Bloomberg Poll: Mitt's Negative Perception Problem

A new poll by Bloomberg today has Obama ahead of Mitt Romney 49 to 43. Mitt's problem: people view him negatively.

Half of Americans hold an unfavorable view of Romney -- a September high for a presidential challenger in the last three decades -- and 49 percent of likely voters consider the former Massachusetts governor out-of-touch compared with 40 percent who say that of Obama in the latest Bloomberg National Poll conducted Sept. 21-24.

Also, voters think Obama has a better vision for the future:

The president does have one clear advantage -- his economic plan is breaking through with more Americans, who give him a 48 percent to 39 percent advantage over Romney on having a vision for a successful future.

In a nutshell:

[T]he public continues to view Romney as more disconnected from their lives and unconcerned with their challenges.

< Probation is No Walk in the Park: Another Example | Suspect ID'd in Killing of CO Prison Kitchen Staffer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hopefully (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by CoralGables on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:57:53 PM EST
    Romney's fall from grace continues to expand the map. Adding more blue is good, and not just to help this year but it would help for each subsequent election.

    The Obama campaign is talking about possibly making a move in Arizona. Obviously Arizona isn't important to win this election, but it starts to make a design on the map which is very beneficial long term.

    If you click on this link at 270towin and then click on each beige state until it's blue (yes Obama currently leads in all those states) you start to see a pattern developing and why it's good to chase Arizona where the demographics are improving each year.

    Should Romney's campaign continue to disintegrate so less money is needed in places like Pennsylvania or Wisconsin or Ohio, Obama money can be moved and used in Arizona, Missouri, and Indiana looking to make solid Dem gains for the future and continue to encircle the red for 2016.

    It depends. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 04:27:52 AM EST
    Adding more Blue is good.
    Unless they're Blue Dogs.
    Not good.

    Blue dogs (2.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:18:01 AM EST
    are just fine when they come from red states and keep a right wing republican out of office. They are the only Dem you'll get elected in those areas right now. I'm amazed that's so difficult to understand for some.

    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:28:25 AM EST
    A right-winger is a right-winger (and really, that's what Blue Dogs are) whether they are Dem or Republican.  They're a drain on the Democratic party, and they have diluted its values until it's unrecognizable to me.

    If they want a Republican let them vote for a real Republican.  Not one masquerading as a Democrat simply because they're not entirely crazy.  The whole GOP value set should be brought into the light and discredited in the cold light of day.  

    But then, hey, I'm not a Democrat anymore so I guess I won't worry about how corrupt it has become.


    Anyone that thinks (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:41:07 AM EST
    there is no difference between a blue dog Dem and a right wing republican is living in fantasy land. Come join the real world.

    Your real world? (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:07:28 AM EST
    I'm already living in it.  And frankly, I despise it.  I saw how it got here.  I watched the decline while people like you were talking about "electibility" instead of values.  Blue Dogs may qualify for "not crazy", but where are  they on choice? on the safety net?  on SS and Medicare?  On workers rights instead of "right to work"? On main street vs wall street?  Nowhere that I want to be.

    They are in exactly the same place that Republicans were as little as 10 years ago.

    Join the real world?  Basically you're saying that the rape of my world is inevitable so I may as well lay back and call it consensual. No, thank you.  I'll call it like I see it.  Not shut up and take it.


    Please... (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:20:30 AM EST
    We have the Blue Dogs to thank for the Stupak amendment.

    The genuflecting from Obama regarding the health insurance bill was evenly distributed between Repubs, Corporate interests, and Blue Doggies.


    And the Stupak amendment (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:08:21 AM EST
    was stripped in the Senate, no?

    Talk about missing the point (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:19:50 AM EST
    Markos actually did an analysis (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:36:21 AM EST
    of this, and he found that the most conservative Democratic Seantor was consistently more liberal than the most liberal Republican.

    Good example:  Would you rather have "pro-life" Casey of Pennsylvania or "pro-choice" Brown of Massachusetts?  Not even close.  Casey voted for Obama's Supreme Court picks.  Brown voted against Kagan.

    And for a deep red state, it is even more clear that any Democrat is generally better than any Republican.


    Also easily found (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:49:02 AM EST
    and confirmed by looking at the conservative rankings of Senators or House members at sites like The American Conservative Union or National Journal.

    Newsweek had a panel of scholars (none / 0) (#44)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:13:46 AM EST
    rank the Presidents of the last century.  Who would you think was number three?

    It was LBJ!?  

