The Washington Examiner pokes at Obama's Chicago days and offers this about the self-proclaimed "constitutional law professor":
Time magazine gushed in 2008 about Barack Obama's
12-year tenure as a law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law
School, saying, "Within a few years, he had become a rock-star professor
with hordes of devoted students."
That may have been true during his first two years, when he
ranked first among the law school's 40 instructors, with students giving
him a rating of 9.7 out of a possible 10.
But law student evaluations made available to The Washington Examiner by the university showed that his popularity then fell steadily.
Foreshadowing his Presidency, and now they tell us!
In 1999, only 23 percent of the students said they would repeat Obama's
racism class. He was the third-lowest-ranked lecturer at the law school
that year. And in 2003, only a third of the student evaluators
recommended his classes.
His classes were small. A spring 1994 class attracted 14 out of a
student body of 600; a spring 1996 class drew 13. In 1997, he had the
largest class of his tenure with 49 students. But by then, his student
rating had fallen to 7.75. Twenty-two of 40 faculty members ranked
higher than Obama.
Yeah, but was Mitt Romney on the roster with an alternative class?
Some former faculty colleagues today describe Obama as disengaged, doing only what was minimally required and almost never participating in faculty activities.
They only say that because golf was not a faculty activity.
Is anyone in the least bit surprised?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2012 at 11:31 AM
almost never participating in faculty activities.
Consistent with his status as being a mere adjunct, but also no doubt with his not wanting to betray his utter lack of knowledge of the law.
Posted by: jimmyk | September 20, 2012 at 11:38 AM
JimmyK-- that's not fair-- he didn't have time for faculty activities, he was otherwise engaged by Mayor Daley/Cook Machine commitments.
Posted by: NK | September 20, 2012 at 11:40 AM
So, his class was seen as a joke, basically.
Posted by: Pofarmer | September 20, 2012 at 11:45 AM
AJ Strata explains whats baked in to the polls, and, more importantly, what probably isn't.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 20, 2012 at 11:48 AM
OT - Lovely (sarc)story about a local boy and our venerable MFM (CNN to be exact)
CNN - keeping Bambi's foreign policy alive!~
LUN
Posted by: Enlightened | September 20, 2012 at 12:07 PM
This unsurprising story of Obama starting big and ending small at UCLS reminded me of Mel Brooks telling Johnny Carson about meeting Cary Grant for the first time. Hilarious, at least to me.
Posted by: DebinNC | September 20, 2012 at 12:24 PM
No. No. Tom he would not have been lecturing. That's not Best Practice you see. And since he and Ayers were simultaneously involved in creating the Best Practice template at the time, it would have been some sort of hands-on Action Research for extra credit or coursework. The actual classwork would have been Meaningful Dialogues sharing Cultural Perspectives.
And I have a new post up called "Using Education to Create the Behavior Government Officials Want in Future Citizens" in the LUN. Unfortunately the Columbine template is back without any question and I do not say that lightly. School officials in various districts trying to fight back from the spectre that systems thinking ties into Eastern spirituality if not some type of pagan Earth worship which of course its practitioners actually do say, introduced the 1992 essay I wrote about today. Turns out it definitively linked systems thinking and Transformational OBE to altering the human personality to get to an altered future.
Scientistic to the core in the Hayek/Von Mises sense these profs and researchers really did envision redesigning all the social systems going forward. That was what was being piloted in Colorado, not just OBE. I got the book yesterday that inspired all these tragic visions. So graphic.
Very sad. I have had a bunch of smoking guns this week and all recently fired with a history of tragedy.
And sunlight is the only way I know.
Posted by: rse | September 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Some former faculty colleagues today describe Obama as disengaged, doing only what was minimally required and almost never participating in faculty activities.
Does anyone doubt that some former WH colleagues will have the same diagnosis a year from now. It sounds exactly like what he does as president.
Posted by: Jane - Get off the couch your country needs you! | September 20, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Pot, booze, and maybe a little blow, like a rockstar.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Perhaps someone should tell them how the New Soviet Man turned out?
