I just stumbled upon this article written by hassidic blogger Mark hirshberg on November 1'st -5 days before the elections- on gestetnerupdates.com, but I have to post it here because it perfectly describes how Obama keeps on playing politics with EVERYTHING that's possible. (As we can see with the fiscal cliff talks going on now in Washington)
Here's the article:
Obama for America advised the president, to take hurricane Sandy and turn it into a badly needed 48 hour live campaign commercial.
So Obama flew back to Washington DC, sat in the situation room listen in to briefings (something he didn’t do in months) updating him on the storm, and of course released pictures of it in real time.
Then he called up all the Governors from the damaged states, and did what he does best “talk”.
He “said” that he himself will be on top of the situation.
He “said” that he will make sure that there’s no red tape.
He “said” that he will make sure that every state and municipality has the resources it needs for their rescue and recovery efforts.
He “said” that he ordered all federal agencies to work 24 hours to make sure that every state has what it needs.
He “said” that the governors should call him directly in the white house when they need something, they shouldn’t go to the agencies, they should call him directly.
Then he came to New Jersey for a photo op splattering in a few puddles, cuddling with a few storm struck citizens, using them as commercial props, then wrapped up his 48-hour campaign commercial and he’s off campaigning again.
Now, its four days later, cities are still ravaged, houses crumbled and flooded, citizens are diving in garbage dumpsters to find food, millions are still without electricity, hundreds of thousands of storm struck citizen are stranded or in shelters and have yet to see a single hand from the federal government.
The gasoline situation is a disaster, New York City looks like a third world country with people lining up for blocks with gas canisters in hand to get a few gallons of gas. Every gas station that still has some gasoline has cars lined up for miles waiting to fill up. Hundreds of cars in the Tri-state area are stuck without gas. Emergency services and basic services are in jeopardy. And Obama is out campaigning.
How Governor Christie fell for the presidents empty talk is really beyond me. Every state still needs help from the federal government but the president that was elected to lead, and that promised to be there for us, is somewhere out there campaigning.
In the meantime all those shattered, flooded, stranded, hungry, cold, and infuriated citizens will have to wait till after Election Day to get help from the president again.
On the Friday after the Democratic convention, Tom Jensen tried to reach out and touch 10,000 Ohioans. He wanted to ask them, among other questions, whom they planned to vote for in November: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney? This sort of thing is easier—and harder—than you might think. As the director of Public Policy Polling, Jensen has at his disposal 1,008 phone lines hooked up to IVR (interactive voice response) software that enables PPP to make 400,000 automated calls a day. All Jensen needs to do is feed the 10,000 phone numbers into a computer, record the series of questions he wants to ask, press a few buttons, and voilà: He has a poll in the field. That’s the easy part. The hard part starts with getting people to answer the phone. Beginning that Friday night around six and then five more times over the course of the next two days—in the mornings, afternoons, and evenings—PPP called those 10,000 Ohioans; by Sunday night at eight, only 1,072 of them had been reached. Still, for Jensen’s purposes, that was sufficient, and he got to work assembling his poll.
And that’s where things get even more difficult. The 1,072 Ohioans who participated in PPP’s poll were, as is the case with almost every poll taken today, older and whiter than the electorate. As a result, Jensen decided to give more weight to certain respondents’ answers. “If the whole world was releasing unweighted polls,” he says, “Mitt Romney would be heading to an easy election.” For instance, although African-Americans accounted for just 7 percent of the respondents to PPP’s poll, Jensen believes—based on census data, past elections, and the current political environment—that black voters will make up 12 percent of the Ohio electorate come November. So Jensen multiplied his African-American respondents’ answers by 1.5. Similarly, only 7 percent of the respondents were under the age of 30; since Jensen projects young people will make up 14 or 15 percent of Ohio’s electorate, he multiplied his 18-to-29-year-old respondents’ answers by two. After some additional statistical tinkering, Jensen had his poll, and a little past ten on Sunday night, PPP released the results.
