watch out Candy, the Wingnuts are coming to get you.

    P. Tillman (fcbc8b)

  114. Appointments can never be judged by affirmitive action. No one gets to apply. The executive gets to fill those roles as he chooses. If he disregarded male applications in favor of female ones it would be affirmative action but since you don’t get to apply for an appointment the argument is null and void.

    Psycotte (077749)

  115. I actually agree with having Bolton at State, but would prefer Palin at Interior – that department has a lot of influence on energy extraction.

    And it includes the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which is a royal mess. Palin would be great in that role too, what with her Yu’pik connections. But my first choice for Interior, if he’ll accept it, is Royce Lamberth. If that doesn’t make heads at Interior go ‘splode, nothing will.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  116. P.T. wins “Most Psychotic Troll Ever” award over some very stiff competition. Congratulations are in order.

    Gerald A (138c50)

  117. Appointments can never be judged by affirmitive action. No one gets to apply. The executive gets to fill those roles as he chooses. If he disregarded male applications in favor of female ones it would be affirmative action but since you don’t get to apply for an appointment the argument is null and void.

    Not only untrue, but also irrelevant. People do apply for executive appointments, but even if they didn’t the exact same considerations apply to the search process.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  118. 118. Agree…

    Kevin P. (97b78a)

  119. I nominate Coburn to dismantle Freddie and Fannie.

    Patricia (e1d89d)

  120. “And Romney was not wrong. ”

    Of course not, a High Priest of Wingnuttia cannot, by definition, be wrong,

    Moron, your Messiah invited us to read the transcript; and the transcript shows that Romney was right.

    “The acronym SPQR does not pay homage to the Roman empire. It is the acronym of the Roman Republic.”

    Sure, whatever you say.

    Um, are you seriously denying this?!

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  121. Patrick, I’ve not posted in weeks due to a recent blessed event, but: Why hasn’t Tillman been banned? Never seen him before this thread, but he’s an obvious, bad-faith-arguing troll, as opposed to a good-faith-disagree-er having a rare bad day. Pull the plug.

    Mitch (341ca0)

  122. “Worst president in modern history.”
    Wingnut definition of “modern history” = 2008 to present.
    What a nitwit.
    Comment by P. Tillman — 10/17/2012 @ 8:14 am

    — See! Even Tillman knows that Carter was worse.

    Icy (cbc5e3)

  123. P.T. wins “Most Psychotic Troll Ever” award over some very stiff competition. Congratulations are in order.

    Comment by Gerald A — 10/17/2012 @ 12:14 pm

    I DEMAND a recount!

    EPWJ (2925ff)

  124. I wonder how those qualified men who weren’t hired felt about this?
    Comment by P. Tillman — 10/17/2012 @ 8:12 am

    — And your proof that even one man that applied for a specific position was passed over in favor of a demonstrably less-qualified woman is WHAT?

    Icy (cbc5e3)

  125. Romney admitted that women were under-represented in his applicant list so he sought to balance it by hiring women.
    Why would he do this if he didn’t agree with the principles of Affirmative Action?
    Perhaps you’re arguing that he did it for political reasons….if so, which is worse nitwit?
    Comment by P. Tillman — 10/17/2012 @ 8:19 am

    — Two words: Wise Latina

    Icy (cbc5e3)

  126. People on the left can make good arguments for their positions…

    Really? I’ve never seen one.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  127. I DEMAND a recount!

    Comment by EPWJ — 10/17/2012 @ 12:35 pm

    Hanging chads?

    Gerald A (138c50)

  128. Um, Pat — just delete all the sewage from “Tillman”. It adds nothing.

    Rob Crawford (e6f27f)

  129. I DEMAND a recount!
    Comment by EPWJ — 10/17/2012 @ 12:35 pm

    — Irony from the Israelites-In-Persia enumerator.

    Icy (cbc5e3)

  130. elissa @ 65 is exactly right; the fact that the people in Luntz’s focus group were chosen from the “undecided” limits the pool they’re drawn from.

    21. “Luntz Focus Group”

    14 male
    8 women
    All white.
    In Nevada.