    The Vietnam War long forgotten I suppose, with Civil Rights and Medicare remaining as his remembered achievements.


    Some of us (none / 0) (#66)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:23:20 AM EST
    have not forgotten the Vietnam War, nor have we forgiven LBJ for this, nor for all the lives lost on both sides and the lives ruined.
    And we never will.  
    Never to forgive, never to forget.

    Careful MKS (none / 0) (#68)
    by cal1942 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:29:10 AM EST
    A certain commenter may jump all over you for making a sensible comment about LBJ.

    Sans Vietnam LBJ makes my all time top 10 list.

    Just trying to take a little heat off by presenting two targets.


    He was certainly an individual (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:32:05 AM EST
    LBJ, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by cal1942 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:40:55 PM EST
    is one of our most fascinating Presidents.  The key to LBJ has to be his childhood observations. He really believed in Civil Rights and eradicating poverty.  It wasn't a stunt.

    My ranching cousins are distant cousins (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 08:05:39 AM EST
    My great uncle's mother was LBJs first cousin.  My great uncle is who taught me how to build a fence, drive a tractor, milk a cow.  He was very very patient with kids and most people unless cornered.  They all have something with their hearts though.  They don't get a second chance with a heart attack and not much warning.  My great uncle had one heart attack and it was over, died on his ranch.  He had one son who died a year and half ago.  His son was at a doctors office I think for his back.  He had a heart attack in the waiting room and it was over just like that...boom.  My grandfather not blood related to them but knew much of my Uncles family said that the Johnson genetics come with one heart attack only.

    I remember reading (none / 0) (#124)
    by cal1942 on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 08:42:19 PM EST
    that LBJ knew he wouldn't live very long.  There was a quote something like 'the men in my family ... '

    I believe LBJ had 3 heart attacks.


    In some (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:10:27 AM EST
    cases this might be true but not here in GA. Or I should say the ones that win in red districts. They spend all their time trashing the party and won't endorse the nominee. I mean how is that winning?

    Progress (none / 0) (#51)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    slow and steady. Even in Georgia (if you've been there a long time) you're starting to see the change moving from Atlanta outward. Tucked in the crimson bastion of the south, Georgia is damn near liberal.

    Hell, Obama only lost by a little over 5 points in Georgia. You actually have 5 Dems in your contingent of 13 House members. You could do worse, and MT in Alabama would confirm that.  

    With the radicalization of the GOP and as demographics continue to favor a shift to the Dems, what southern red state do you think will be the first to flip down the road? Georgia or South Carolina?


    I wish I could take more solace from or (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:46:58 AM EST
    find more hope in the kinds of shifts you're highlighting, but I don't.  In my opinion, what's happening here is a function of how radical the GOP has become with the influence of the Tea Party, which has had the effect of making conservative Democrats less frightening to "normal" Republicans.

    It's certainly not about the Democratic Party holding fast on liberal points of view; all that chasing after independents and trying to gain footholds in red states has seen a fairly significant rightward shift by Dems.  And Obama is one of those Democrats who's been sliding to the right.

    As for how conservative groups and think tanks and outlets view Democrats on the political spectrum, I find that fairly devoid of meaning; any group that brands Obama a liberal isn't looking at his record, and is operating with an obvious case of Knee-Jerk Syndrome.

    I'm not suggesting anyone vote for any Republican, or that a Republican represents a better option for advancing a progressive agenda; I am suggesting that if Democrats are voting with Republicans, they - Dems - are not advancing a progressive agenda, either.

    Can we move this whole goat rodeo to the left instead of the right?  Well, we'd have a better chance of that if the Democrat currently occupying the WH, and who appears poised to get four more years at that address, would take even baby steps to the left, instead of constantly reinforcing and giving credibility to conservative positions.


    I know. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:55:53 AM EST
    Obama has moved things further to the right. Clinton was a centrist and Obama is a center right candidate. Obama had the chance to be center left but gave it up.

    I disagree with your (none / 0) (#91)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 02:14:47 PM EST
    characterization- I think any examination of their actual accomplishments would put Obama ever so slightly to the left of Clinton but substantively they are largely indistinguishable.

    Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 03:37:50 PM EST
    didn't give us Stupak or Bob Dole's Health Care Reform did he?

    A different time (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 08:08:37 AM EST
    Not sure which "actual accomplishments" you mean, but if you're talking about DADT or HCR, I don't think so.  Clinton tried to repeal the ban at a time when public opinion was against him and accepted DADT as a compromise after paying a heavy political price for pushing for repeal early in his first term.  By the time Obama took office, large majorities (75-80%) of people wanted DADT repealed.  On HCR, he could have gotten Obamacare done by simply agreeing to the 1994 Republican plan.