Once upon a time, polls came and went without much fanfare or even notice. That time is gone. Today, a good portion of Americans plan their lives—or at least their Twitter feeds—around the latest political numbers. As every good political junkie knows, each day at 9:30 a.m. Eastern time, Rasmussen Reports releases its daily national tracking poll; three and a half hours later, Gallup comes out with its own. Wednesdays are typically when Quinnipiac University, the New York Times, and CBS unveil their “swing state” polls; on Thursdays, it’s NBC, The Wall Street Journal, and Marist College’s turn to share their “battleground state” polls. And Sunday nights are for PPP—a three-person public-opinion-research firm in North Carolina that produces upwards of 800 polls a year. “Sunday’s a dead news day,” Jensen says of his poll-release strategy, “so people who are living and breathing this presidential election are just sitting around all day nervously waiting for PPP’s latest poll to come out.”
Jensen does his best to feed those anxieties. Like a record-company executive who leaks his best band’s new single, he begins dropping hints about PPP’s poll results as soon as the data starts coming in. “Things definitely looking good for Obama in the polls we started tonight,” he tweeted that Friday, a few hours after he sent the Ohio and four other polls into the field (or rather through the computer system). By Saturday morning, he was telling PPP’s more than 40,000 Twitter followers that those polls were “looking like … 2008.” And on Sunday night, a few hours before he posted the Ohio results, he tweeted this tidbit: “[L]ooks like Obama leads there by more than 2008 margin of victory.” So when Jensen revealed that PPP found Obama leading Romney 50 to 45 in Ohio—0.4 percent better than Obama had performed against John McCain in 2008 and, more important, two points more than Obama had led Romney in a PPP poll of Ohio in August—it wasn’t exactly a surprise.
That didn’t stop all hell from breaking loose. Democrats celebrated the result—one of the first pieces of evidence that the president had received a bounce from their party’s convention. Republicans, for their part, vented their spleen. Many accused PPP (which does work for Democratic candidates and liberal interest groups) of bias—of tweaking their formulas to produce a desired result. On Twitter, a parody account, Partisan Policy Polls, deadpanned: “Ohio voters favored Gov Romney 52-47. A follow-up question of ‘Why are you so racist?’ resulted in a switch to 50-45 lead for Pres Obama.”
It's official. Election Day has finally arrived, and with it my deadline to report my take and prediction on what will be the outcome of this long and very intense 2012 election cycle. I kept on pushing off my analysis of the race, since there's almost no chance that I should be right on every prediction that I will make, so why should I taint my sterling reputation as "the best predictor of 2012"? And why should I tarnish my success rate of 99% accuracy? (You can look up my past predictions on twitter @Chulentup) But after a lot of pleadings of friends and relatives, I decided that I can not falter on my job and I'm not allowed to disappoint all of those waiting to refresh themselves with my perspectives. I'll just state a clarification here: there will be a few of my prediction which basically hangs on just a guess, literally. This election has become such a tight race that I don't think there's any pundit who didn't rely on a few guesses here and there to make his predictions. Even lary sabbato from the crystal ball said that there are three states where he can't say who'll win there, and he basically devided it in half for Obama and half for Romney. But I will try to make my best educated guesses here. And so, here it comes... ELECTION 2012 FINAL PREDICTIONS! I'll start of with the popular vote. I project that mitt Romney will win the nationwide popular vote with a margin of 1.5 to 2% points. Lets walk over to the electoral college predictions. Ill start with the easiest states to predict, and finish with hardest and tightest contest. Obama is starting this race with 190 electorals VS. mitt romney's 191. But I'll right away put back Minnesota in obamas column. Even tho the Romney campaign has made a late play in that state, I don't think that he has any chance of winning it. My perspective is that they did it only to bring up some momentum talk and nothing more. I give for obama a 99% chance to win it. Which brings Obama up to 200 EV's. after Minnesota, I'm putting back Michigan in the Obama column. Not so strongly as Minnesota, but its very hard for me to think that Romney will stage an upset there - a lot of this, because of the auto bailout which "supposedly" benefitted Michigan. I give Obama an 85% chance of winning Michigan. Which brings him up to 216 EV's. now lets start with the real battleground states. First up is North Carolina with its 15 electoral votes. I project that this will easily go for mitt Romney. I actually predicted both North Carolina and Nevada long before the pundits decided in whose camp they'll place it. I think that this will be an easy pickup for Romney. 