• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. 2012 Election

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ?

  • President Obama

    Votes: 39 61.9%
  • Mitt Romney

    Votes: 24 38.1%

  • Total voters
    63
  • Poll closed .
Shades of "Buster" Brown.

ASB-Cover2_resize.jpg

Colonel James Sutherland Brown (1881 to 1951)
 
cupper said:
You forgot:

3. Candidates kick off their campaigns for the 2016 Presidential Election.  :surrender:

That campaign started when Slick Willy Clinton bought a whole bunch of DNC IOU's by backing Obama, a man he despises.

Billy but the bullet and made the case for Obama this year so the Party will owe him and Hillary in 2016.

 
Should anyone be surprised anymore? This is maybe not as blatent as Legacy Media cutting away when speakers like Mia Love were speaking at the RNC (and not archiving their speeches either), but it is also harder to counter. Politicians need to have full time recording staff who can release their complete and unedited remarks on YouTube and other sites to preempt selective cutting and pasting. Other forms of manipulation (like denying you said such a thing when it is on record and posted on other sites) will be similarly diminished:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/19/complete-video-of-romney-missing-1-2-minutes-of-remarks-on-the-47/

“Complete” video of Romney missing 1-2 minutes of remarks on the 47%
posted at 10:41 am on September 19, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The last 48 hours of media commentary has evinced an interesting, and entirely unsurprising, double standard, or perhaps triple standard.  When undercover videos of ACORN and NPR by James O’Keefe or of Planned Parenthood by Lila Rose get published, the media immediately insinuates that they contain deceptive editing and demand that the full videos get released — even though media organizations like the broadcast networks rarely if ever operate by that same standard. Mother Jones ripped O’Keefe at the time for not providing all of the video from his undercover exposé of NPR (via Breitbart):

    To the list of journalism’s greatest disgraces, let us now add James O’Keefe. O’Keefe calls himself an investigative reporter, though as far as we can tell the only group of journalists he has anything in common with are habitual fabricators like Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, and Janet Cooke.

    But that’s not the scandal we’re talking about. The real scandal is that—even though by the time he posted a “sting” of a top NPR fundraiser, O’Keefe was notorious for creating deceptive video smear jobs (ACORN? Hello?)—the media repeated the allegations uncritically.

Actually, O’Keefe eventually released all of the video of the ACORN and NPR stings, which didn’t change their stories at all.

But the video of Mitt Romney at a May fundraiser from David Corn and Mother Jones brings us a new innovation — the triple standard.  William Jacobson, Moe Lane, and The Blaze discovered that, contrary to claims made by Corn and MJ, the video wasn’t complete at all — and had a significant gap at a critical time in Romney’s remarks:

    [Romney]“We do all these polls — I find it amazing. We poll all these people to see where you stand in the polls but 45 percent of the people vote for the Republicans and 48 or 49–,” This is where the first part of the video cuts out.

    Part two picks up seemingly on a completely different subject: China.

    “…about twice as much as China, not 10 times as much like is reported. And we have responsibility for the whole world, they’re only focused on one little area of the world, the south china sea…”

    Something is missing.  Romney’s 47% answer was cut off before completed, and is not picked up on the Part 2 audio video.

    So the “complete” audio/video has not been released by Corn, or Corn never had it to begin with.

Jacobson demanded an explanation from Corn, who replied that an “equipment malfunction” occurred:

    According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.

In other words, it’s not the “full tape” promised by Corn and MJ on Twitter:

    David Corn

        ✔

    @DavidCornDC 18 Sep 12

    Romney says we posted "snippets" & not full answers in the secret videos. Uh....no. See for yourself. The full tape: motherjones.com/politics/2012/…

    Legal Insurrection @LegInsurrection

    @DavidCornDC audio missing bet parts 1 and 2 of full video -- switches topics even though answer re voters not done -- what gives?
    18 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

Breitbart’s Joel Pollak blasts Mother Jones for its “deceptive editing” and hypocrisy:

    Earlier on Tuesday, new media pioneer James O’Keefe pointed out the hypocrisy of the mainstream media in accepting, without question, a snippet of a video recording that aimed to portray a Republican in a bad light, while conservatives are still doubted even after providing full video or audio, as O’Keefe did with his famous ACORN tapes.

    Whether Romney is right or wrong about the “47 percent” of Americans he says have become dependent on government–he stood by his May remarks on Monday evening–he may have been taken out of context.