    This would be funny if you didn’t actually believe this extremely biased group was somehow representative of a larger demographic…you know, America.

    Actually, you DON’T know America, you hate it.

    Comment by P. Tillman — 10/17/2012 @ 8:08 am

    Especially in a swing state like Nevada, which is about 80% white.

    He, he, nobody let Tilly in on the secret; there is no national election for President. There are 50 state elections, plus the election in DC, for electors.

    I enjoy the fact that Tilly’s venom reflects the fact he never knows what he’s talking about. It dovetails nicely with the fact his Messiah doesn’t know what he’s doing.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  131. Just speculating here, but I think the reason that Tillman has so far avoided being banned is because Patterico understands that Tillman wants to be banned. He is just itching to be able to run back to his buddies at Kos or DU or Think Progress and report that he (or she) was giving it to us wingnuts and we couldn’t handle his awesome arguments and impregnable logic so we just had him s**t-canned. I can imagine that our host doesn’t want to give him the satisfaction.

    But yeah, there is something seriously wrong with Tillman. I can’t even begin to fathom what a meaningless and unhappy life he must lead. I have ceased being frustrated with him and now I just feel sorry for him.

    JVW (f5695c)

  132. now I just feel sorry for him.

    Comment by JVW — 10/17/2012 @ 1:02 pm

    I hope you don’t mind when I point and laugh at the guy you’re feeling sorry for.

    I ceased being frustrated with him reading his first comment and by the end I just felt derisive contempt.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  133. Candy Crowley was the best thing that could have happened to Romney last night. That little interference run she did for Obama re: Libya has backfired tremendously.

    Iron Maiden (71f73f)

  134. Pillman is obviously the product of a “public education” and never learned there was a Roman Republic,
    just as he is oblivious to the intricacies of the Electoral College.
    After all, our Republic was founded by a bunch of Dead, White, Euro-derived Males; and not by his beloved Multi-Culti Progs – so it must be suspect.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (b8ab92)

  135. # 124 – ICY –

    Worst president in modern history.”
    Wingnut definition of “modern history” = 2008 to present.
    What a nitwit.
    Comment by P. Tillman — 10/17/2012 @ 8:14 am

    – See! Even Tillman knows that Carter was worse.

    Icy – The current consensus of historians acknowledge that Carter has moved up one notch and looks quite impressive compared to the Obuma. Future historians will likely agree with the current assessment.

    Joe-Dallas (ea8609)

  136. All you lawyers here, would you agree that when a lawyer says “let me get this on the record…” like Mitt did on Benghazi, that he’s got a little more Cross-X coming next week?

    Patricia (e1d89d)

  137. According to the link, it’s been downloaded 493 times so a lot of people can vouch for it.

    495 now. Thanks.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  138. Please, please PLEASE!

    Stop responding to the troll. He’ll lose interest and wander away.

    Why try to engage him in reasonable debate when he is here only to troll?

    Okay, got that out of my system.

    I still think he should just be ignored. In an early comment he called Romney a name for f**k sakes. No need to respond to that.

    kinlaw (2fb87c)

  139. Milhouse, its hilarious how its own snark shows its stupidity, is it not?

    SPQR (768505)

  140. BREAKING NEWS!!! Hillary Clinton now endorses Mitt Romney! Wow!

    The Emperor (790315)

  141. Now Marquette U. Law school says WI all tied up. Is it not odd how polls tighten in Oct. almost independent of the Undecideds?

    Walker won recall by 7 and yet Urkel was up 11 just days ago.

    Guess the value of shaping public opinion declines in Oct.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  142. All you lawyers here, would you agree that when a lawyer says “let me get this on the record…” like Mitt did on Benghazi, that he’s got a little more Cross-X coming next week?

    Comment by Patricia — 10/17/2012 @ 1:22 pm

    I think you’re right, Patricia. Romney has demonstrated an ability to patiently plan ahead. I think he used last night’s opportunity to lay the groundwork for the foreign policy debate next week.