1. After all, Obama won the state with only 13,000 votes out of 4.3 million. 2. The early vote numbers there favor Romney. 3. North Carolina is a relatively republican state. 4. A few weeks before Barack Obama announced his support for gay marriages, voters in north Carolina flocked to the polls to defeat a marriage amendment with about 60-40%. 5. Obama basically conceded that state already. He wasn't there since the democratic convention which was held in Charlotte. I give mitt Romney a 97% chance of winning this state. Second up will be the state of Florida with its grand prize of 29 electoral votes. I'm easily awarding it for mitt Romney. 1. Early voting numbers favor him there VS. '08. 2. The polls are fairly strong for him there (the last couple of days it tightened a bit, but I think that it was just some sandy noise which started evaporating already. 3. The largest number of seniors live there, and they favor Romney with double digits. I give mitt Romney an 82% chance of winning it. Third comes Nevada. I'll award it's 6 electorals for Obama. Very early and quite easily I declared this state for Obama. Yes, it always baffled me how a state with a 14.1% unemployment rate, a sky rocketing foreclosure rates, and around 12% of Nevada is Mormons, can not possibly go for Romney with a landslide, but apparently that's not the case. I don't really know why, but the facts are that Obama won the state in '08 with a wide enough margin that he can afford himself to lose a lot of his voters and still hold the state. 2. Romney was tied in a few polls but he never led in any poll there. 3. Obama has enough of an early vote advantage that mitt Romney will need to have a rock solid turnout on Election Day to overcome it. Very hard. I give Obama an 83% chance of winning Nevada. The prediction game is starting to get a bit harder. But we'll go on. Next stop will be Colorado. I'm giving its 9 EV's for mitt Romney. Not such an easy award, I know that Obama led in quite a lot of polls there. But I'll consider a few other things. 1. The republicans are leading in early voting there, a reversal of four years ago. 2. Colorado on the presidential level is quite a republican state. 3. Romney had his fair share of polls there. I'm giving a 60% chance for Romney to win this Rocky Mountain state. Horses and bayonets here we come. Virginia. When Suffolk university president came out with his statement that he won't poll North Carolina, Florida and Virginia anymore because its Romney countries, I laughed. I worried all along that Virginia will be tight, and I still believe that it will be very tight. But I will place Virginias 13 EV's for mitt Romney. 1. Virginia is a republican state. 2008 was the first year since 1964 that they voted for a democrat. Although the demographics are changing there, I still firmly believe that it's still in the republican category. 2. There's not much early voting ongoing in Virginia. Therefore a benefit for Romney. 3. Obama got a lot of good polls there, but so did Romney have a very healthy share of polls there. I give for mitt Romney a 56% chance on winning Virginia. The independent state of New Hampshire is here. NH has a small electoral prize of 4. And I also have a smaller confidence here, but my small confidence will award this small prize for mitt Romney. A few reasons. 1. Romney had quite a few good polls there. Even UMUR-UNH which gave for Obama a 15% lead just a month ago showed the race tied last week. Yes, yesterday they rebounded with a 3% Obama lead, but this could be some sandy noise or just their unpredictable Obama lean. 2. Romney is a local there. He has a summer home there. 3. The results from dixville notch came in already, and it showed a tie 5-5. But Lets spin it a little. In 2008 Obama got 71.4% of the vote there versus this year which he only got 50 percent. The republican in 08 got only 28.6% there, vs. today where he got 50 percent. Looks cool, ha? 4. My favourite 2012 election surrogate was John sununu, former New Hampshire governor. And if he said that mitt Romney will win New Hampshire with 2-3%, he definitely will win it! 'Nuff said. I give mitt a 55% chance in NH. We travel over to Pennsylvania. A big prize of 20 EV's This state involves quite a lot of guessing. After all nobody talked of this state till 2 weeks ago, therefore there wasn't a whole bunch of polling there, and even less punditry talk. But let's maze our way around. I will never know who gave to drink the Pennsylvania cool aid for the republicans. And the problem is that they keep on drinking it election after election, and by the same margin as their cool aid drinking they keep on losing it election after election. My suggestion to the republicans is: get it out of your head. Pennsylvania ain't a swing state! But... Here comes the but... This year it is a bit different. (Ye, i also drank some of that lately...) 1. The last few polls give for mitt Romney a considerably good chance there. From a tie to a minus of three points which is within the margin of error. 