I think L. Fletcher looks more like a young Joe Biden pre-getting kicked out of Dave & Buster’s
I don’t think we disagree. As I recall the sequence:
Romney has crapfest convention, gets small bounce
Obama has great convention, gets larger bounce
Romney gets momentum back, starts to gain
47% video comes out, momentum back to Obama
1st debate, big momentum shift to Romney
2nd debate, Obama regains momentum
3rd debate, no significance
Romney lies about Jeep, sealing his fate
I still think if that video is taken out of the loop, Romney has a much better shot at winning.
Open them in separate windows and look at them side by side.
I don’t remember this. Obama’s convention bounce faded - as bounces do, hence the name - but I don’t think much of consequence happened at this stage of the campaign. So I don’t think Romney fumbled away any momentum (if I never hear that word again…) and the 47% thing hurt him in the polls, but I’m not sure there was that much of an effort. You seem to be suggesting it cost him a very large amount of support, and I don’t see the evidence.
I don’t think this made any difference either.
Minor nitpick.
You mean any who believes Oswald INTENDED to kill Kennedy is a nut.
Oswald was watching the President’s procession when he spotted a sniper on the grassy knoll and took a shot at the sniper but in his haste and panic he accidentally shot the President.
They both have heavily lidded eyes, long faces, and a flattened nose bridge. Beyond that it’s hit and miss. According to this Leroy Prouty didn’t have any kids named “Scott.”
[INDENT]Survivors include his wife of 59 years, Elizabeth Prouty of Alexandria; three children, David Prouty of Laurel, Jane Prouty of Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Lauren Prouty of Lynchburg, Viginia. His brother, Air Force Colonel Robert Vincent Prouty, died in January 2000 and is also buried in Arlington National Cemetery. [/INDENT]
Clearly that means Scott Prouty tried to avoid the limelight due to shame about his illegitimate birth.
I noticed in the interview (or one of them…) that he thought the stuff about Romney visiting and investing in a factory in China was the most significant part of what he recorded. Seems he didn’t really think that the “47%” stuff was all that meaningful. Rather odd.
Also, I’ve seen references to him as “college educated”. Did he graduate before advancing to his career in the hospitality industry? What major?
Its like looking into a mirror!
The point suffers from the lack of a clear standard for “momentum”. There is no doubt the media spent more time crowing about Romney after what they considered pivotal events. There were also huge swings in the Gallup poll, but in hindsight–given how badly they missed both now and in 2008–I’m not sure these are really credible. On the other side, I got daily comfort from the momentum madness by following Nate Silver’s blog, which pretty much called it for Obama in the late summer and never really moved from that assessment thru the election.
If you define “momentum” as “who is getting more buzz on TV”, there were wild swings (that’s what makes a horserace interesting). If you define it as “who’s actually increasing their chances based on objective polling”, the election was in the bag for Obama early.
Why? Do they both look like you?
Mondale and Dukakis support my point from the opposite wing: The public rejected their brand of liberalism, but the party base couldn’t believe their vision was a loser, so they blamed the candidates. It’s a glib oversimplification, but it indicates where the party was in the 1980; the party only revived their fortunes when Clinton forced a shift in his party’s ideaology which broght back the Reagan Democrats/Blue Dogs. Remember, Clinton wasn’t as well-liked by the base then as he is now.
Okay.
Okay then. Your link shows that any resemblance is probably coincidental. I saw this being discussed on another board, noticed what to me appeared to be a resemblance and thought I’d mention it here to see what others thought.
And he’s a bartender. He’s my dream guy!
Where do people get this shit? Oswald was in the pay of Aristotle Onassis to whack both JFK and Connally, the first to open his way to Jackie and the second to prevent Connally from comforting Jackie with his big, Texas penis. Isn’t it obvious?
Wait a sec. That one has possibilities. Quick! Someone get The History Channel on the line. With some stock footage and that guy on Geico ads who asks rhetorical questions reading the script menacingly we could turn this into a series!
Sure he’s old enough for you?
The more I think about this, the more angry and puzzled I get. Can someone explain the following to me?
When I first heard this video and the part about the Chinese girls in the (obvious) sweatshop, it upset me, but my attention was more focused on the 47% comment like most others. But like Prouty, I think this is really the meat of the video.
Who here heard the story and thought the same as Romney did? Anyone? None of it makes sense! If these jobs are so highly in demand, why are only young girls doing it? Why are they living on the premises? Whoever heard of a successful and desirable working location surrounded by barbed wire fences and guard towers? And saying that its to keep out others who would just come in to work and expect to be compensated, as if that’s a justification?? This is the country where, if you mention Falun Gong, they can have you in a work camp within the hour!
How THE FUCK can a supposedly smart businessman like Mitt Romney fall for this shit??? 99% of the people who heard this knew instantly that it was the textbook description of a sweatshop or forced labor camp! And this guy took a tour and thought “Wow, what a great working environment!”??? And this isn’t like Romney related the story wrongly, or out of context, something that he then later walked back on. As far as I know, he’s never repudiated this story and apologized for the error. Is he for real? I can hardly believe it!
If this is the kind of factory conditions Romney praises, and later retells to a group of rich donors as if is a wonderful vision of what America should be like, then I am so relieved that this guy didn’t win. He supports sweatshops! Really?! How can he be that fucking moronic as to not know that? Please, somebody explain to me how he was so easily tricked? Because if he’s really that stupid, I’m going to try to meet him and get him to buy some magic beans from me for a million dollars.
The sweatshop video was the first segment that I saw. I saw it on YouTube weeks before the whole 47% thing got big. I kept running into links to it in various places and hoping that it would get more public attention, and yeah, it’s pretty damned horrendous.
The whole thing about the fences being there to keep out people who wanted to work is just ludicrous. Romney is supposed to be this great businessman and he didn’t see the problems with this? I sneak into your business, do the work, with apparently no training, then expect to get paid at the end of the week?
I guess the 47% thing took off because it was a personal attack on so many of the people who saw it, but it’s really not a surprise that many wealthy Republicans see things that way, but the sweatshop story says some very disturbing things about how Romney views the world and the proper place of workers.
I too am amazed to learn of the “fences to keep people *out *of the labor camp” statement.
Apologies for playing Godwin, but I wonder if any Holocaust deniers have ever used that angle: “Those kind Nazi guards were protecting the Jews and Gypsies from the attacking Allies!”
Is there a conservative version of Godwin’s Law? Something like, “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Marxists or Stalin approaches 1?” Because it appears to be a law of nature.