Lysenkoists, every one of them.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 20, 2012 at 12:29 PM
You forgot the bit about a groupie in the limo. At least, according to the rumors out of Chicago...
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Voting "present" all the way...
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | September 20, 2012 at 12:43 PM
He's lazy. That has been established but ignored.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Well I remember from the Cantor piece, on his lectures, that wasa dangerous bit of doubleunplusgood revelation, how the Bell primer, as major source, and the tenor of the questions, made it a very grueling experience, like a root canal
Posted by: narciso | September 20, 2012 at 12:49 PM
Where was this story before 2008? I thought The Washington Examiner was operating at that time or am I wrong?
Posted by: sailor | September 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM
DebinNC,
That was a perfect but hilarious analogy. God, I miss Carson and his show especially his guests like Georgie Gobel and Mel Brooks. That was a time when I could actually stay up way past the monologue and smile at the fact that Ted Koppel had one less watcher that night:)
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 20, 2012 at 01:41 PM
At least they haven't yet blamed it on Global Warming:
Air pollution has also been shown to “negatively impact penis size.”
"Male private parts are shrinking, according to a new Italian study on sexuality. The study’s leaders claim to have bona fide research that says the average size of a penis is roughly 10 percent smaller than it was 50 years ago."
In the future we will all be Chinese:(
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 01:45 PM
Tom Friedman hits on "true gold" ...
... doesn't that sound just like MSNBC ???Posted by: Neo | September 20, 2012 at 01:47 PM
Daddy, I was pointing out how the whole affair, reminds me of Pres. McNeil and his stand against the Omicronians.
Posted by: narciso | September 20, 2012 at 01:49 PM
In the mean time, Romney is now tied in Gallup.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/09/20/after-romneys-horrible-week-gallup-is-now-tied/
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 20, 2012 at 01:49 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2012 at 01:52 PM
Rush's Tape Delayed rant this morning is about the Media putting up a bogus meme that the Economy is turning around.
This story about FEDEX (and UPS's) numbers prove exactly the opposite, both Globally and Domestically:
For Once, the AP Headline Writers Get It Right; Fedex Aug. 31 Quarterly Results Show That 'the (U.S.) Economy Is Stalling'
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 01:53 PM
The Barry groundswell contunues;
Posted by: Ezra Klein | September 20, 2012 at 01:55 PM
Speaking of little pricks, Ed Schultz calls for Anthony Weiner being given an opportunity to host a TV Show on MSNBC:
"I'd give former Rep. Anthony Weiner a shot. If Eliot Spitzer can get a show on Current, Weiner should have a second chance too. He's smart, experienced, and entertaining. And the publicity would help bring in a curious audience."
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 02:00 PM
daddy, he's certainly not below their standards.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2012 at 02:07 PM
Did the hamsters stop running on the treadmill here?
Anyway I'm not ready to believe MessNBC's Comcast overlords are ready to base hiring decisions on input from Special Ed.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 20, 2012 at 02:19 PM
hey daddy, the Census Bureau would beg to differ. LUN
They don't even bother to keep their lies straight.
Posted by: matt | September 20, 2012 at 02:20 PM
daddy,
How long before they blame Bush for the reduction in size?
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 20, 2012 at 02:21 PM
John McCormack is a good reporter, I think. LUN is his analysis of Romney's comment about the 47%. McCormack thinks that Romney fails to understand American conservatism because (no surprise) he is not a conservative, though he is running as the nominee of the conservative party. Here's a key sentence in McCormack's article: "Conservatives know--and explain why--their economic policies will help the poor, as well as senior citizens, working families, and our troops who pay no income taxes. Conservatives realize that the Republican party is not the party of people who want to be rich, it's the party of people who want to be free."
I wondered what you all would think of this piece, since some of you had such viscerally negative reactions to McCormack's boss, Bill Kristol. Is this any better, daddy et al.?
Posted by: long-time lurker | September 20, 2012 at 02:26 PM
I pledge allegiance to Barack Obama
And to the Cult for which he stands
One Cult, Indivisible
With Newspeak and Free Stuff for all
Posted by: matt | September 20, 2012 at 02:31 PM
A fundraiser is more about goals and timetables, rather than philosophy, his subsequent explanations have been better.