2. I think that Pennsylvania is the only state that Romney had more advertising there than Obama; because as I said,nobody looked on that state before the Denver debate a month ago, and then mitt Romney got flooded with cash much more than Obama. 3. We at Chulentup sent down a reporter in Pennsylvania this Sunday by the huge 30,000 person Romney rally, and we found an awful lot of democrats there saying that they plan on voting for Romney cuz there're disappointed of the last four years. The mood by the democrats is not upbeat at all overthere. Hence, after all said I have to leave Pennsylvania in the democratic column. I just don't have THAT much evidence to move root it over to the Romney column. But I do think that there's a really good possibility for an upset there from mitt Romney. I'll give a 52% chance for Obama in PA. Cover your nose, the farms are coming. Iowa. A very very hard state for me to predict. The polls are all over the place with a majority giving a victory for Obama there, but quite a few giving it for Romney with a tiny lead. But I'll consider a few more things. 1. All four big Iowa newspapers endorsed mitt Romney. Yes, I know that newspaper endorsements matter almost nothing if not nothing at all; but the Des Moines register endorsement was a bit different this year. First it made some waves with a mitt Romney statement before their editorial board that he does not know of any legislation regarding abortion that he intends to pass. It made the news, and of course the democrats -with no record to run on- pounced on this statement which allowed them to bring social issues like abortion and contraception Back to the campaign. Then came obamas turn. Obama gave his interview for their editorial board, but he insisted that they shouldn't release a transcript of it. Before you knew it, the papers chief editor scathingly criticised the Obama campaign on their blog, for not letting a worthful interview go public. After these two high profile debacles, they gave out their decision to endorse mitt Romney. And so it got quite a lot of attention. Everyone also noticed that its the first time in 40 years that they endorsed a republican for president! Which obviously made the rounds. So there's a very reasonable chance that these four Iowa newspaper endorsements did sway some voters to Romney. 2. The democrats have a lead there in early voting but its quite down from 2008. If Romney has a very healthy turnout today, he can win it very closely. I think that the contest will be very close there. Maybe even resembling the republican primary where they gave a 13 vote victory for rick Santorum. With a 50.5% chance, I'll give the states 6 EV's for... Mitt Romney.
Buckle up... Theres A lot of turbulence coming up.
The time has come for the two most unpredictable states this year. Ohio, we mean you! Wisconsin, we mean you too!
We'll start with Ohio, cuz the conventional punditry wisdom goes that no republican can win the presidency without winning Ohio. I will dare to disagree.
Lets see what's going on over there. 1. Ohio got an awful lot of polling this cycle, and there was almost no poll that gave the lead for Romney. Yup, I know all those people who think that the polls are very inaccurate. I hate to agree with conspirators and those kind of stuff, but I have to admit that they have some really good points about these polls, and I indeed think that these people will come out as mostly right, but... When there's almost no polls giving the lead for Romney in Ohio, it is very hard for me to put this state in his column. 2. Even those articles who are quoting insider republican talk, are saying that their internal polls show a very tied race; vs. the public polls and the Obama campaign saying that their internals show a bigger lead for the president. 3. Romney got badly beaten about his auto bailout stance there, with Ohio benefitting from the bailout quite a bit. No, I don't mean romneys actual stance about the bailouts; I mean what the president lied about romneys bailout stances! But Obama tainted the Ohio airwaves a whole summer with fabricated lies about romneys bailout stances, and effectively it took a heavy toll on the Romney campaign, leaving it in a decline amongst white voters and independents vs his national stances among them. (BTW, I think that Romney benefitted a bit from his jeep ad airing in Ohio the last 2 weeks. Yes, the ad is a lie at worst or misleading at its best. But the Romney campaign finally learned that as they got knocked from the Obama bailout lies, so can they do the same. And so they did, but a bit too late) 4. There's no party registration in ohio's early voting. Therefore there's no chances of knowing who is stronger there. The republicans and the democrats continue to throw around numbers which favor them, and there's no way of knowing who is correct there. Yes, I actually stumbled upon some numbers today on Election Day which shows that turnout in Obama counties is down vs four years ago and vice versa, yet I still can't verify those stuff.
The election in ohio will be really close. It's really hard for me to choose a winner there, but if you push me... I'll have to give ohio's 18 EV's for Obama. A 50.1% chance for Obama.