    Mother Jones has failed a basic test and broken its promise to its readers and the public. There is now reason to doubt that it provided Romney’s full remarks–not just the context, but the remarks themselves. And there is new reason to suspect manipulation.

    Corn promised the complete version of Romney’s remarks. Instead, he provided a version that is missing a large portion of video at the critical moment.

    Mother Jones’s entire story now deserves to be treated with suspicion, if not contempt.

I’m not sure whether the context would have helped or hurt — because I don’t know exactly what Romney said other than what Corn and MJ released.  It may be that the context doesn’t change what we heard, but it’s equally likely that the “equipment malfunction” cut the heart out of Romney’s point.  And I don’t know whether Corn or MJ had anything to do with the way that video got put together, but their description of it as “full” and “complete” was clearly misleading — and it’s hard to believe that an experienced hand like Corn wouldn’t have noticed that the first video ended on one subject while the second video opened on another entirely.

The mainstream media that demanded total transparency from O’Keefe and Rose (and got it) didn’t seem too interested in applying that standard to Corn and Mother Jones, either.  The only thing left to wonder is whether Mother Jones will apply its own O’Keefe Standard to itself and declare itself anathema to journalism.

Update: William Jacobson says David Corn is still having disclosure issues.

But should a Democrat say or do something, lets see how it gets covered:

http://twitchy.com/2012/09/19/lapdogs-spin-mitchell-wont-air-obamas-not-authenticated-except-by-obama-campaign-redistribution-audio/

Lapdogs spin, Mitchell won’t air Obama’s ‘not authenticated,’ except by Obama campaign, redistribution audio
Posted at 2:34 pm on September 19, 2012 by Twitchy Staff | View Comments

    Matt K. Lewis @mattklewis

    Andrea Mitchell says she won't air the Obama redistribution video because NBC News hasn't authenticated it.
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

Andrea Mitchell is totally looking to get the position of head cheerleader on the Obama squad!

    Joñ G. @ExJon

    For all the press' anti-Romney chest-thumping over the past two days, that redistribution audio has Team Obama rattled.
    18 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

Indeed it does. And you know how we know it’s true? The palace guards known as the lapdog media are covering for Obama. Covering like the wind!

    Richard Grenell @RichardGrenell

    so true! @robertcobrien @JoeNBC Whatever happens don't report on polls showing @MittRomney up or mention #Obama redistribution video.
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

As Twitchy reported, the second half of the Obama/MSM 2012 ticket have been relentlessly hyping The Secret Romney Tape ™.

    Earl Crosby @EasyEarl

    CNN Hypes Romney Tape as 'Monumental Gaffe,' 'Manna from Heaven for the Left' | NewsBusters.org bit.ly/PApNsB Another Lapdog
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

They started swooning and falling into fits of histrionics even before a full tape was released. Double standards, much?

And the shameful double standards continue. Andrea Mitchell, a fan of false and misleading editing, now has the audacity to say that they won’t run the Obama redistribution remarks because the tape is ‘unauthenticated.’ No, for real. She said that.

    Stephen Green @VodkaPundit

    Oh for crap's sake. RT @SooperMexican BWAHAH! MT @mattklewis: Mitchell won't air the Obama redistribution vid b/c NBC hasn't authenticated.
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

    Charlie Spiering @charliespiering

    *New Video* Andrea Mitchell: MSNBC won’t air ‘alleged’ Obama redistribution tape bit.ly/PHLQMB
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

Unbelievable. Yet, they had no problem airing the Romney tape. Even prior to a full tape being released. Worse, the subsequently released full Romney tape ended up being edited.

    Cuffé @CuffyMeh 19 Sep 12

    How mindbogglingly convenient. MT @AdamSerwer: we posted the full recording, but the whole meeting wasn't recorded.

    David Burge @iowahawkblog

    @CuffyMeh you're taking taking out of context out of context.
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

    Jim Treacher @jtLOL

    RT this if you enjoy watching @DavidCornDC and friends as they learn how much fun it is to be accused of "selective editing."
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

    David Corn

        ✔

    @DavidCornDC

    Plenty of conservative trolls screaming about 1-2 minutes not recorded on Romney tapes. See the explanation here: motherjones.com/politics/2012/…
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

The Obama campaign authenticated it!

More from Mediaite:

    UPDATE: The Washington Post reports, “The Obama campaign confirmed that is Obama’s voice on the recording and a spokesman moved to rebut Romney’s criticism of it.”

