Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   And lo, when scant one week before the election remained, did the pundits their hedging begin   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, pundits, slog, entitlement reform, general elections, President Obama  
•       •       •

10499 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Oct 2012 at 11:51 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



132 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-30 08:52:39 AM  
On foreign policy matters, for example, Bush has attracted the policy wonk version of the 1927 Yankees. You look at the people who will fill key slots in his administration, from Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice down through less-prominent advisors such as Bob Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz. They are the best out there. Link
 
2012-10-30 08:55:30 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: On foreign policy matters, for example, Bush has attracted the policy wonk version of the 1927 Yankees. You look at the people who will fill key slots in his administration, from Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice down through less-prominent advisors such as Bob Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz. They are the best out there. Link


Ouch. Tim Russert salutes you from the great beyond.
 
2012-10-30 09:18:03 AM  
I can't believe Brooks wrote that.

Romney is not the correct choice. He has run a cynical campaign replete with a level of dishonesty that has outdone the worst of the Republican base. To expect Romney to be anything but a complete disaster for American families is to ignore his record at Bain, his out-spoken hatred for half of us - because we are less wealthy than himself - and his mendacity.

A president Romney will agree with his advisers to invade Iran, which apparently he can not find on a map, to increase military spending. He can not confront the worst elements of the Republican party. Those contemptible people chose the guy. His VP is one of them.

I too can imagine what Romney's election would mean. Based on Romney's promises made during his campaign we can expect several immediate consequences. An immediate response to the Romney/Ryan budget plan by the credit ranking agencies would be to downgrade US credit several notches. An immediate response to his overt threats to Iran would be that nation's pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. An immediate response by China would be to nationalize subsidiaries within their country and hold them hostage until Romney obeys their trade demands.

Brooks thinks Americans can happily forget Romney's promises made during his cynical "say anything to get elected campaign" but his statements will have global consequences. Look outside the US. That's where you will find the real opportunists. They have a proven record for action and they will be forced into action by a Romney election.
 
2012-10-30 09:24:31 AM  

Delay: I can't believe Brooks wrote that.


You can't believe the conservative opinion writers for the New York Times wrote what is basically the weakest "Vote for this guy because" argument in the history of the paper?
 
2012-10-30 09:37:04 AM  
Shut up David Brooks.
 
2012-10-30 09:40:27 AM  

WTF Indeed: Delay: I can't believe Brooks wrote that.

You can't believe the conservative opinion writers for the New York Times wrote what is basically the weakest "Vote for this guy because" argument in the history of the paper?


Not exactly. I read Brooks frequently and he is usually coherent. I can't believe he wrote that column because his own colleague, Paul Krugman, wrote a column about a month ago anticipating this Republican argument and showing its foolishness. After thinking about it I believe Krugman was too optimistic.
 
2012-10-30 09:40:38 AM  
So the only way to get the House to work for the country instead of against it would be to elect Romney. I thought we didn't approve of negotiating with terrorists.
 
2012-10-30 09:57:04 AM  
Dammit.
 
2012-10-30 10:03:01 AM  
First George Will finally drank the Kool Aid, now David Brooks. Are there any sane conservatives left?

A Romney Presidency would be one of real reform and bipartisan compromise??????
 
2012-10-30 10:27:45 AM  

Delay: A president Romney will agree with his advisers to invade Iran, which apparently he can not find on a map, to increase military spending. He can not confront the worst elements of the Republican party


I'm always surprised at how little people care about foreign affairs. This is a candidate who flat out stated that Israel will dictate our policies in the mideast, doesn't intend to follow Obama's exit timetable in Afghanistan and will most likely invade Iran whether they have the bomb or not.

A Romney Presidency means more dead American soldiers than an Obama Presidency and that's not hyperbole, that's just simple facts based on what he said directly. But people who plan to vote for him are doing so based on bullshiat social issues and because the republicans now suddenly give a shiat about the debt. The fact that such a vast number of people can be so Goddamned stupid just, well it may not be eloquent but it sucks. 

At the very least take your farking Made in China magnetic ribbons off your cars because you don't give a fark about American soldiers.
 
2012-10-30 10:48:09 AM  

NuttierThanEver: sane conservatives


I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this terminology.
 
2012-10-30 10:53:54 AM  

NuttierThanEver: First George Will finally drank the Kool Aid, now David Brooks. Are there any sane conservatives left?

A Romney Presidency would be one of real reform and bipartisan compromise??????


If you "reform" and "bipartisan compromise" you mean "corporate bennies" and "eliminating competitive forces" I think that would describe a Romney Administration with a complicit Congress pretty well...
 
2012-10-30 11:13:42 AM  
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: November 1, 2010

The new Republicans may distrust government, but this will be a Republican class with enormous legislative experience. Tea Party hype notwithstanding, most leading G.O.P. candidates either served in state legislatures or previously in Washington. The No Compromise stalwarts like Senator Jim DeMint have a big megaphone but few actual followers within the Senate.

Over all, if it is won, a Republican House majority will be like a second marriage. Less ecstasy, more realism. Link

Link
 
2012-10-30 11:15:33 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: By DAVID BROOKS
Published: November 1, 2010

The new Republicans may distrust government, but this will be a Republican class with enormous legislative experience. Tea Party hype notwithstanding, most leading G.O.P. candidates either served in state legislatures or previously in Washington. The No Compromise stalwarts like Senator Jim DeMint have a big megaphone but few actual followers within the Senate.