Posted by: narciso | September 20, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Looking fwd to seeing Hit, DrJ and others in the belly of the NorCal Beast tomorrow (we'll meet in Berzerkely).
I won't disclose the exact location lest DublinCaDave calls in a drone strike.....
Posted by: Jim,MtnViewCA,USA | September 20, 2012 at 02:32 PM
Posted by: cathyf | September 20, 2012 at 02:44 PM
cathyf,
Rush was reading something to day about socialism that concluded it was "shared misery equally".
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 20, 2012 at 02:48 PM
Surprise
Largest single component of givers to Obama campaign are professors at the major elite universities. Next come the tech companies. I wonder were the MFM are ranked in terms of donations?
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 20, 2012 at 02:55 PM
Megyn Kelly doing a nice job explaining the case of HHS Head Sibelius violating the Hatch Act and then, having been caught, having to pay back the money it cost for her Govt sponsored Political Campaigning.
Megyn did her homework and tells us that part of the money paid back for the trip was paid not by the DNC as reported by Politico, CBS NBC etc, but was instead paid back from HHS Funds, which are Taxpayer Funds. (ie our money)
So no matter what the MSM is telling us, our Tax Dollars paid for Sibelius's illegal Tax Payer funded Campaign junket. We paid for all of it before she was caught, and we still paid for much if not most of it after she was caught.
What a nice racket.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 02:58 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2012 at 03:03 PM
Harry Reid might force Brown to skip tonight's debate with Fauxcahontas.
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2012 at 03:07 PM
Thanks DebinNC for your 12:24 on Mel Brooks/Cary Grant.
Very much fun:)
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 03:10 PM
--Is this any better, daddy et al.?
Posted by: long-time lurker | September 20, 2012 at 02:26 PM --
No, it stinks. It's fine to make philosophical points critical of nominees during the primaries and it's fine to do so after the candidate wins or loses the election.
If McCormack's view is that Barry needs to be defeated (is there a sane or responsible person who thinks otherwise?) then how does making these points now advance that overriding concern?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 20, 2012 at 03:10 PM
If that McCormack piece doesn't work for you, I've got plenty of other "Romney sucks and has already lost the election" links.
It really breaks my heart to have to show up on this blog, out of the blue, right before the election, and post all these negative Romney links, because I've been a conservative Christian my whole life who's voted Republican in every election since Lincoln.
But I also think it's important that we face the reality that Obama's going to win another term and there's nothing we can do about it. :(
Posted by: short-time concern troll | September 20, 2012 at 03:11 PM
Jane - that snippet from Daddy at 2:58 would be a perfect illustration for your next radio show about how mainstream media outlets don't get their facts straight.
Posted by: C.R. | September 20, 2012 at 03:12 PM
"Some former faculty colleagues today describe Obama as disengaged, doing only what was minimally required and almost never participating in faculty activities."
Well obviously he was involved in helping Michelle handle the very heavy load of casework in her $350,000 Hospital Job. Completely understandable.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 03:14 PM
O/T Evidently the MFM dimwits missing stories extends to sports also:
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 20, 2012 at 03:15 PM
Illiterate OWS'er laments Romney's tax haevens, today in Sarasota.
http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web05/2012/9/20/14/enhanced-buzz-25674-1348165246-30.jpg
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | September 20, 2012 at 03:21 PM
It looks like Chick-fil-A did back down...if the story is correct.
"The Christian-rooted fast food restaurant agreed to stop funding groups such as Focus on the Family that oppose same-sex marriage..."
Komen has to keep giving to Planned Parenthood. Chick-fil-A must stop giving to Focus on the Family.
I guess it's their choice...is "Anthony Martinez, executive director for the Civil Rights Agenda, the Illinois lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender group" really that powerful????
Posted by: Janet | September 20, 2012 at 03:24 PM
'Reality-based Community' update
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2012 at 03:25 PM
A word to rioting Muslims
from Pat Condell
Amen
Posted by: Janet | September 20, 2012 at 03:35 PM
Janet it may just be a case of the owners deciding to donate personally instead of through the corporation. I wouldn't necessarily view this as a terrible cave job.