Okay, to be fair, we suppose the Washington Post isn’t really a credible source. Still, lying liar Carney tries to dodge the redistribution tape.

    Mark Knoller

        ✔

    @markknoller

    Carney portrays Romney campaign as having had a bad day or bad week to explain Romney citing 14 yr old video of Obama on "redistribution."
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

And lapdogs take their commands from him. Roll over, lapdogs, roll over!

    Alex P Keaton @I_Hate_Hippies

    GMA ran the Obama recording this morning but spun "redistribution" as "he wants to make the government more efficient".
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

Some media outlets resort to sneer quotes, even!

    John King

        ✔

    @JohnKingCNN

    The @MittRomney counter 2 the #47% flap is thumping @BarackObama "redistribution" comment: on.cnn.com/RwgFUk. #cnnelections
    19 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

    Jim Acosta @jimacostacnn

    Is this directed at Drudge stuff on Obama? Romney at fundraiser: "We don't believe in redistribution." h/t pool
    18 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

Oh, just icky, old Drudge stuff! Nothing to see here, move along.

    Jim Acosta @jimacostacnn

    Romney at $ event on Obama's "redistribution" audio: "Some agree that the responsibility of govt is to take from some and give to others."
    18 Sep 12

        Reply
        Retweet
        Favorite

More sneer quotes. Shameless and shameful, alleged journalists. This Twitter user sums it up.

    Cuffé @CuffyMeh

    "We won't show the Redistribution video, but check out this doctored video of Romney amazed by a sandwich robot!" - @mitchellreports

Note: the odd formatting is due to the inclusion of "tweets" in the blog posting
 
Wow, he doesn't know the national debt is $16 trillion dollars (the figure was reached when the DNC was underway) and pretends that the trillion dollar deficits were not the work of his Administration and the Democrat majority congress. Too bad his nose doesn't grow at the same time...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6D55384wiUg

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/09/is-barack-obama-americas-most-dishonest-politician.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+powerlineblog%2Flivefeed+%28Power+Line%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

Is Barack Obama America’s Most Dishonest Politician?

A lot of politicians are dishonest, but Barack Obama may be in a league by himself. He appeared on the David Letterman show last night, and Letterman asked him about the national debt (somewhat surprisingly). Obama’s answer was a masterpiece of prevarication. He described how the debt originated, and claimed, falsely, that he inherited a $1 trillion deficit. In fact, this country had never run a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion until FY 2009, the first year of the Obama administration. (And, no, Bush isn’t to blame for it; the Democratic Congress waited until Obama was in office to pass the vast majority of the bloated spending for that fiscal year.) Letterman, to his credit, went on to ask Obama how much the national debt actually is. Obama evidently knew that if he said $16 trillion his audience would be horrified, so, incredibly, he pretended not to know! You have to see it to believe it:

Barack Obama is a world-class liar. At least, we’d better hope he is a world class liar, because if he really has no idea what the national debt is, we are in even worse trouble.
 
I have to admit, I nearly threw my back out laughing reading about alleged "selective editing" on Breitbart's site. Oh, the irony.

Thucydides said:
Removed, not really needed - just want to show who I'm replying to.
 
Long article bt the Washington Examiner which finally examines the past of Barrack Obama. Too bad the legacy media didn't do this sort of reporting in, say, 2008.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/introduction-the-obama-you-dont-know/article/2508080#.UFr-ybJ96So

Some highlights:

    From the introduction:

    “Beyond the spin and polls, a starkly different picture emerges. It is a portrait of a man quite unlike his image, not a visionary reformer, but a classic Chicago machine pol.”

    Chapter 1: A childhood of privilege, not hardship

    Michelle Obama says “Barack and I were both raised by families who didn’t have much in the way of money or possessions.” In fact, for much of his life, Barack Obama has enjoyed privileges and opportunities denied to most Americans.

    Chapter 2: Myth of the ‘rock star’ professor

    Though initially popular as a University of Chicago Law School adjunct lecturer, he was not ranking among the top professors, according to student evaluations.

    Chapter 3: The 1997 speech that launched Obama

    His 2004 Democratic National Convention speech got the big headlines, but a previously unreported 1997 Obama speech did far more to launch him with big backers with big bucks.

    Chapter 4: For the slumlord’s defense, Barack Obama, Esq.

    It was a frigid January and the slumlord who put his tenants on the street without going through the required eviction process got off with a $50 fine. His lawyer went on to be elected president of the United States.