Over all, if it is won, a Republican House majority will be like a second marriage. Less ecstasy, more realism. Link

Link


So, he's the same as the rest of them.
 
2012-10-30 11:44:04 AM  
Well, Bill Clinton did say that a Romney presidency would be worse than Hurricane Sandy.  So, basically, the Democratic talking point appears to be that Romney will flood your cities, slaughter your resdients (59+ in the Caribbean and 15+ in the states), will cut your power, and leave you damp and cold inside.
 
2012-10-30 11:54:06 AM  
Editorial writers - Dying profession or not dead enough profession? I can't seriously think of a professional editorialist worth a damn, left right or center. None of them have any special knowledge about anything, they just regurgitate talking points from whatever their favorite think-tank is
 
2012-10-30 11:54:16 AM  
Slow and steady progress with an increasing national debt vs. Christian conservatism and Ayn Rand tax policies

Status quo please.
 
2012-10-30 11:55:37 AM  
Brooks stepped over the line a few times in the name of sanity, but when it comes down to the wire, if he doesn't toe the line here, he'll be one of the names thrown out there as apostates and heretics when the GOP falls on its face in about 6 days.
 
2012-10-30 11:55:51 AM  
Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.
 
2012-10-30 11:56:59 AM  
Rats, sinking ship.
 
2012-10-30 11:57:09 AM  
In Nate Silver We Trust.
 
2012-10-30 11:57:20 AM  
Win or lose, Obama should be in pretty good shape....just the other day Hugo Chávez offered him a job in his cabinet as his Propaganda Czar. I think former president Obama will be alright.
 
2012-10-30 11:57:36 AM  
I read that entire article to say:

Elect Mitt Romney because his nature of doing anything to be President means he will violate his campaign promises and work as a partisan by making the obstinate Congress Republicans work with him because they don't want to make a Republican President look bad.

Seriously?! What. The. Fark.
 
2012-10-30 11:58:02 AM  
I think a return to the policies that crashed the economy will obviously be the best outcome. Vote for Romney to get the government you deserve.
 
2012-10-30 11:58:19 AM  

manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.


More liquid from GOP tears than 10 Sandy's combined.
 
2012-10-30 11:59:43 AM  

bwilson27: manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.

More liquid from GOP tears than 10 Sandy's combined.


My doctor is telling me I need to cut back on the tears. I'm developing a condition.
 
2012-10-30 12:00:14 PM  

manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.


beta_plus: In Nate Silver We Trust.


karnal: Win or lose, Obama should be in pretty good shape....just the other day Hugo Chávez offered him a job in his cabinet as his Propaganda Czar. I think former president Obama will be alright.


Jesus Tapdancing Christ, this thread went to shiat in a heartbeat.
 
2012-10-30 12:00:39 PM  

Infernalist: bwilson27: manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.

More liquid from GOP tears than 10 Sandy's combined.

My doctor is telling me I need to cut back on the tears. I'm developing a condition.


They are rather high in sodium.
 
2012-10-30 12:01:01 PM  
If Obama wins, we'll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we're more likely to get bipartisan reform.

Seriously... and by bipartisan reform he means the Dems have to do everything the Republicans want.
/Fark that guy

mauricebroaddus.com

 
2012-10-30 12:01:37 PM  

tnpir: manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.

beta_plus: In Nate Silver We Trust.

karnal: Win or lose, Obama should be in pretty good shape....just the other day Hugo Chávez offered him a job in his cabinet as his Propaganda Czar. I think former president Obama will be alright.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, this thread went to shiat in a heartbeat.


Well the paychecks end in a week, you know. This whole 'paid internet shill' thing is only seasonal work.
 
2012-10-30 12:01:59 PM  
This is indeed the only argument for electing a repub: vote for us and we'll stop stabbing you in the back. Of course, while you're facing in that direction...
 
2012-10-30 12:02:04 PM  
So to sum up the article, he is saying, "Obama won't get anything done because the Republican House puts party over country so vote Romney."
 
2012-10-30 12:02:06 PM  
He would easily find 10 Republican senators willing to go along with a version of a Grand Bargain.


I mean, sure, if you just ignore all of recent history that makes sense. Of course, since the GOP will have failed in their most important priority (making Obama a 1-termer) then maybe there's some wiggle room.

But I doubt it.

David Brooks is peddling the fallacy that the GOP is, essentially, a rational organization.
 
2012-10-30 12:02:41 PM  
Stupid person says stupid thing. More at 11.
 
2012-10-30 12:02:50 PM  
The bottom line is this: If Obama wins, we'll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we're more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done.

Republicans are willing to let the country implode rather than work with Democrats, so vote Republican?
 
2012-10-30 12:02:51 PM  

RichieLaw: I read that entire article to say:

Elect Mitt Romney because his nature of doing anything to be President means he will violate his campaign promises and work as a partisan by making the obstinate Congress Republicans work with him because they don't want to make a Republican President look bad.

Seriously?! What. The. Fark.


Don't forget the point about how the Republicans in Congress would continue to do everything in their power to ensure that Obama looks like a bad President, even if it comes at the expense of the American people. It plainly states that Republicans are truly party before country, so vote Republican.

So I echo your sentiment: WTF?
 
2012-10-30 12:03:12 PM  
"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done. "

So, being a flip-flopper is an asset now?
 
2012-10-30 12:03:24 PM  

I_C_Weener: Well, Bill Clinton did say that a Romney presidency would be worse than Hurricane Sandy.  So, basically, the Democratic talking point appears to be that Romney will flood your cities, slaughter your resdients (59+ in the Caribbean and 15+ in the states), will cut your power, and leave you damp and cold inside.