Hello Cheese badgers, hello Wisconsin.
More difficulties coming up. We'll start with the case for Barack Obama. 1. The polls were awfully bad for Romney lately in Wisconsin. Except for Rasmussen showing a tie in this race, there isn't any pollster giving it to Romney. There are quite a few polls there giving for Obama a nice comfortable lead there. I don't think that there could be any twisting or turning around this. The polls will have to be very heavy skewed for Obama in order for Romney to win this thing. 2. Wisconsin hasn't voted for a republican president since 1984. Simple.
But let's move to the Romney case. 1. The polls very much under sampled the republicans in the 2010 walker recall. Almost no one estimated such a big lead for him. There's big reason to suggest that this is the case this year too. 2. The airwaves didn't get saturated all over the summer with anti Romney ads because nobody thought that Wisconsin will become a swing state, therefore romneys image didn't get so tainted there. When the realisation struck that Wisconsin is in play, mitt Romney had already more money than Obama did,after Obama spent much of his money during the summer. Thereby rendering unsuccessful obamas mission to paint Romney as a ruthless corporate big money guy. 3. The republicans have a superior ground game in Wisconsin which they built up during the walker recall and proved itself to be very successful. Their ground game there is much better than the democrats. The Obama camp invested most of its time in establishing a ground game in Ohio, but Wisconsin slipped under their radar. 4. Mitt romneys vice president paul ryan comes from wisconsin. plus he presents a big democratic district there, and hes well liked there. All which can bring an advantage for the Romney camp. 5. My guy thr RNC director rience priebus is from Wisconsin. I love him. Enough said?
These are two very good cases, both are not to be discounted easily, but I still have to make a pick; therefore I'll place wisconsin's 10 EV's in mitt romneys column. But only with a 50.1% chance! http://t.co/1O312V6G
(You can very much turn around Ohio and Wisconsin. It's both THAT close)
This brings us to the last poor single electoral vote of Maine.
As known there are two states in the US which render their electoral votes as the outcomes of their congressional districts. Those two are Nebraska and Maine.
I don't think that there's ever been an instance where these electoral votes got split between the candidates, but there's a big chance that this year it will indeed happen.
Obama has a comfortable lead in Maine but not so much in its 2'nd congressional district. The second district voters resemble quite the New Hampshire style voter, (and if you still remember, I put NH into the Romney column) but there's almost no stuff on which I can count on regarding this. There wasn't any punditry talk on this lonely CD, there wasn't any public polls released either (except for PPP rubbish which doesn't count by me). Therefore I cannot make any clever assumptions on what will happen over there. There was no pundit whatsoever which took away this single EV from the Obama column, but I will diverge and say that it's an equal 50-50 chance for either of them to win this EV. But... My gut feeling will lift it over the gate,and put it quietly into the Romney column. http://t.co/i0awsi5
Thereby giving for mitt Romney 278 electoral votes against 260 for Barack Obama, which will automatically render the presidency of the United States for Mitt Romney!!
FIREWORKS FOR THE 45'TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA...
MITT ROMNEY!!!
The republicans are racists, conservatives are racists, the tea party Is a hate filled group, all the republicans despise minorities, and so on and on.
If you ever watched MSNBC for more than an hour, I bet you that you've stumbled upon those kind of remarks. But these stupidity filled ideas are not exclusively assigned to the MSNBC pundits, you can find those ideas on a few other places in the main stream media.
So what to do with this? Can this claim possibly be true? And if it isn't true, than why do these pundits keep on repeating this claim over and over again?
I'll try to clear up this issue a bit. the claims, the rebuttals, the videos, everything will come up as we try to maze our way past this race thingy. So here we go.
There's a very famous -and very old- proverb that will help us out overhere.
When you see a person who is always busy calling out other people's failures, you should know that this person definitely encompasses within him all of these failures. And because he's the guy who has all these failures inside him, therefore he's the one who will find fault with everyone else.
Yes, I mean you chris Matthews. Rachel maddow. Toure. And a few more names that I just don't remember on the moment. YOU ARE RACISTS!!
But lets try to examine a few of their claims, and we'll see wether their claims are correct or it's just a bunch of stuff.