    Chapter 5: Obama’s toughest critics on the Left

    Long before he ran for president, radical critics accused Obama of selling out Chicago’s poor to the Daley political machine.

    Chapter 6: The poor people Obama left behind

    Altgeld Gardens housing advocate Hazel Johnson welcomed the young Obama into her kitchen. Then she never heard from him again after he won his first election.

    Chapter 7: The myth of Obama as state senate reformer

    When the real reformers asked for his help, State Sen. Barack Obama was nowhere to be found.

    Chapter 8: Obama’s state pension fund scheme

    It worked for Rev. Jesse Jackson against the Fortune 500, so State Sen. Barack Obama used it to get millions for his friends from Illinois’ biggest public employee pension funds.

    Chapter 9: Obama’s Arab-American network

    Syrian emigrant Tony Rezko had lots of Arab-American friends in the Chicago business community who shared his enthusiasm for Barack Obama.

    Chapter 10: Obama brings Chicago politics to Washington

    Surprised by Solyndra? Don’t be, it’s just one of many examples that demonstrate Barack Obama is doing things in Washington the same way he did them in Chicago.


I notice that Redeye is up to his usual attack the messenger song and dance. Notice he does not (because he cannot) deny that there was selective editing applied against Governor Romney. Perhaps if he and others like him were to read the substance of the article there might be some cognitive dissonance.
 
Thucydides said:
I notice that Redeye is up to his usual attack the messenger song and dance. Notice he does not (because he cannot) deny that there was selective editing applied against Governor Romney. Perhaps if he and others like him were to read the substance of the article there might be some cognitive dissonance.

The selective editing silliness is basically smashed here by MoJo - using sources from Politico etc. And Romney's notably not walking back on his assailing 47% of the American public, which includes a lot of seniors, young families who avail themselves of tax credits and deductions that folks like Ronald Reagan were proud of etc.

I also enjoyed reading how most of these "moochers" live in Red States, which is fitting, because at the federal level when it comes to taxation versus allocation of government spending, Red States mooch off Blue States. Anyhow, here is the piece from MoJo, and remember, no having a go at the messenger, because that's unacceptable, right?

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/mitt-romney-says-video-debunked

PREVIOUS | NEXT
→ Elections, Politics, Romney, Top Stories, Video
Romney's Video-Debunking Claim Is…Debunked
—By David Corn| Wed Sep. 19, 2012 4:00 PM PDT
364

Mitt Romney/Flickr
This is getting ridiculous.

After Mother Jones posted video of Mitt Romney sharing remarks with millionaire donors that he would never express to voters—noting that nearly half of the American electorate are moochers and that Romney doesn't believe a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is feasible—Romney did not deny he said what he said. As the cliché goes, he doubled down, saying his remarks were inelegant but a reflection of his views about the rapid growth of entitlement programs in the United States. (Actually, this was a bait-and-switch operation. Romney was not talking policy when he disdainfully described half of the citizenry as parasites and victims.)

On Wednesday afternoon, he went further, with his campaign claiming that the video had been "debunked." In lashing out at the Obama campaign, Romney's crew issued this email:

Today, The Obama Campaign Leveled False Attacks Against Mitt Romney Based On A Debunked And Selectively Edited Video:

Today, Obama Campaign Spokesperson Ben LaBolt Attacked Mitt Romney Based On A Debunked Mother Jones Tape. OBAMA CAMPAIGN SPOKESMAN BEN LABOLT: "You heard on the tapes released this week that it's Mitt Romney who would walk away from the peace process." (MSNBC, 9/19/12)

But This Morning, Politico Reported That The Mother Jones Video Was Selectively Edited To Give A False Impression About Mitt Romney’s Views On The Middle East Peace Process. "But the clip initially provided by Mother Jones does not include that part of his remarks, and therefore was not reported by the aforementioned news outlets. Romney's complete remarks about the Mideast peace process were included in the complete video Mother Jones published Tuesday afternoon, less than 24 hours after it released clips from the fundraiser. But the clip posted to the Mother Jones website, which was cited by the national media, cuts out the excerpt in which Romney says that 'American strength, American resolve' will cause the Palestinians to 'some day reach the point where they want peace more than we're trying to force peace on them.'" (Dylan Byers, "Technically, Romney Said Peace Was Possible," Politico, 9/19/12)

The Romney campaign was clearly implying the whole video was rubbish. But there's a slight problem. Politico's Dylan Byers, the source for the debunking charge, quickly noted that he had done no such thing. He wrote:

there is nothing in my report that "debunks" the video.