    Good thinking, Patricia.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  143. I think Tillman’s comments are equal parts annoying and helpful. They are annoying because it seems clear he isn’t here to debate in good faith, but they are helpful because he invariably raises the issues that are being pushed at liberal websites. That forces me to think about and respond in greater depth to liberal concerns. And it often works to solidify my views, not change them.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  144. @145

    Good point DRJ; gotta know what they are talking about over in the fever swamps so as to be able to solidly refute them.

    kinlaw (2fb87c)

  145. Mitt Romney hates women because he keeps them in binders!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  146. I think if you compare Obama’s hiring of women to that of Romney, Romney’s records is much better. Isn’t Obama the President whose female employees complained about paying them less than their male counterparts?

    rochf (f3fbb0)

  147. Despite the importance of the economy to voters and Ogabe’s failures, Green Shoots, Jobs, Inflation, Housing, Small Business, etc., I wonder if he isn’t in worse shape on foreign policy with the public.

    Abandoning the Czechs and Poles over the missile treaty.

    Turning his back on Great Britain and our ‘special relationship’.

    Fast & Furious, Honduran interference, friendliness with Chavez and Kirchner.

    Afghanistan debacle, Pakistani drones, Arab Spring, Assad the ‘Reformer’, abandonment of Israel.

    Greater flexibility to deal with Russia post-election. Foreign currency exchange wars with Japan, China, Switzerland and the EU, not to mention emerging economies.

    My point being, at least with domestic policy a large segment is on his side. Foreign policy, not so much.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  148. DRJ, I never cease to be amazed at your ability to be gracious to and understanding of even the most bothersome trolls. I really do try to follow your lead in that regard, but I don’t think I am cut out for it.

    JVW (f5695c)

  149. 2. Even if Romney sat there and went “buh, buh buh” all night with drool coming down his chin (not far from the truth, actually) you Bubble Boy Wingnuts would STILL say he won.

    So, yawn.

    Comment by P. Tillman — 10/17/2012 @ 7:46 am

    Whoops!

    MSNBC’s Undecided Voter Panel Swayed by Romney

    Where’d MSNBC find all those bubble boy Wingnuts?

    To cut to the chase, 6 of 8 spoke. 1 favored Obama, 3 favored Romney, 2 said it was still up in the air. With one of those 2 sounding like she’s really leaning toward Romney since she didn’t like the job Obama’s been doing but that Romney has a good track record.

    High-larious.

    MSNBC tool declares it a draw.

    Steve57 (c8ac21)

  150. #149 Gary –

    Abandoning the Czechs and Poles over the missile treaty.

    Turning his back on Great Britain and our ‘special relationship’.

    Fast & Furious, Honduran interference, friendliness with Chavez and Kirchner.

    Afghanistan debacle, Pakistani drones, Arab Spring, Assad the ‘Reformer’, abandonment of Israel.

    Greater flexibility to deal with Russia post-election. Foreign currency exchange wars with Japan, China, Switzerland and the EU, not to mention emerging economies.

    My point being, at least with domestic policy a large segment is on his side. Foreign policy, not so much.

    Comment by gary gulrud — 10/17/2012 @ 2:50 pm

    Gary – Obama gets fairly good marks for his foreign policy primarily because the public has no idea any of those things occurred – the ones they do know about, have been portrayed as accomplishments – such as the arab spring bring “democracy” to the middle east. Keep in mind that Obama brought “democracy” to the middle east with out “islamic influence” where as bush created more jihadist in iraq. At least that is the impression given to the public. Of course, chamberlian was applauded by the media because he brought us peace in our time.

    Joe-Dallas (ea8609)

  151. One of Zelaya,’s (the Honduran dictator wannabe)
    virtual apokesperaon in the press, was my fishwrap’s virtual rep for the Martin family,

    narciso (ee31f1)

  152. Last night:

    CBS NEWS INSTANT POLL

    Who won debate? OBAMA: 37%; ROMNEY: 30%, TIE: 33% (Margin of Error: 4 pts.

    65% say Romney won on issue of economy, compared to 34% who say Obama.

    CNN’s poll of registered voters who watched the debate: “46 percent said Obama won the debate, 39 percent said Romney won the debate.”