Well, we'd lose far more than 74 in a war with Iran pretty easily, and the costs of that war would be more than the costs of cleanup from the hurricane, so yeah.
 
2012-10-30 12:03:51 PM  

manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.


I see you have both massive butthurt and a large amount of sand in your vagina.

Enjoy your 4 more years!
 
2012-10-30 12:05:09 PM  

Delay: He can not confront the worst elements of the Republican party.


Not only is he unprepared to confront them, he will need their support and in turn will have to cater to them to achieve any of his goals.
 
2012-10-30 12:05:43 PM  

tnpir: manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.

beta_plus: In Nate Silver We Trust.

karnal: Win or lose, Obama should be in pretty good shape....just the other day Hugo Chávez offered him a job in his cabinet as his Propaganda Czar. I think former president Obama will be alright.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, this thread went to shiat in a heartbeat.


Conservatives are in full meltdown right now. the polls aren't looking good, and that has them running scared, again. If Obama wins again, I think they will just go ape factor 10, not understanding how they could possibly have lost.
 
2012-10-30 12:06:00 PM  

ghare: I_C_Weener: Well, Bill Clinton did say that a Romney presidency would be worse than Hurricane Sandy.  So, basically, the Democratic talking point appears to be that Romney will flood your cities, slaughter your resdients (59+ in the Caribbean and 15+ in the states), will cut your power, and leave you damp and cold inside.

Well, we'd lose far more than 74 in a war with Iran pretty easily, and the costs of that war would be more than the costs of cleanup from the hurricane, so yeah.


Oh, I absolutely agree that a GOP administration will result in the loss of American lives.

We only have to look back on the last 8 years of GWB to determine that.
 
2012-10-30 12:06:51 PM  
The bottom line is this: If Obama wins, we'll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we're more likely to get bipartisan reform.*

*Remember, when Republicans talk about "bipartisan reform," they mean "give me everything I want or else."
 
2012-10-30 12:06:52 PM  
"Vote for Romney because he's a flipflopper".

I can't believe I just read that.
 
2012-10-30 12:07:02 PM  
So, lemme see if I've got this right...

The GOP filibustered everything the President tried to do, so that they could get their way.
The Democrats used Republican ideas to get the few slivers of that group they could shave off to get SOMETHING done.
The GOP now screams that nothing got done, and it's the fault of the democrats.
They also say that we should elect more of them, so that they'll have even more power to 'not' do things, but they won't 'not' do that if we elect Their man for the big seat....


Do I have this right? I mean, before I laugh in their faces?
 
2012-10-30 12:08:00 PM  

I_C_Weener: Well, Bill Clinton did say


IClinton's uses topical context. Pretty typical for him.

Here's a few you can use yourself.

"Boy, those Detroit Tigers stunk out the World Series, *pause* but that's nothing like the failure that we will see if Romney gets elected."

or

"There's a new study that shows that if you watch horror shows you will lose weight, *pause* but, I think we should just skip a few hamburgers rather than suffer the horror of a Romney presidency."
 
2012-10-30 12:08:19 PM  
So the lesson here is.....Holding the nation hostage works.

thanks for playing
 
2012-10-30 12:09:49 PM  
So his argument is that the House Republicans are such a group of intransigent babies that only Romney would have a chance of getting anything significant through Congress. So vote Republican.

I've got a better idea. Vote Obama, and work on reducing the tea party contingent in the House this year and in 2014. Then, not only would the president be able to "get things done," but they would actually be things that are good for the country.

Failing that, I'll take four more years of gridlock (and the full implementation of the ACA) over handing the GOP the keys again and allowing them to drive the country back over a cliff again.
 
2012-10-30 12:10:08 PM  
FTFA:

"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done. "

So flip-flopping is a character trait you want in a leader now.
 
2012-10-30 12:10:39 PM  

I_C_Weener: Romney will flood your cities, slaughter your resdients (59+ in the Caribbean and 15+ in the states), will cut your power, and leave you damp and cold inside.


cuts to infrastructure and the work force that services it... ✓
known chickenhawk that has already been lying about Iran... ✓
deregulation that leads to more Enrons... ✓
tax cuts for the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class... ✓

looks like Bill is 4 for 4 there...
 
2012-10-30 12:11:52 PM  

beta_plus: In Nate Silver We Trust.


Statistics have a liberal bias.
 
2012-10-30 12:12:17 PM  

treecologist: FTFA:

"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done. "

So flip-flopping is a character trait you want in a leader now.


It's classic Rovian tactics. Turn your enemy's strengths into weaknesses and your candidate's weaknesses into strengths.

To me, this is a classic sign that the Establishment GOP types have regained control over the Tea Party zealots. Rove is back to calling the shots from behind the curtain.
 
2012-10-30 12:12:34 PM  
We early voted yesterday.
 
2012-10-30 12:13:46 PM  

manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.


Next January's shipment of Bitter Conservative Tears will be extra special.
 
2012-10-30 12:14:05 PM  

TrollingForColumbine: So the lesson here is.....Holding the nation hostage works.

thanks for playing



Yes. According to TFA, we should encourage extreme partisanship. If the guy in the white house is not in your political party, you must oppose everything he does, even if you would support him if he was in your party. Make sure the voters know that the only way your party will stop being obstructionist is if they reward your party by electing its guy into office. Then they'll cooperate.

What a stupid farking article.
 