Chris Matthews goes on a rant saying that all the attacks from the GOP against Barack Obama are racist. He rants against Sarah palin saying that when she attacked Obama, saying that he covered up the Benghazi attacks, she was a racist. You'll definitely ask what did chris Matthews see in palins words to label her "racist"? Well, apperantely he found that Sarah palin said "that obamas shuck and jive ends with Benghazi lies".
So I've got two questions. Number one. Where was chris Matthews when NY gov. Andrew cuomo or when WH press secretary jay carney said these exact same words?
Dont hold your breath because The answer is... he was nowhere to be found. But the most important question is, what happened when Matthews himself used these words, isn't he considered a racist??
Yup. Chris Matthews goes on a rant attacking Sarah palin for being a racist by saying "shuck and jive", but when Matthews himself used those exact same words in 2010 then apperantely he isn't a racist. Why? Ask the racist of chief chris Matthews. I'll bring you another example from racist Matthews.
3 days ago Barack Obama made his closing arguments at a campaign rally. While he was attacking mitt Romney,the crowd started booing. Obama evoked his old "don't boo, vote" meme. But then he added something new. He said "voting is the best revenge". REVENGE? The president of the United States suggests to people to go out and vote for revenge? That's quite a bit scary.
But try to use your imagination a little. What would've happened if mitt Romney would've uttered those words? Don't you think that the whole media would've been up in arms against him? Well, to your luck you won't have to use your imagination too much. Apperantely chris Matthews didn't know that Obama first uttered this revenge line, and so he started attacking... Romney for stoking ethnic fears by running with the revenge line!! Yup, forget the fact that Obama was the one who tried to stoke hatred in his people by urging them to REVENGE. Blame mitt Romney -for rightfully attacking a guy who says to his supporters to vote for revenge- that by saying that Obama wasn't supposed to use such hateful words, he try's to stoke ethnic fears in the American people. hews-unaware-revenge-was-obamas-line-insists-romney-stoking-
You can see for yourself. If when Romney attacks Obama for using scare tactics, he's being called a racist; imagine what would've happened if Romney would've said voting is the best revenge? You know the answer. Whenever a republican will utter anything out of his mouth, even if its a rebuttal of racist comments he'll be a racist. And if a democrat will use real racial stuff, you won't hear a word.
Now you tell me if chris Matthews isn't a racist.
But it doesn't finish with him. I'll bring u a few more examples of utter rubbish racism accusations.
Laurence odonnell accused senate minority leader Mitch McConnell with racism, for saying that...
Actually I listened to that video quite a few times and I wasn't able to find anything remotely similar to racism in his remarks.
I'll bring you the video so that you'll be able to check it out for yourselves, but I have no doubt in my mind that nobody will find anything close to racism there.
So than why does odonnell throw such hateful allegations on him? If you've read my simple proverb with which I started the article, you'll notice that everything is perfect. Mitch McConnell isn't the racist, Laurence odonnell is!! http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/315677/lawrence-odonnell-and-tiger-woods-lifestyle-eliana-johnsonhttp://reason.com/blog/2012/08/30/msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-mocking-obamas
It gets crazier by the minute. There's a reporter on mediaite named tommy Christopher. I'd suggest for him to go work at MSNBC. I checked out his articles on mediaite and I found that he's a big hate monger, so I think that he'll very much enjoy all his racists friends on that trashy network. I try to keep my blog very clean so I won't bring all of his hate filled articles here, I'll just post an article on which I just stumbled upon and you'll see everything very clearly. After the first debate in Denver where Romney gave a knock out performance, all the pundits and analysts expected that Obama will come back by the second debate as very forceful -and that's what happened. One of those people were former South Carolina governor mark Sanford. He went on Fox News and predicted that Obama will throw a lot of spears by the second debate. Question: did anyone find any racism so far? I know you all answer no. But apparently this tommy Christopher did find. Hmmmm... What can possibly be racism here? The answer goes somewhat like this. This guy said that Obama will throw spears... And spearchucker is a racial slur!! And this I call genius. Sanford never said spearchucker, he said spare, which is a totally normal word. But since its a cousin to the spearchucker word, he definitely wanted to use that word and therefore he's accused of racism!! Here's the dictionary definition for both words
Noun:
A weapon with a long shaft and a pointed tip, typically of metal, used for thrusting or throwing.