    Great comment (none / 0) (#120)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 10:25:00 AM EST
    Anne (none / 0) (#64)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:18:49 AM EST
    even in our disagreements I think we're closer in approach than I tend to admit.

    Thankfully neither of us are the type to follow this advice:

    If they want a Republican let them vote for a real Republican.  Not one masquerading as a Democrat simply because they're not entirely crazy.  The whole GOP value set should be brought into the light and discredited in the cold light of day.  

    Each time someone talks like that I see them wishing for a Todd Akin rather than a Claire McCaskill and justifying it by some self-prescribed convoluted logic that we would all be better that way.


    Well, CoralGables, it comes down to (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 12:37:10 PM EST
    (1) going ahead and voting for the Dem even if the candidate doesn't meet your expectations, (2) not voting for any candidate or (3) voting third party.

    I chose Door No. 2 with respect to the 2008 presidential ballot: didn't vote for any candidate for that office.  It felt weird - I'd never done that before - but I'm from a reliably blue state, so I didn't have to choose between principles and pragmatics.

    I don't think Democrats who vote for conservative Democrats in red states or even in red cities and counties "really" want to vote for Republicans - I think they believe those Dems most closely align with their own views.  How do you change that?  How do you convince a conservative Democrat that voting for a more liberal Democrat is the way to go?

    That's the hard part, I think.  My feeling is that if people could experience the benefits of a more liberal approach, they'd be convinced, but that doesn't happen unless and until the more liberal Democrat gets elected - and - has the leadership skills and the legislative influence to put some of these things in place.

    I always thought that if there had been any way for Obama to really get behind single-payer and use his political capital to legislatively get it underway, the benefits of it would have locked up Democratic rule for a long time.

    Or look at the ACA.  How many of us said that if it was so great, delaying its implantation was just colossally dumb; why not allow people to experience the benefits and then express their appreciation at the ballot box?  

    I do think we have to start moving the window to the left, or we face the real possibility of the Democratic Party being indistinguishable from the Republican Party of Rockefeller; I guess if that's where the country wants to be, that's where it will go - but I won't be among those going along for the ride.  


    Let's play (none / 0) (#83)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    real world hypothetical (if that's not an oxymoron I don't know what is)

    Take yourself out of your blue state and plant yourself in the state of Missouri for this election. You don't care for McCaskill. She's a moderate Dem and ranked as the 50th most liberal Senator. She obviously doesn't meet your expectations. Which of your three options do you choose?


    Okay, CG, this is how I'd be (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 01:53:03 PM EST
    thinking about it.

    One:  I'm not voting for Todd Akin.  Period.  He's the kind of candidate that makes me wish that we had the option to cast a vote against someone.

    Two:  If I thought Akin had even a passable chance at being elected, I'd vote for McCaskill.  I wouldn't do it cheerfully, or with anything resembling satisfaction, but I'd do it even if
    I had to hold my nose.

    Three:  If McCaskill had a comfortable-enough lead, I might decide to sit it out; it would depend on how reliable that lead was, though.  That scenario probably never happens in red states, though, so, whatever lead she had would probably be close enough to the margin of error that I'd end up voting for her.  Reluctantly.

    I'm sure Dems in red states face this dilemma every election cycle, and they keep voting for the Democrat, even if he or she isn't nearly the candidate they really want, just to keep the Republican out of the winner's circle.

    I don't like voting against my interests, but I know that a Todd Akin in the US Senate is in no way, shape or form even in the same universe as my interests.  And if I had to vote for McCaskill to keep him out, I would.

    Hope that answers your question.


    Thank you (none / 0) (#89)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 02:01:47 PM EST
    for the well thought out reply.

    If the Repubs lose grandly (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:33:38 AM EST
    because they are nuts now, where else can they go?  They must move left.

    Not likely (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    they don't see their right wing values as wrong or out of touch. They'll think they chose the wrong candidate and move forward to the right.

    I don't know (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 07:48:02 AM EST
    My in-laws are Air Force and serious wingers.  They are kind of social bullies but both very intelligent too.  After their party destroyed the economy they seem very politically lost, but still bullies at heart.  They used to ignore Josh's life dealings as well, but everyone is getting older now.  They just recently came to understand how we had to fight to save his life and how all insurers were denying the really needy children services so that they could bonus executives.  When all of that was happening it wasn't talked about.  The stories and the loss are still stiffled too IMO.  Nobody wants to talk about that or make documentaries about the children who died being denied coverage.  Colorado Medicaid was so swamped with begging parents like me, they were completely broke and putting us on a waiting list a year and a half long.