    The sample splits 33 percent Democrat, 33 percent Republican, 33 percent independent.

    (From Morning Jolt)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  153. I for one can vouch for the efficacy of Milhouse’s “Ignore” script. Since I’ve been using it, my timeline has been virtually free of P-Dilly’s asinine babble.

    For, without a doubt, it is the most malodorous, rancid troll I’ve ever encountered on this site.

    Those of you who engage it have stronger stomachs than I.

    Pious Agnostic (2c3220)

  154. steve57 #132 – P.Tillman doesn’t have a Messiah – he has a Meshugge !

    Those of us who enjoyed a classical education are familiar with the origins of SPQR … we should show pity for P.Tillman since he seems not to have been lucky enough to be educated … he seems to have been indoctrinated, Rather …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  155. Best Luntz line (paraphrased) – “How did I get Ruth Bader Ginsburg on my panel ?”

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  156. As a respecter of the rights of women and the poor, it bothers me that it was not SQPR. Patriarchal phallocratic senocratic statists!

    nk (875f57)

  157. Buzzsawmonkey is at the top of his game: The Candy Ma’am

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  158. Poor P. Tillman.
    He’s upset. All those requisite union dues he’s been paying into the Re-elect Obama war chest will ultimately end up in vain.
    And despite P. Tillman’s lack of education, he can still read the writing on the wall.

    Pretty soon he’ll be talking about binders, birth control, and Ann Romney’s horse. And after January 20, he can talk about Obama’s new mansion in Hawaii !

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  159. We won’t see the trolls after the election, Elephant Stone. They’ll get their pink slips from Soros and go back to commercial spamming.

    nk (875f57)

  160. Those of us who enjoyed a classical education are familiar with the origins of SPQR …

    Or those of us who have heard the Boogie Knights perform it.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  161. Mitt Romney hates women because he keeps them in binders!

    You really have to want to find offense at simply an awkward turn of phrase. If you applied the same rigor to, say, Biden…

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  162. I gotta say that Greasemonkey script works well.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  163. it’s funny… teh Illman and teh Whimperor are like a pencil-neck geek, Low-T Troll Tag Team.

    Colonel Haiku (66b343)

  164. Anybody know what became of tye? I almost miss him by comparison.

    Pious Agnostic (2c3220)

  165. #167 – P.Tillman and The Emperor are in a tye for last place ?

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  166. ___________________________________________

    I think America learned a few new things about Willard last night.

    Did you all know that he is FOR affirmative action in hiring?

    There’s plenty of left-leaning sentiment in Romney—he’s way closer to the center than Obama is. That’s why for people to be so emotionally wedded to the current president reflects quite a bit of leftwing, or ultra-liberal, instincts on their part.

    Mark (ece7bc)

  167. _________________________________________

    Isn’t Obama the President whose female employees complained about paying them less than their male counterparts?

    Speaking of which, I’m familiar with a rock-ribbed liberal who’s a devotee of Obama and also manages a business. Believe me, the two-faced nature of that person’s political sentiments, vis a vie the way he deals with people and personal issues (including taxes) would make your head spin. He truly exemplifies the nature of latte liberalism and the limousine liberal.

    I truly think such people are suffering from a form of stunted maturity. They’re a political variation of brats who never grew up, who never gained wisdom as they grew older.

    Mark (ece7bc)

  168. Milhouse, either its me and my machine or there is something wrong with your link.

    kinlaw (2fb87c)

  169. are you following instructions up at 83, kinlaw?

    elissa (219bc4)

  170. _______________________________________

    we should show pity for P.Tillman since he seems not to have been lucky enough to be educated

    When I envision the comments of people like him as originating from teenagers or college-aged adults, or people who aren’t much older than their late 20s, I find it a matter of “it comes with the territory.” So such folks don’t seem quite so absurd or foolish to me as their older philosophical bedfellows are—stemming from the notion (whether valid or not) of “if you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

    The poster in question mentioned not long ago that he has a young daughter. So he apparently is not too far from that moment in life when he’ll be reaching the “I have no brain” stage—or someone similar to 51-year-old super-duper-liberal Obama.