2012-10-30 12:14:21 PM  
So in other words, Mr. Brooks, if Obama gets elected we can expect nothing to get done because the Republicans in congress will be... dun dun DAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Obstructionist A-Holes.

Magnificent. Your are truly a prognosticator of epic proportions.
 
2012-10-30 12:15:30 PM  

treecologist: So flip-flopping is a character trait you want in a leader now.


Republican is a character trait they want. Everything else is literally irrelevant.
 
2012-10-30 12:15:52 PM  
Am I the only one who doesn't see a shred of 'hedging' in TFA?

Oh and...

The bottom line is this: If Obama wins, we'll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we're more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama.

Uh, the GOP controlled house voting in favor of something if Romney is president while voting against the exact same thing if Obama is president is not a reflection of Romney or Obama you farking dipshiat.
 
2012-10-30 12:16:28 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: So in other words, Mr. Brooks, if Obama gets elected we can expect nothing to get done because the Republicans in congress will be... dun dun DAAAAAAAAAAA!!!! Obstructionist A-Holes.

Magnificent. Your are truly a prognosticator of epic proportions.


You gotta understand. He's gotta put a positive light onto this, he doesn't have a choice. He gets his marching orders from higher up.
 
2012-10-30 12:16:56 PM  

Delay: I_C_Weener: Well, Bill Clinton did say

IClinton's uses topical context. Pretty typical for him.

Here's a few you can use yourself.

"Boy, those Detroit Tigers stunk out the World Series, *pause* but that's nothing like the failure that we will see if Romney gets elected."

or

"There's a new study that shows that if you watch horror shows you will lose weight, *pause* but, I think we should just skip a few hamburgers rather than suffer the horror of a Romney presidency."



Playing politics with a national disaster!!! :)
 
2012-10-30 12:17:22 PM  
David Brooks translated: Vote Romney or we burning the farking place down.
 
2012-10-30 12:18:13 PM  
Being manipulative, chameleonic, and duplicitous are presidential traits, guys!

/queue the AmITakingCrazyPills.jpeg
 
2012-10-30 12:19:14 PM  
 
2012-10-30 12:19:38 PM  
David Brooks, you managed to out-stupid whatever Jennifer Rubin pooped out today. Congratulations.
 
2012-10-30 12:19:38 PM  

theknuckler_33: Am I the only one who doesn't see a shred of 'hedging' in TFA?

Oh and...

The bottom line is this: If Obama wins, we'll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we're more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama.

Uh, the GOP controlled house voting in favor of something if Romney is president while voting against the exact same thing if Obama is president is not a reflection of Romney or Obama you farking dipshiat.



Every presidential election season, this false narrative that the president is all-powerful and can force congress to do things rears its ugly head. It is once again the media being lazy, and allows congress to get away with all sorts of bullshiat.
 
2012-10-30 12:19:50 PM  

Antimatter: tnpir: manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.

beta_plus: In Nate Silver We Trust.

karnal: Win or lose, Obama should be in pretty good shape....just the other day Hugo Chávez offered him a job in his cabinet as his Propaganda Czar. I think former president Obama will be alright.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, this thread went to shiat in a heartbeat.

Conservatives are in full meltdown right now. the polls aren't looking good, and that has them running scared, again. If Obama wins again, I think they will just go ape factor 10, not understanding how they could possibly have lost.


LOL!
Latest poll from the right wing Nazi's at NPR:
Romney + 1

The racists at Pew has them tied.

In Ohio, they are tied (and that's using the older poll and not Rasmussen).

The election is now about the Ground War - polls don't work when it is this close (that's just basic statistics - but of course statistics are racist according to libs).
 
2012-10-30 12:19:52 PM  
"If Obama wins, the GOP is exactly as petulant as Biden is making them out to be and they'll probably do everything they can to screw over the country to make Obama look bad. If Romney wins, he's just as much of a lying douchebag as Biden makes him out to be, so he'd probably abandon the really crazy portions of his campaign (so ignore those) and he'd be able to do all the great things that Obama is trying to do since the GOP cares more about looking good than what is best for the country"

At some point in the past, the previous quote would be ridiculous and everyone would laugh at the stupid troll. But, here we are, reading that quote out of the NYTimes.
 
2012-10-30 12:20:54 PM  
Pretty sure this was said on the Morning Joe farce this morning. Joe about got out of his chair and gave the guy a smug handy.
 
2012-10-30 12:21:07 PM  
All this article shows is that the gop house is holding our country back and they need to be voted out of office. The big stuff that Romney wants is the same crap that Dubya got and look at the result of that.
 
2012-10-30 12:23:19 PM  

karnal: Win or lose, Obama should be in pretty good shape....just the other day Hugo Chávez offered him a job in his cabinet as his Propaganda Czar. I think former president Obama will be alright.


It's funny because Chavez is a socialist and so is Obama!

*slaps knee*

Who said conservatives don't have a sense of humor?

/zzzzzzz
 
2012-10-30 12:26:45 PM  

dictyboy: "Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done. "

So, being a flip-flopper is an asset now?


This. Principles are clearly for homosexuals, and other such moonbats.
 
2012-10-30 12:27:02 PM  
Whenever someone starts an argument with "And if this happens, this could be what happens next" I just tune it right out. Isn't there enough to argue about with actual events?

So I didn't read much of that. And I usually like David Brooks, or at least I'll give him a few minutes of my time.
 
2012-10-30 12:30:43 PM  

beta_plus: In Ohio, they are tied (and that's using the older poll and not Rasmussen).