Posted by: Captain Hate | September 20, 2012 at 03:37 PM
CH-
Louisville credit card receipts and bookie slips were not discovered in a recent inquiry.
Posted by: Melinda Romanoff | September 20, 2012 at 03:52 PM
Thanks, Captain. I just find it very, very disheartening. It's not about the money either...it's about being able to publicly stand for conservative, traditional, Biblical beliefs.
That Condell video to Muslims could just as well apply to ALL the grievance groups as far as I go. They are whining bullies that always get their way....& we cower & let them.
Businesses proudly tout their relationship with leftist groups...on their products, in their adverts,...
but if a business has a relationship with a conservative group they are descended upon by the rabid dogs of the left.
Posted by: Janet | September 20, 2012 at 03:59 PM
Obama has to hate Matt Drudge with the passion of a thousand burning stars. The pictures Drudge uses are the worst pictures you could find of Obama.
Posted by: Sue | September 20, 2012 at 04:05 PM
About that penis shrinking story. I take it researchers are relying on self-reporting from 50 years ago. Just a question, do you suppose 50 years ago men were less given to -um- exaggerating?
Posted by: Clarice | September 20, 2012 at 04:09 PM
"Looking fwd to seeing Hit, DrJ and others in the belly of the NorCal Beast tomorrow (we'll meet in Berzerkely)."
Very jealous Jim (Mtn View).
Full after action report please.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 04:10 PM
McCormack fails to understand that Romney was replying to a specific question about his campaign strategy - how to reach persuadables. It was a dinner for big R donors. They're already on board. They want answers as to how he can *win.* Obviously, his non-public remarks to them about strategy would not mirror the kinds of arguments he would make to the public to exhort them to vote for him or other Republicans. You could, I guess, get up and give a conservative pep talk to these guys - and maybe that would be part of your overall hour-long remarks - but that wouldn't have answered the particular question to which he was responding when he talked about the 47%.
I know as well as anyone that Romney is not a orthodox conservative, but this is not compelling evidence of it. AND it doesn't matter, Romney is the candidate and it's ABO.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2012 at 04:12 PM
--Posted by: short-time concern troll | September 20, 2012 at 03:11 PM--
That seems like a gratuitous cheap shot.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 20, 2012 at 04:18 PM
Really? Seems on the mark to me.
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 20, 2012 at 04:21 PM
Posted by: Dave (in MA) | September 20, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Ignatz,
I could be wrong, but I actually think his critics are trying to help Romney, who is nothing if not malleable. His current style of rhetoric will, I think, repulse that limited slice of voters who are still up for grabs. Rick Ballard seems to think these people vote from their gut and don't follow arguments, which seems right to me. If they were smart or thoughtful, they'd have already decided to vote for ABO, correct? Personally, I'm anxious for Romney to change his rhetoric, and soon, because I suspect that more than a few of those voters are downscale Catholics in Ohio and Wisconsin, or more socially conservative Virginians. These are not people who read the Weekly Standard or National Review, so Kristol and Lowry's criticisms don't reach them. (People who read the WS or NR decided to vote for Romney some decades ago.) We know that the MSM are fully engaged on Obama's side, and the undecided voters will hear that whenever they do wake up (when *does* that happen?). But these people do go to church. This year, the Republicans have an ally in the Catholic bishops, who are terrified by Obama's encroachments on religious freedom; the bishops were also not amused by the abortionpalooza in Charlotte. They don't want to be seen as partisan -- they really don't -- but they also don't want Obama to be re-elected. On the other hand, they believe in a preferential option for the poor -- which need not mean big government. I know you like what Romney said at that fundraiser, but it's just the sort of thing that will prevent the bishops from issuing more full-throated statements against Obama (never by name), and may also prevent like-minded Catholics or Reagan Democrats from pulling the lever for Romney. I realize *you* like what Romney said, but Romney already has your vote; he needs to speak in a way that won't alienate the few people who are up for grabs.