    Mark (ece7bc)

  171. The main reason illman hasn’t been banned is because P bans almost no one. One has to be quite personal, vile, and threatening of real harm before P lowers the boom.

    I bet there are more people who quit coming because they are tired of the trolls than trolls who have been banned. But then again, since so few have been banned it may be only 2 or 3 reasonable people who got fed up.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  172. MD– there are quite a few commenters who used to come by this blog fairly regularly and whose opinions and perceptions I found to be interesting. When people like that just seem to disappear I always wonder why.

    elissa (219bc4)

  173. I do wish Pat would either ban him, or at least ban his use of a deceased honorable soldier’s name, that he uses a such a moniker makes a mockery of that soldier’s sacrifice. What say you Pat? Please at least ban the asshat’s use of his current moniker.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  174. Thanks elissa, I have installed grease monkey.

    kinlaw (2fb87c)

  175. M.D., it is the feeding of the trolls that dismays me most. The hi-jacking is what drives me away. I wish the call to “not feed the troll” be taken to heart and implemented.

    Felipe (3243af)

  176. True, elissa. When I disappear at times it is simply because I can’t afford the time for a spell. I assume that is a reason for many others as well.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  177. Now you know, Elissa.

    Felipe (3243af)

  178. Understood, Felipe. As one who at times calls to give the ignoring treatment to someone, I’ve also been known to go over my annoyance level and toss out some stuff myself.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  179. Milhouse, either its me and my machine or there is something wrong with your link.

    Comment by kinlaw — 10/17/2012

    Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8I9dYkDt1Y

    Dustin (73fead)

  180. ’tis but a scratch!

    Blackie, the leftie knight (be1e0d)

  181. ___________________________________________

    The main reason illman hasn’t been banned is because P bans almost no one.

    I guess I see people like him differently, in that I suspect they make the effort to debate folks of opposing viewpoints in a forum that’s oriented to such viewpoints because they know deepdown that their ideology — their ilk — is full of baloney. Either that, or they don’t truly believe the stuff they spew, and merely want to stir things up just to cause arguments. Or arguing for argument’s sake. That to me is the definition of a troll.

    I bet there are more people who quit coming

    One reason why Patterico.com may not attract more forumers, or loses certain readers, is because this website’s message forum has a graphic interface that is the most unappealing of any online forum I’ve ever come across on the Internet. I find myself hesitating to pore through many of the posts keyed into this type of thread, which is not the reaction I have with just about any other message forum out there. Of course, YMMV, but I don’t think my eyes work so differently from that of the average person.

    Mark (ece7bc)

  182. I do wish Pat would either ban him, or at least ban his use of a deceased honorable soldier’s name, that he uses a such a moniker makes a mockery of that soldier’s sacrifice. What say you Pat? Please at least ban the asshat’s use of his current moniker.

    I suppose it is possible that his (her?) last name really is Tillman and first initial really is P. I know two other Tillman families, neither of whom is related to the family of the late Pat Tillman and neither of whom is related directly to each other. It isn’t a particularly exotic name.

    JVW (f5695c)

  183. That’s reaching JVW. That asshat uses that moniker to rile people here. I suspect it might even be “ModerateConservative” switch to P. Tillman.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  184. Thanks for fixing the URL, Dustin

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  185. PS: The Boogie Knights’ web site seems to be down. I wanted to post the lyrics, because they’re hard to hear on the live recording. And as luck would have it the Wayback Machine’s only copy of that particular page is down too.

    Milhouse (15b6fd)

  186. The next debate is Foreign Policy, supposedly Obama’s strong suit. But, given the performances by both candidates in the past two debates, I suspect Obama knows he needs a big bump. Therefore, be on the lookout for a strike at the culprits from the Consulate attack, likely a day or two before the next debate. That would mean probably Saturday or Sunday — perhaps even early Monday. This would give Obama a chance to look “Presidential” and leave little time for people to process how cynical it would be. I think he has even laid the ground work for this by emphasizing that we would go after the perps. A Hail Mary October surprise.