You know, you get a better price when you pick only the reddest of cherries.
 
2012-10-30 12:30:53 PM  
I win, I trump you, I win, I trump you. - Obama Jan, 2009
 
2012-10-30 12:31:15 PM  

manfriend: Looks like Obama is going to be spending even more time golfing. And don't worry, Michelle can continue to live like someone that just won the lottery. Plenty of left-tards will shell out money to see them happy.


Weaksauce. Try harder at being dumber, at least. There's nothing more pathetic than a lazy dumb guy.
 
2012-10-30 12:32:12 PM  

treecologist: FTFA:

"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done. "

So flip-flopping is a character trait you want in a leader now.


I didn't believe your quote was an actual quote so I checked for myself. I can't believe that someone would actually offer that as a reason to vote for Romney. The article is a better argument for voting the Republicans out of the House.
 
2012-10-30 12:34:12 PM  
Romney's record as a conciliator and successful bipartisan is greatly exaggerated. He was openly hostile to the Democrats in the state legislature. He served a single term as governor of MA; he chose not to run for re-election because he was contemplating a run for the presidency but his approval rating was at 34% when he left office and his hand-picked replacement lost to Deval Patrick.

(link)
 
2012-10-30 12:40:04 PM  

karnal: Win or lose, Obama should be in pretty good shape....just the other day Hugo Chávez offered him a job in his cabinet as his Propaganda Czar. I think former president Obama will be alright.


Look your children or even a friend's child in the eye and tell him why he should go die in Iran. That war will last longer than Iraq did. I do hope you have prepared yourself and/or your children to go to war in Iran, because mine won't. I guess I should invest in yellow ribbon companies in case Romney does win.
 
2012-10-30 12:51:06 PM  
And the correct answer is "Option B: Vote for Mitt Romney"

Article lays out nice even-handed matter of fact analysis. I'm good either way, accepting of either eventuality, with preference for Mitt Romney.

Actually, book it. Done. Mitt Romney.
 
2012-10-30 12:53:12 PM  

Delay: WTF Indeed: Delay: I can't believe Brooks wrote that..... I read Brooks frequently and he is usually coherent....


I catch him on PBS and agree. That column is more revealing for what it says about the right wing bubble-sphere than anything in the real world. His closer is incomprehensibly apologetic and defies rationality:

"... if Romney wins, we're more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done."

Elect president with closer affinity to traitors putting corporate over civic interests, because they get along better? The root problem is obviously "the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans", fix that by voting them out of office.
 
2012-10-30 12:54:01 PM  

lantawa: And the correct answer is "Option B: Vote for Mitt Romney"

Article lays out nice even-handed matter of fact analysis. I'm good either way, accepting of either eventuality, with preference for Mitt Romney.

Actually, book it. Done. Mitt Romney.


Yes, it is a matter-of-fact analysis. You have a petulent child that wants a candy bar so he's kicking and screaming in the grocery store aisle. You can be a good parent and put him in time out or you can reward bad behavior by giving him a Snickers.

Give that little shiat a Snickers. Vote Roney.
 
2012-10-30 12:54:10 PM  

bgilmore5: karnal: Win or lose, Obama should be in pretty good shape....just the other day Hugo Chávez offered him a job in his cabinet as his Propaganda Czar. I think former president Obama will be alright.

Look your children or even a friend's child in the eye and tell him why he should go die in Iran. That war will last longer than Iraq did. I do hope you have prepared yourself and/or your children to go to war in Iran, because mine won't. I guess I should invest in yellow ribbon companies in case Romney does win.


Time to get the ribbon back on my car. It worked well in 2003.

www.cosmicpets.com
 
2012-10-30 12:56:17 PM  
So, vote for a Republican, or deal with another four years of obstruction where nothing gets done? That's essentially blackmail. We expect national politicians to put the good of the country ahead of the good of their party. Aside from the fact that I disagree with many of their policies, I am for damn sure not going to reward Republicans for acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way for the last four years.
 
2012-10-30 12:56:19 PM  

neenerist: I catch him on PBS and agree. That column is more revealing for what it says about the right wing bubble-sphere than anything in the real world. His closer is incomprehensibly apologetic calm and even handed and defies rationality is reasonably and intellecutally integrated:


FTFY
 
2012-10-30 12:58:27 PM  

doyner: lantawa: And the correct answer is "Option B: Vote for Mitt Romney"

Article lays out nice even-handed matter of fact analysis. I'm good either way, accepting of either eventuality, with preference for Mitt Romney.

Actually, book it. Done. Mitt Romney.

Yes, it is a matter-of-fact analysis. You have a petulent child that wants a candy bar so he's kicking and screaming in the grocery store aisle. You can be a good parent and put him in time out or you can reward bad behavior by giving him a Snickers.

Give that little shiat a Snickers. Vote Roney.


Aye, aye, matey! Or you could have him swab that deck.... =;P
 
2012-10-30 12:59:35 PM  
I've been saying mostly the same thing, but that a Romney presidency would be like an Schwarzenegger Governorship. He would start conservative and things would quickly fall apart. He would move left toward the center to fix things. He would pick up a little support from the left and pretty much lose his base. Four years from now the whole country would say 'what the hell were we thinking with this loser?'
 
2012-10-30 01:06:39 PM  

GameSprocket: treecologist: FTFA:

"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done. "

So flip-flopping is a character trait you want in a leader now.