Perhaps Rick Ballard will correct me, though; he's the master of demographics. I'm just going on what I've heard tell in vague terms from pollsters -- and what I know more immediately about ecclesial politics.
As I said, I may well be wrong. But it would be nice if you didn't question my motives. I honestly don't think that criticism in a conservative publication hurts Romney's chances at all, and in fact might help -- especially if he changed his campaign strategy accordingly.
Posted by: long-time lurker | September 20, 2012 at 04:28 PM
Can't find that Megyn Kelly tape yet on FOX on the web, but when her guest said that (per Politico) the DNC paid the money back, Megyn said no and pulled out the Politico story.
Here's the Link to that Politico story and the relevant part of the story that Megyn was sharp enough to be aware of and to pounce on in order to correct her guest.
"After that appearance, Sebelius had the event reclassified from official to political, and done in her personal capacity, in an attempt to avoid a Hatch Act violation. She and HHS also reimbursed the Treasury Department for all the costs associated with the trip. At least some of the cost was picked by the Democratic National Committee, according to the OSC."
Having read that, Megyn then went on to explain that HHS money is TaxPayer (our) money.
Earlier in the segment she did a nice job on rebutting 2 other claims put forth by Sibelius supporters:
1) That this was an off the cuff misspeak and not a planned Campaign speech, and
2) That immediately upon realizing it was a potential Hatch Act violation she leapt into action to rectify the problem. BS, according to Megyn's understanding of the actual timeline of how this thing went down.
Was nice to see some actual reporting going on versus having the approved soundbite narrative move ahead unchallenged. Great job Megyn, and you could tell she enjoyed doing the challenging of the narrative.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 04:31 PM
See LUN for Obama clearly indicating that he needs to be booted out of office if he is to have any chance of fundamentally transforming America. I hope Americans oblige him on Nov. 6th.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | September 20, 2012 at 04:34 PM
...we face the reality that Obama's going to win another term and there's nothing we can do about it.
Baloney. Considering the skewed Dem/GOP numbers in the polls (to '08 levels or worse, and that's not gonna happen), if the election were held tomorrow Romney would win the popular vote. There's electoral work to be done, in Ohio and Florida and Virginia, but there's plenty of time - and debates, and higher gas prices, and October surprises to come. There's no "reality" to late-September presidential picking.
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | September 20, 2012 at 04:40 PM
Then they need to re-read the Bible and figure out that it doesn't require the State to be the sole provider for the "poor".
Posted by: Rob Crawford | September 20, 2012 at 04:43 PM
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 04:46 PM
Then they need to re-read the Bible and figure out that it doesn't require the State to be the sole provider for the "poor".
They can do that after you work on your reading comprehension.
I specifically said that the preferential option for the poor need not mean big government. And anyway, that's not the point. You can wait for the bishops to change Catholic social teaching -- which you obviously don't understand -- or you can try to bring them on board and win the election.
Posted by: long-time lurker | September 20, 2012 at 04:48 PM
I know you like what Romney said at that fundraiser, but it's just the sort of thing that will prevent the bishops from issuing more full-throated statements against Obama
long-time lurker,
The bishops have made it very clear where they stand wrt Obama, and they did so before Romney was the clear nominee. That gauntlet can not be unthrown, and will not. The bishops know what is at stake and they have taken some considerable risk in staking their opposition to Obama. They did so knowing that nearly any Republican opposing Obama would likely promote a reduction in government, as Republicans generally do.
Are you asking Romney not to take any position that might offend the Church, for fear that the bishops will stop opposing Obama? I don't think the bishops are as timid as you seem to be on this.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2012 at 04:49 PM
--As I said, I may well be wrong. But it would be nice if you didn't question my motives.--
When did I do that?
And how does a surreptitiously recorded meeting with contributors constitute Romney's campaign rhetoric?
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 20, 2012 at 04:52 PM
Perhaps Jerry Sandusky of Penn State infamy was actually just at the forefront of a new Eco movement to save Gaia by saving water:
It's one thing to save the world by sharing rides. Now, perhaps, by sharing the shower?