    Bill M (2f7437)

  187. The next debate is Foreign Policy, supposedly Obama’s strong suit.

    Reset Overcharge button
    Churchill’s bust
    iPod for the Queen of England (after not learning the first time, but see below))
    Bowing to Akihito
    Bowing to Abdullah
    Hugging Chavez
    Forcing Honduras to ignore their own constitution
    Easing relations with Cuba
    Sucking up to other South American leftists
    Not dining with Netanyahu when he’s staying overnight at the WH
    Israel, again and again
    Backstabbing Poland on September 1
    The Arab Spring

    But my absolute favorite Obama foreign policy blunder is this:

    Diplomatic jaws dropped across the continent yesterday when it was revealed that U.S. President Barack Obama had, once again, fumbled a routine protocal of international statecraft: finding the right gift for a foreign leader or head of state. In a private ceremony with Queen Elizabeth, Her Royal Highness bequeathed to the Obamas one of the earliest known copies of William Shakespeare’s Henry V. She also presented him with the framed orginal sheet music of John Newton’s “Amazing Grace.” To the Obama daughters, the Queen gave a dollhouse-sized replica of Windsor Castle with a functioning train station in the year of the compound. They also received a prize Shetland pony. Mrs. Obama was given a ruby ring commissioned and worn by Queen Victoria.

    The Obamas, unfortunately, did not seem prepared for the occasion despite the row set off by the exchange of gifts between Prime Minister Brown and the U.S. President barely a month ago. Mr. Obama rather unceremoniously handed the Queen a shopping bag from the Duty Free shop at Heathrow airport. It contained a signed paperback copy of Dreams of My Father, purchased at the WH Smith shop at the airport, a bottle of Johnny Walker Scotch (black label), a CD of the Swedish band ABBA’s greatest hits (still in shrink wrap with a 2-for-1 sticker on it) and ten bags of M&Ms with the presidential seal on them.

    Sadly, it may BE his strong suit.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  188. 190. OMG, why give trailer trash treasure?

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  189. Kevin M., Jonah’s piece has to be a joke, right? These kind of things happen because there are no adults in the White House at all.

    SPQR (ae79c0)

  190. Obama never answered the question of who is responsible for denying the Ambassador’s request for additional security.

    I hope it is brought up again Monday.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  191. Kevin M., Jonah’s piece has to be a joke, right?

    In fact, it is a joke, but a very good one by Jonah Goldberg. Obama’s real gift to Her Majesty wasn’t much better: an iPod loaded with pictures from her 2007 trip to the U.S. and — according to other sources — with Obama’s greatest speeches. The uber-cool Obamas apparently thought that the stodgy old Queen would be wowed by an iPod, not knowing that she had already owned one for about four years.

    JVW (f5695c)

  192. HELL! They could have given her a dvd player with the wrong region code! OOPS, they already committed that boner! Maybe a subscription to the fruit of the month club? Or maybe a dozen pair of Argyle socks?

    peedoffamerican (2b389a)

  193. It’s really a wonder that they didn’t give her a buy-one-get-one coupon booklet to Burger King along with the cardboard crown.

    peedoffamerican (2b389a)

  194. Comment by JD — 10/17/2012 @ 8:06 am

    Bernstein goes on to write that even though then-Governor Romney appointed women to 42% of the cabinet positions, Romney supposedly only appointed women to “head departments and agencies that he didn’t care about…

    From the transcript of the second Obama-Romney debate:

    ROMNEY; ….after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff…the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.

    Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you’re going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.

    She said, I can’t be here until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o’clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let’s have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

    Everyone knows, nobody cares about who occupies the position of Chief of Staff.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  195. Comment by Mark — 10/17/2012 @ 7:57 pm

    this website’s message forum has a graphic interface that is the most unappealing of any online forum I’ve ever come across on the Internet…..Of course, YMMV, but I don’t think my eyes work so differently from that of the average person.

    It must be your computer, or the software it is running.

    What are you using to look at this?

    This is the easiest of most current blogs to read. (a lot have changed their software)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3763 secs.