I didn't believe your quote was an actual quote so I checked for myself. I can't believe that someone would actually offer that as a reason to vote for Romney. The article is a better argument for voting the Republicans out of the House.


They are now at the stage where bluffing (that they have good attributes) hasn't worked. Now they have to pretend their failings are actually selling points.

eribons.files.wordpress.com

"No, that's not a design FLAW, it's a design ATTRIBUTE. We meant to do that all along. We designed it like that. You'll grow to love it. Shut up and like it."
 
2012-10-30 01:06:43 PM  
FTA: Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama.

And....my brain just exploded. As many fellow Farkers have said, when did flip-flopping become a "good" trait? Romney is probably more of a "flexible flip-flopper" than Obama because he's had entirely too many open-mouth-insert-foot moments during his campaign. Please note I am not firmly set in one political party.

My .02: It would be a stretch, but I think you could maybe/kinda/sorta get away with flip-flopping on a domestic scale. But in the global arena? No. Romney would realize the hard way that you can't be all "Let's invade Iran!!!1" on Monday and then "Oops my bad" on Friday. It just doesn't work that way.
 
2012-10-30 01:08:28 PM  

Dear Jerk: I've been saying mostly the same thing, but that a Romney presidency would be like an Schwarzenegger Governorship. He would start conservative and things would quickly fall apart. He would move left toward the center to fix things. He would pick up a little support from the left and pretty much lose his base. Four years from now the whole country would say 'what the hell were we thinking with this loser?'


That's why people should go with the progressives. We're thinking that now. Just like we thought a Bush presidency was a bad idea a decade ago.
 
2012-10-30 01:09:20 PM  

Doc Daneeka: So his argument is that the House Republicans are such a group of intransigent babies that only Romney would have a chance of getting anything significant through Congress. So vote Republican.

I've got a better idea. Vote Obama, and work on reducing the tea party contingent in the House this year and in 2014. Then, not only would the president be able to "get things done," but they would actually be things that are good for the country.

Failing that, I'll take four more years of gridlock (and the full implementation of the ACA) over handing the GOP the keys again and allowing them to drive the country back over a cliff again.


Handing them the keys would no longer work as an analogy. The new analogy with Romney would be: "here's the title to your vehicle. Oh, wait, you're going to dismantle it and part it out? You do realize that if you start tearing things apart, it will no longer be driveable... don't you?"
 
2012-10-30 01:12:48 PM  
What I find most troubling about Romney is his advisors. Romney will shift positions with the wind but his advisors, especially the neocons on foreign policy, won't. I think the risk of another war is greater with Romney in the White House unless he can be convinced that it would be bad for the economy.
 
2012-10-30 01:14:41 PM  

GAT_00: NuttierThanEver: sane conservatives

I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with this terminology.


It means: Moderate Democrats.
 
2012-10-30 01:18:11 PM  
I don't get it.
 
2012-10-30 01:23:21 PM  

treecologist: FTFA:

"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done. "

So flip-flopping is a character trait you want in a leader now.


Better question: This guy is running under an R. Now, based on recent history, what the unholy hell makes you think the Republican party won't coerce Romney into doing whatever the fark they want?

By himself, Mittens might be tolerable, but with the current Republicans around? F**k no. I'd like to keep my vagina to myself, thank you very much.
 
2012-10-30 01:42:18 PM  

PsiChick: treecologist: FTFA:

"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done. "

So flip-flopping is a character trait you want in a leader now.

Better question: This guy is running under an R. Now, based on recent history, what the unholy hell makes you think the Republican party won't coerce Romney into doing whatever the fark they want?

By himself, Mittens might be tolerable, but with the current Republicans around? F**k no. I'd like to keep my vagina to myself, thank you very much.


Then you better clean out Congress.
Everybody is all up in the presidential thingie while the GOP is quietly trying to hang on to their" Fark No!" seats.
There lies the meat and potatoes of saving a middle class.
 
2012-10-30 01:42:48 PM  

neenerist: fix that by voting them out of office.


Post haste.
 
2012-10-30 02:06:38 PM  

Mugato: Delay: A president Romney will agree with his advisers to invade Iran, which apparently he can not find on a map, to increase military spending. He can not confront the worst elements of the Republican party

I'm always surprised at how little people care about foreign affairs. This is a candidate who flat out stated that Israel will dictate our policies in the mideast, doesn't intend to follow Obama's exit timetable in Afghanistan and will most likely invade Iran whether they have the bomb or not.

A Romney Presidency means more dead American soldiers than an Obama Presidency and that's not hyperbole, that's just simple facts based on what he said directly. But people who plan to vote for him are doing so based on bullshiat social issues and because the republicans now suddenly give a shiat about the debt. The fact that such a vast number of people can be so Goddamned stupid just, well it may not be eloquent but it sucks. 

At the very least take your farking Made in China magnetic ribbons off your cars because you don't give a fark about American soldiers.


This for great justice.
 
2012-10-30 02:06:55 PM  

Muta: Delay: He can not confront the worst elements of the Republican party.

Not only is he unprepared to confront them, he will need their support and in turn will have to cater to them to achieve any of his goals.


hehhehheeeee that's funny.
 
2012-10-30 02:08:04 PM  

runwiz: What I find most troubling about Romney is his advisors. Romney will shift positions with the wind but his advisors, especially the neocons on foreign policy, won't. I think the risk of another war is greater with Romney in the White House unless he can be convinced that it would be bad for the economy.


That would not be enough to stop him. His personal economy is all that matters to Mittens, not that of the country.
 