"Unilever, one of the world's largest consumer product makers, this week will unleash a controversial online ad campaign for its edgy Axe brand of men's grooming products that urges college students to shower with a friend, or "an attractive stranger."
Showerpooling (wink) is what they're calling it. It's all about conserving water (wink), the company says. "This is a cute irreverent way to communicate what is really a significant message: water conservation,"
Unstated, (but on the plus side) perhaps it'll reverse penis shrinkage.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 04:55 PM
Ignatz,
You didn't question my motives, that was the short-term concern troll. And I think you spoke up for me, so thank you.
If you read McCormack's piece, he gives a series of similar tropes; it's not just the fundraiser (though he ought to have realized he'd be recorded there). I'm not asking him to propose big government programs; I'm just asking him not ever to say that he doesn't much care about the poor -- which is basically what he's said more than a few times. In his personal life, his generosity has been exemplary. He just can't seem to talk about this stuff without seeming really out of touch.
Porch -- Paul Ryan does a much better job of speaking about this stuff in a language that resonates with the bishops. I just want Romney to imitate his running mate, not switch to big-government policies. He could talk more about the good work that Catholic Charities does, which will end if the HHS mandate is allowed to stand. He could talk about the work that parochial schools do, especially for poor kids trapped in failing schools in the inner cities -- which will also end if the mandate stands. And each bishop has a choice in the next few weeks about how aggressively he will push this message in the pews -- so it matters how Romney addresses it right now. Lots of people weren't paying attention during the Fortnight for Freedom.
Posted by: long-time lurker | September 20, 2012 at 05:07 PM
daddy,
You still have time! Come on down! Top secret meeting location and time to be disclosed on request.
Posted by: DrJ | September 20, 2012 at 05:07 PM
If the economy, debt, scope of government, constitutional contempt, price of gas, or inept foreign policy doesn't work for you, I've got plenty of other "Obama sucks and has already lost the election" links.
It really breaks my heart to have to show up on this blog, out of the red, right before the election, and post all these negative Obama links, because I've been a socialist atheist my whole life who's voted Democrat in every election since Buchanan.
But I also think it's important that we face the reality that Obama's going down in an epic defeat and there's nothing we can do about it. :(
Posted by: Some Guy | September 20, 2012 at 05:10 PM
LTL,
1. I am not a "master of demographics". I can handle tables of numbers and do the basic arithmetic required to verify or falsify conclusions reached by manipulation via over or under sampling on the basis of age, sex and race based upon Census data and the exit polling data used by almost all polling firms. Two of the three demographic attributes which I follow are immutable, the passage of time will move individuals through the age brackets and the relative size of age brackets will change due to fluctuations in the number of births, deaths and immigration.
2. McCormack is guilty of imputation of feelings based upon his own imagination of the thought processes of the "group" described. My imagination leads me to believe that, regardless of reality, people will not feel themselves to be members of the Presidential Parasite Party and will conclude Governor Romney was referring to the real parasites. IOW - reason will play as large a part in their decision making process as it did in their initial decision to be undecided after enduring four years of policy failure after policy failure.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 20, 2012 at 05:15 PM
long-time lurker,
So you want Romney, a Mormon, to imitate Paul Ryan, a Catholic, and talk more about how great Catholic charities and Catholic schools are, just in case some bishop out there might think R/R is worth an extra shoutout from the pulpit?
This seems rather parochial. The bishops aren't going to cave on HHS/Obamacare and Obama's abortion stance. And if Catholics haven't yet made their decision to vote against Obama - with everything they have in front of them now - then this minor stuff is not going to move the needle.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2012 at 05:16 PM
--My imagination leads me to believe that, regardless of reality, people will not feel themselves to be members of the Presidential Parasite Party and will conclude Governor Romney was referring to the real parasites.--
Heh. Caught a snippet of the Fox business channel with one of the now ubiquitous billionaires whose claim was that Barry is good for Wall Street. Well, duh.