Verb:
Pierce or strike with a spear or other pointed object: "she speared a French fry with her fork".
Isn't a guy who says on live TV that if mitt Romney will win Florida and Virginia then the south will be the confederacy, a BIG racist? Oh I forgot. Andrew Sullivan is a liberal, and there is no racists by the liberals. Got it!!
Isn't Americas former president bill Clinton a racist? Look what he said in 2008 on Obama when he was dead locked in a primary fight with Hillary Clinton:
NEW YORKER: Bill Clinton on Obama: 'A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags'...
Hey chris Matthews where are you? I don't see you wasting your time on this? Oh, I forgot. Clinton is a democrat and democrats aren't racists, only republicans are racists!!
Lemme ask a general question on racism. Why when a black person says something racist on white people, he isn't called out as racist?
Why when 60% of whites will vote for mitt Romney, it is because a lot of them are racists; but when NINETY FIVE% of blacks are voting for Obama it has nothing to do with racism??
Is it liable to say that this dramatic change among them happened only because a black person (a.k.a. obama) started supporting this amendment, and therefore rendering all this people who changed their mind as racists who will change their positions just because of a persons skin color?
Now for the final part of this article, ill bring a few nice moments where chris Matthews gets confronted about his outrageous racism allegations.
Here's Herman Cain on fox and friends rebutting some stupid Matthews racism stuff
3 questions. 1 was there ever a precedent that polls should be SO wrong? 2. Doesn't Marist wanna be correct &be called good? 3.why is WSJ over sampling dems? @numbersmuncher
Playing politics at its best RT @ZekeJMiller Before heading west to campaign, POTUS stopped @FEMA for a briefing on Sandy recovery efforts. After Benghazi,media pounced on Romney comments. Y doesnt the media pounce on Obama for talking by his rally's about #Sandy? politicising it WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA MULE OBAMA FOR POLITICISING #Sandy?? Why does he open his speeches with sandy? @ByronYork
My advice to the Romney camp: @GovChristie MUST speak out for Romney at least once. 2. It's time to air a 30 min. Infomercial I know there's no time to make a 30 minute infomercial now, but u can even air the gov's powerful WI speech. U have enough money
President Obama declares all swing states a major disaster area. Obama canceling campaign events for 1 week to be prez. Which makes sense, since he just spent 4 years campaigning instead of being president
Remember when Obama said Iran doesn't pose a serious threat to us? #weremember Remember when Obama said that the Muslim brotherhood does not have majority support in Egypt? #weremember #foolingus Remember when Obama said that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel? #foolingus #weremember Remember when Obama said to sarkozy that he has to deal with bibi netanyahu every day? #foolingus #weremember
Ha! RT @ZekeJMiller Romney said @bkappCBS should "do a little dazzle" on the front steps of the plane for the waiting cameras RT @JanCBS: Landing in Cincy, Romney wished @bkappCBS a Happy Bday: "Four times zones in one day--a longer day for you" to enjoy it. RT @ZekeJMiller Romney just wished @bkappCBS a happy birthday using the plane intercom. Usually he comes back, but not tonight. #Mourdock
Efforts of #liberalreuters to mislead T american ppl intensify RT @Reuters Efforts to mislead,pressure voters intensify http://t.co/lm7FKe7a #liberalreuters when obama was up 1,they headlined "Obama leading", now when romney is leading its "effectively tied" http://t.co/JZkuBQOc #liberalreuters trying to make romney look like a clown! RT @Reuters Romney sticks to storm relief script at Ohio event http://t.co/ck8P4RjX
RT @BorowitzReport BREAKING: Obama trounces Romney in debate, Reports MSNBC. #presdebate RT @BorowitzReport Every one of Obama's sentences addressed to Candy Crowley ends with a silent "bitch." #debate RT @BorowitzReport Every one of Obama's sentences addressed to Candy Crowley ends with a silent "bitch." #debate RT @borowitzreport Obama: fuck mitt romney RT @BorowitzReport: I worry that all the "women in binders" jokes from @BorowitzReport will make us forget what an asshole he is!!! RT @BorowitzReport Obama: "There's no place more important to me than Israel except Ohio." #debate RT @BorowitzReport It took a disaster for some people to realize what a disaster Obama would be.