2012-10-30 02:09:17 PM  
PsiChick

By himself, Mittens might be tolerable, but with the current Republicans around? F**k no. I'd like to keep my vagina to myself, thank you very much.



Now that's just being selfish.
 
2012-10-30 02:10:30 PM  
So.......Romney will get stuff done because the GOP will throw a farking hissy fit if the Black Guy gets re-elected.

Sure, let's reward infantile behavior.
 
2012-10-30 02:23:48 PM  

lantawa: And the correct answer is "Option B: Vote for Mitt Romney"


Because no one knows what kind of President he'll be, and that's an exciting choice.
 
2012-10-30 02:31:06 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Stupid person says stupid thing. More at 11.


c.f. this post.
 
2012-10-30 02:45:33 PM  
You don't have to guess what a Romney presidency will be like. It's already been prophesied:


"We are not auditioning for fearless leader," Grover Norquist told conservatives at the CPAC convention in February. "We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate."

"Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared."
 
2012-10-30 02:46:09 PM  
Lando Lincoln


lantawa: And the correct answer is "Option B: Vote for Mitt Romney"

Because no one knows what kind of President he'll be, and that's an exciting choice.



Can't you say that about anyone who is running for president for the first time? After four years we all know what kind of president Obama is so the choice is there. Four more of the same ol' - or four years of who knows what? Being a gambling man I am ready to spin the wheel.
 
2012-10-30 02:47:35 PM  

karnal: PsiChick

By himself, Mittens might be tolerable, but with the current Republicans around? F**k no. I'd like to keep my vagina to myself, thank you very much.


Now that's just being selfish.


Wait, I thought the Democrats were all about "sharing the wealth"...

Vote Soshulism, and the wimmins will share their ladyparts!

/yes, I'm being silly
 
2012-10-30 02:48:54 PM  

runwiz: What I find most troubling about Romney is his advisors. Romney will shift positions with the wind but his advisors, especially the neocons on foreign policy, won't. I think the risk of another war is greater with Romney in the White House unless he can be convinced that it would be bad for the economy.


Since he has Bush II's economic advisors...
 
2012-10-30 03:01:14 PM  
WOW!! This thread is all about PRE-election butt hurt.

leagueofbikepolo.com
 
2012-10-30 03:07:21 PM  
Just because he writes it does not mean it is true.
 
2012-10-30 03:11:02 PM  
ThrowYourHatredDown

Just because he writes it does not mean it is true.


That is what I thought after reading The Audacity of Hope by Bill Ayers.
 
2012-10-30 03:31:46 PM  
So our choice is between the GOP "flip- flop" poster boy for corporate greed, and the man who signed the NDAA, then instructed his Justice Department to take it to a higher court, when the provision for unconstitutionally detaining American citizens without due process was correctly ruled unconstitutional, yet claims he didn't want to sign it because of that provision?

As crazy as it may sound, electing a Third Party Candidate is exactly what it will take to shock the two major parties back into some semblance of reality. Their grip on the political system has gotten so comfortable that they both view us with obvious complete contempt.
 
2012-10-30 03:32:09 PM  

snocone: PsiChick: treecologist: FTFA:

"Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans. He's more likely to get big stuff done. "

So flip-flopping is a character trait you want in a leader now.

Better question: This guy is running under an R. Now, based on recent history, what the unholy hell makes you think the Republican party won't coerce Romney into doing whatever the fark they want?

By himself, Mittens might be tolerable, but with the current Republicans around? F**k no. I'd like to keep my vagina to myself, thank you very much.

Then you better clean out Congress.
Everybody is all up in the presidential thingie while the GOP is quietly trying to hang on to their" Fark No!" seats.
There lies the meat and potatoes of saving a middle class.


Hell yes, but at least the President can veto the crazy. The last thing we need is to take away a block.
 
2012-10-30 03:50:28 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: On foreign policy matters, for example, Bush has attracted the policy wonk version of the 1927 Yankees. You look at the people who will fill key slots in his administration, from Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice down through less-prominent advisors such as Bob Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz. They are the best out there. Link


You know, it's not polite to knock out Brooks with one punch like that.

Hilarious...but not polite.
 
2012-10-30 03:55:54 PM  
HAMMERTOE

So our choice is between the GOP "flip- flop" poster boy for corporate greed, and the man who signed the NDAA, then instructed his Justice Department to take it to a higher court, when the provision for unconstitutionally detaining American citizens without due process was correctly ruled unconstitutional, yet claims he didn't want to sign it because of that provision?

As crazy as it may sound, electing a Third Party Candidate is exactly what it will take to shock the two major parties back into some semblance of reality. Their grip on the political system has gotten so comfortable that they both view us with obvious complete contempt.


This is the best comment I read today....unfortunately, a 3rd party candidate has no chance of winning. Republicans and Democrats have created an environment where they dominate the playground.
 
2012-10-30 04:55:08 PM  
All I know is it's time for a change .
 
2012-10-30 05:10:00 PM  

RY28: All I know is it's time for a change .


So you'll vote out the GOP House majority?
 
2012-10-30 05:10:02 PM  

RY28: All I know is it's time for a change .


Me too. We need to vote the Republican majority out of the House. Then we can finally get this country moving forward.
 
2012-10-30 05:27:43 PM  

Lost Thought 00: I can't seriously think of a professional editorialist worth a damn, left right or center.


I tend to agree with most of the editorials of Leonard Pitts. http://www.miamiherald.com/leonard_pitts/.
 