The clown also related how he told his 80 something mama on SS how she and her buds will need to get jobs according to Mitt's 47% rhetoric proving two things;
1. It appears to be Democratic billionaires who don't understand Mitt's reference, not little old ladies on SS and,
2. You have to be neither sensible nor smart to become a billionaire.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 20, 2012 at 05:30 PM
Will November 6th ever come to end this madness?
Posted by: maryrose | September 20, 2012 at 05:34 PM
"DIck's constant response is: "You got that from some blogger".
Jane,
On catch up I have just gotten to your anger about the FWD&J double standard.
What immediately came to my mind in your defense was that episode a few weeks back, where in response to your telling Dick that he didn't know what he was talking about concerning The DNC Convention (since he admitted on the Show that he did not watch the DNC Convention) was Dick's rebuttal that he had previously seen more Conventions than you, therefore he doesn't need to watch them to know that he knows more about them than you ever will by watching them.
I do not know how to break through that veneer of stunning hubristic ignorance except by mocking him.
Cue bgates and Iowahawk for professional tips for that, but for starters, "Okay, I think I understand the ground rules now. Like the Conventions, Dick doesn't even have to watch them to pontificate about them and we take his word as Gospel, but I, being a Conservative, have to provide 2 sources for everything I say. Have I got that right?"
"And just for interest, what are the approved sources? NYTimes?, Dan Rather? Mike Barnicle? Hey, MSNBC wants to give Anthoney Weiner a new Show on MSNBC? Does he count? I'm dying to hear this."
Good luck.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 05:37 PM
daddy, I like your approach.
Jane, I do think it would be a nice little twist if you were to respond frequently to Dick's assertions with "Well, as a matter of fact, Dick, CBS reported just today that" and use whatever small nugget of truth that the alphabets let slip.
It'll drive him nuts.
Posted by: Porchlight | September 20, 2012 at 05:40 PM
...but I, being a Conservative woman...
Fixed.
Posted by: Old Lurker | September 20, 2012 at 05:41 PM
Jane,
Continuing to catch up I see Clarice et al are way ahead of me.
Oh well, happy to be redundant to such sharp folks here.
Off now with a sick friend---woof.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 05:42 PM
Remember my contention and discussion that busing may be one SCOTUS vote away from a mandate. It comes out of further investigation into the implications of Stanley Kurtz's Spreading the Wealth book and the Regional Equity Movement. Understanding ed is a great way to get to the essence of what is being sought through Building One America.
http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/mlk-national/e-pluribus...separation-deepening-double-segregation-for-more-students/orfield-kuscera-hawley-e-pluribus-2012.pdf
a 122 page report came out today. Gary Orfield is the brother of Myron Orfield is a primary cause for Minn-St Paul's regionalism. He was a speaker at BOA.
Because Obama uses a socio-cultural, it's the envmt, theory for learning, both economic and racial integration are essentially mandatory.
IT IS NOT OVER. And no one is watching.
Off to read it fully.
Posted by: rse | September 20, 2012 at 05:49 PM
Heh!
Posted by: Jim Eagle | September 20, 2012 at 05:53 PM
Unexpected:
More Americans than forecast filed applications for unemployment benefits last week.
Posted by: daddy | September 20, 2012 at 05:55 PM
Deb in NC: thanks a million for that. Magnificent.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2012 at 06:14 PM
When the cities are described as Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta and Dallas-Ft Worth-Arlington, it is definitely not over.
Posted by: rse | September 20, 2012 at 06:20 PM
Our betters:
Posted by: DrJ | September 20, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Okay, as I remember it, it was Don Cathy -- who admittedly is the COO of the family owned Chick-Fil-A corporation -- who made the donations. According to Wikipedia, it was Cathy and the WinShape Foundation, the family's philanthropic organization, that did it.
It kinda sounds like Chick-Fil-A has suckered them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 20, 2012 at 06:42 PM
LTL: You are aware, are you not, that it was Romney that was out front and went public with the assault on Catholics by the Administration first, long before the media or the public even knew there was a problem. He wrote a strongly worded op ed and has been the #1 supporter for the Bishops and Cardinal Dolan.