In his article, posted earlier in the day, Byers had noted how some folks were complaining that we had edited a long clip of Romney talking about the Middle East selectively. In that clip—watch it here—Romney trashed the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, said the Palestinians (whom he lumped into one mindset) did not want peace and only sought the destruction of Israel, that he would not actively pursue the peace process and would instead seek to "kick the ball down the field," and that he had paid no real attention when a former secretary of state had told him that peace might be possible in the Middle East.

That is a total diss of the peace process—and would represent a radical break with US policy, which has supported a two-state solution since the Clinton years.

Yet Romney went on to say—and this clip did not include this—that if the United States showed "resolve….the Palestinians will some day reach the point where they want peace more than we're trying to force peace on them." Thus, peace might be theoretically possible at some point in the distance.

This was not a case of selective editing. The point was to show what was newsworthy: Romney breaking with current policy and stating views that he has not stated publicly. (In an interview this summer, he said he supported a two-state solution.) Nevertheless, some Romney backers have cried foul and managed to turn this into a dispute they can use to raise questions about the secret Romney tape.

But don't take my word. Here's more from Byers:

More mysterious still, is why the Romney campaign wants to debunk a video containing remarks that the candidate doubled-down on in a follow-up press conference.

Slate's Dave Weigel has weighed in as well:

By calling the whole tape "debunked" and "selectively edited," the campaign's hewing closer to the Breitbart.com argument -- the real story is liberal media-Obama collusion. And the result is a sort of paradox, in which Romney stands by what he said in a video that you can't trust.

It was bizarre. After Byers and Weigel had debunked the Romney camp's debunking, Byers heard from a Romney aide who said that the campaign only takes issue with the clip regarding Romney's view on the Mideast, not the entire video.

In other words, the Romney campaign walked back the push-back. It's not challenging the "47 percent" material or anything else; only the Mideast remarks. But, as I've said a few thousand times on television these past few days, the wonderful thing about this story is that people can view for themselves. Watch Romney talking about the Mideast, and it's clear he has contempt for the peace process as it has been conceived for years; does not believe it can work; and would chart a radically different course. The few sentences not included in that clip—but which were included in the full transcript and complete tape we released—do not a debunking make. This maneuver smacks of desperation from a campaign hurt by the undeniable words of its candidate.
 
Alright, this thread is done until after the election.  I'm saving you guys from yourselves as this has been 72 pages of turds swirling in the drain.  Go to a U.S. political forum and call out the rednecks/socialists to your heart's content.
 
A link from Mr. Campbell.


[quote author=E.R. Campbell]
Hi Bruce

I think this video http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/11/daily-chart-0?fsrc=rss is useful for the locked US Election thread. It is, pretty much, up to the minute and, I think, pretty close to as accurate as the media can be.

Regards

ERC
[/quote]
 
A member has asked for the following to be put up for those with some time on their hands:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/11/02/us/politics/paths-to-the-white-house.html?smid=tw-thecaucus

512 ways you can agonize about the coming of <insert political boogyman here>
 
This is a tough one.  The polling suggests a dead heat, but is the polling correct?

On the theory that, since conservatives were under-polled in the last Canadian Federal election, lets see if the same is true in the US.

Romney, by a Recount and a Supreme Court decision.  ;)
 
The incumbent has the edge.......



I hope not  ::)
 
Obama will come out on top.  The Republicans have picked a slow horse yet again.
 
Obama, but the end result either way is that America itself will be the loser by having to choose between these two.
 
Please limit the comments so as to avoid getting locked. I am interested in the results compared to the vote in the US. Thanks
 
Romney to win election ... if Redskins Rule holds true according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Toronto Sun

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/11/04/romney-to-win-election--if-redskin-rule-holds-true

If history means anything, the Washington Redskins’ loss Sunday will have an impact on much more than the NFC East.



It could have wide-ranging implications on the free world.

That’s if you believe the Redskins Rule.

Simply put, since 1940, the outcome of the Redskins’ final pre-election game has led to shockingly predictable results from the U.S. electorate.

With only one exception in 18 elections (2004, when George Bush won despite losing the popular vote), a Redskins win means the incumbent stays in power and a loss means a new president takes office.

In other words, the Carolina Panthers’ upset of the ’Skins Sunday may be an indicator an even bigger surprise is in the cards in Tuesday’s U.S. presidential election. Robert Griffin III’s loss may just be Mitt Romney’s gain.

 
Back
Top