2012-10-30 06:13:41 PM  
Geeze, David Brooks usually sounds a LOT smarter than that.

I don't think the world will end if Mitt wins this election, but I know that there will be a lot less hope in my world, and a lot of happy millionaires at Vail this winter. Probably see a lot of new G600's at EGE.

I just don't think Mitt really cares for us regular people, who wear tennis shoes, or the occasional python boot.

I figure that President Obama has done OK given that he's had to contend with the Party of "Hell NO!"
 
2012-10-30 06:38:36 PM  

WTF Indeed: Delay: I can't believe Brooks wrote that.

You can't believe the conservative opinion writers for the New York Times wrote what is basically the weakest "Vote for this guy because" argument in the history of the paper?


Fixed
 
2012-10-30 07:29:45 PM  
Ugh, my gawd what an awful, pre-apologist, ignorant read. Romney better not win; the idea that he'd suddenly be "moderate" is incredibly assumptive.

Brooks needs to go check his meds. Romney/Ryan is a scary and horrific idea and would crush what's left of the USA.

So many idiots in the press forget that we're only 5% of the world, and the other 95% kinda matters as well. Electing Romney/Ryan would SO sully America.
 
2012-10-30 08:17:42 PM  
The gist of the article seems to be: "Republicans will grind government to a halt if they don't get their way. Democrats won't do this. It is important to give into the Republicans by electing Mitt Romney."

This is a poor theory for both child-rearing and government.
 
2012-10-30 09:50:09 PM  
"He would easily find 10 Republican senators willing to go along with..."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

Oh, wait, you're serious. Let me laugh even harder.
 
2012-10-30 11:13:20 PM  
"By running such a negative presidential campaign, Obama has won no mandate for a Grand Bargain." Put it on up yer arse, brooks.
 
2012-10-31 01:54:32 AM  

karnal: ThrowYourHatredDown

Just because he writes it does not mean it is true.

That is what I thought after reading The Audacity of Hope by Bill Ayers.


Okay, that actually made me lol.

/Hoping to Christ you're not serious
 
2012-10-31 08:33:51 AM  
NateAsbestos

karnal: ThrowYourHatredDown

Just because he writes it does not mean it is true.

That is what I thought after reading The Audacity of Hope by Bill Ayers.

Okay, that actually made me lol.

/Hoping to Christ you're not serious



Don't bring Christ into this. :)
 
2012-10-31 11:08:13 AM  
Can a single one of you libtards pull your heads out of your arses and please take a look at what is happening in Europe right now? The GOP is unwilling to compromise with the Dems because they want for this country what is happening in Europe. The dems are raping this country to buy votes and keep power.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith
from spiritual faith to great courage
from courage to liberty
from liberty to abundance
from abundance to selfishness
from selfishness to complacency
from complacency to apathy
from apathy to dependency
from dependency back to bondage.
-Alexander Tyler

This is why our forefathers had the foresight to not instill a democracy in the United States, but instead they created a republic. This is why individual and states rights are so important in our constitution. I cannot possibly fathom how ignorant people are of history or even current events. What world do democrats live in? Are you so easily brain washed into being a politically correct, constitution ignoring, talking point regurgitating moron, so that your "leaders" can buy votes and centralize their power?
 
2012-10-31 12:33:16 PM  
That reads right to me.

Enjoy.

Hopefully, things get closer to where they need to be.
 
2012-10-31 01:44:13 PM  

deven8703: Can a single one of you libtards pull your heads out of your arses and please take a look at what is happening in Europe right now? The GOP is unwilling to compromise with the Dems because they want for this country what is happening in Europe. The dems are raping this country to buy votes and keep power.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
from bondage to spiritual faith
from spiritual faith to great courage
from courage to liberty
from liberty to abundance
from abundance to selfishness
from selfishness to complacency
from complacency to apathy
from apathy to dependency
from dependency back to bondage.
-Alexander Tyler

This is why our forefathers had the foresight to not instill a democracy in the United States, but instead they created a republic. This is why individual and states rights are so important in our constitution. I cannot possibly fathom how ignorant people are of history or even current events. What world do democrats live in? Are you so easily brain washed into being a politically correct, constitution ignoring, talking point regurgitating moron, so that your "leaders" can buy votes and centralize their power?


So sorry to see another one bite the dust and disappear into a cloud of pathetic partisan debris.
 
2012-10-31 01:47:38 PM  
Dear David,

Instead of trying to sway millions of voters to hand Romney the keys to the White House out of your assessment of GOP intransigence, why not try to persuade a couple hundred lawmakers to simply DO THEIR FARKING JOB!

Seriously, fark you.

-doyner
 
2012-10-31 02:28:52 PM  

doyner: Dear David,

Instead of trying to sway millions of voters to hand Romney the keys to the White House out of your assessment of GOP intransigence, why not try to persuade a couple hundred lawmakers to simply DO THEIR FARKING JOB!

Seriously, fark you.

-doyner


What he said.
 
2012-10-31 06:22:58 PM  

ThrowYourHatredDown: doyner: Dear David,

Instead of trying to sway millions of voters to hand Romney the keys to the White House out of your assessment of GOP intransigence, why not try to persuade a couple hundred lawmakers to simply DO THEIR FARKING JOB!

Seriously, fark you.

-doyner

What he said.


Is it treason, or just sedition for a politician to deliberately fail at the job?
Fail? Actively fark* the rooster is more like it.

*fark=Full Retard+"real rape"
 
Displayed 132 of 132 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report