It isn't surprising that in the division of campaign labor, Ryan, as a Catholic, would have the lead role now. But make no mistake, this is an area that Romney has a personal stake in as a Mormon, since their charitable and church affiliated programs are every bit as much at stake as the Cathoic programs.
Posted by: Sara | September 20, 2012 at 06:45 PM
A word to rioting Muslims
from Pat Condell
Amen
Heh. That guy's great. I think it was DoT who first introduced us.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 20, 2012 at 06:49 PM
Brown Warren Debate LIVE 7-8pm eastern @ LI
Posted by: Janet | September 20, 2012 at 06:52 PM
I know someone posted about this, but here's the taxpayer-funded apology video from Obama and Hillary!.
Pathetically despicable.
Posted by: Extraneus | September 20, 2012 at 06:55 PM
another link CNN
Posted by: Janet | September 20, 2012 at 07:01 PM
--Deb in NC: thanks a million for that. Magnificent.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2012 at 06:14 PM--
Couldn't find what that was in reference to.
Posted by: Ignatz Ratzkiwatzki | September 20, 2012 at 07:15 PM
For another view of "who is Obama" I'll strongly recommend a read of the LUN from Codevilla at the Claremont institution.
Posted by: Another Bob | September 20, 2012 at 07:18 PM
It was in reference to her link to Mel Brooks on Cary Grant.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | September 20, 2012 at 07:35 PM
I never watch the fool, but I made an exception for this Univision interview about F&F, and I wasn't disappointed in his disingenuous bulshitting.
As a manager, I like that system! Only the lowest level person can ever be fired or otherwise held accountable. As long as the ne'er do well has a manager, that manager's job is to fire them.What a great system!
Posted by: Extraneus | September 20, 2012 at 07:43 PM
I watched the videos of both Romney's Miami rally and his Univision Q&A at the U. of Miami. Narc, your Miami crowd is crazy loud and really fired up for Mitt. The Univision Q&A seemed like the questions came straight from the Obama campaign or were media fed. He got lots of applause for different answers, but by no means the enthusiasm I saw going on at the rally. It was much more about how much are you going to give me and what do you dare take away that I already have.
Posted by: Sara | September 20, 2012 at 07:58 PM
Another Bob, 07:18 thanks for a powerful LUN. I recommend everyone read it.
"According to hagiography, Barack Obama was born to a hippy girl from an insignificant family and raised in poor circumstances, out of which he rose through brilliance. Yet his haughty demeanor, his stilted language when off the teleprompter, his cultural likes and dislikes, bespeak an upbringing in an environment at once so upscale and so leftist that it makes him almost a foreigner to ordinary Americans."
Posted by: pagar | September 20, 2012 at 08:00 PM
One of Mitt's best responses to a student who was worried she was going to lose all her freebies was that the best thing he could give her was the prospect (guarantee) of a good job when she graduates. It was hard to follow the tone of the questions since the Q&A was conducted in Spanish and the questions and answers were dubbed over in English for the video. Mitt had his son Craig, fluent in Spanish, at both events and translating for him. Made me wonder if there was some distrust that the translation given in Mitt's ear would somehow be flawed.
Posted by: Sara | September 20, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Yeah, thanks Another Bob.
"Obama had refused to release not only the birth certificate but his academic and medical records. He indirectly, and his partisans most directly, vilified as "birthers" those who asked for this personal information (a term made-to-order, implying racism, stupidity, and lower-class odors).
Nonetheless, by the spring of 2011, several state legislatures, including Indiana's and Louisiana's, had passed or were about to pass bills requiring any candidate for federal office to show the original or original copy of his birth certificate, and providing for forensic analyses of the documents. Obama's April 27 release amounts to what John Ehrlichman called a "modified limited hang out"—some information let out to relieve pressure for the release of more. Had Obama done nothing he might have been banned from the ballot in any number of states; had he delayed too long, any certificate he produced would have been subject to close scrutiny. After the disclosure, however, Democrats argued that any and all requests for Obama's personal information had now been shown to be, in the president's words, "a silly distraction.""
Posted by: Janet | September 20, 2012 at 08:10 PM