    What does the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:51:52 AM EST
    in your area think? In my area I can guarantee that they think Mitt was too liberal and they need someone more like Santorum.

    Same here (none / 0) (#79)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:54:26 AM EST
    in Western Maryland.  Although, if not Santorum, they would have been happy with Rick Perry.

    My Republican neighbor doesn't seem (none / 0) (#114)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 07:56:05 AM EST
    to know what to think anymore.  She isn't knee jerk Republican though.  She asks hard questions.  What I see is confusion and self doubt because the Republican party is so disliked by most of the nation right now.  When it was just Republican against Republican they'd still pick Santorum.  But when Republicans compared to President Obama are obviously insane evil heartless failing pr*cks they don't know how to deal with that reality.  Nobody wants to attempt to socially heal with their leadership because that is impossible.  The whole country knows the rich are eating us, and their party leaders champion the rich.  They've got nothing and my neighbors seem to know that.

    Well (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 08:13:25 AM EST
    that's a plus for her. The ones here are so stuck in the plantation mentality that they think if they just give the wealthy more and more and more and more that things are going to turn out all right.

    That slow and steady (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:37:23 AM EST
    progress is very measurable.  A look at the Overton window shows it's all in the wrong direction, of course.  But it's very measurable.  

    Thank your fellow citizens for that (none / 0) (#63)
    by vicndabx on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:14:11 AM EST
    "Overton window" shifting.

    Maybe it's just not the country you thought it was.

    Not everyone is an uninformed dullard.


    My personal observation... (none / 0) (#81)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 12:11:31 PM EST
    ...as a officer of the Democratic party and as a voter is that the Overton shift (as it relates to Democrats*) has less to do with the Democratic voters and more to do with Democratic leadership.

    Does your Party experience have a different story?  I would be interested to hear.

    *I am not at this point discussing the role of Fox TV and other talking heads.  I am talking about on the ground.


    Well (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:44:57 AM EST
    my point is the existing voters are too wrapped up in fundamentalism for any reasonable Dem to win down here outside the districts that are specifically drawn for a Dem to win in. I don't have anything against blue dogs in general because I do realize that they are the only ones that win in some places but there is a limit on winning being a good thing. I mean the GOP had Bush twice and it pretty much destroyed the party. There is hope for the future down here but not right now. Right now the kind of candidate who would win would basically be a Republican, who would not endorse the presidentail candidate and who would vote against probably all of the legislation. So my thinking is what's the point? The future yes, but now, no.

    Between SC and GA? I would say GA would turn but you can never be too sure about these things. Obama might have won GA by 5 points in 2008 but I doubt it's going to be that close in November. Not that it really matters because Obama doesn't need GA to win anyway. The GOP here is coming out in mass to vote against Obama from what I'm hearing.


    For this election, it is my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:44:19 AM EST
    that focusing just on Obama or Romney is not the entire scope of the decision.   The composition of the parties, at this time, and their directions need to be taken into account.  If the Democratic party is considered to be centrist or center-right, there are progressive and liberal  elements within the party for hope of moderation of policies.

    On the other hand, the Republican party is almost purely extremist, with no hope for moderating components, just extremist-plus urging even more fanaticism. Liberal and progressive  Democrats do have capabilities to influence its leaders with pressure points (e.g., gay activist perseverance). Blind loyalty with excuses and cheerleading influences little.    


    If he's looking at the existing (none / 0) (#35)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:38:17 AM EST
    "representation" that doesn't surprise me a bit.  But hey, let's just forget history.

    Yeah, and Kagan voted against Miranda. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:03:44 AM EST
    Who is better (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:06:53 AM EST
    Kagan or Scalia?

    And, the progressive crusade (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:58:11 AM EST
    to elect Jack Conway instead of Rand Paul to the Senate from Kentucky is a sympton of this failure to understand that trying to turn deep Red states Blue is often misguided.

    Rand Paul, won, of course.

    And while the Progressive blogosphere went nuts over the Kentucky race, Russ Feingold lost by 5 points in Wisconsin.  If only all the effort put into the Kentucky race had been devoted to saving Feingold.  Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.  


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#90)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 02:12:04 PM EST
    I assume you'd be happy with 25-30 seats in the Senate and maybe 120-150 in the House, because that's what no-compromise Progressives would get us.

    Oh, and I'm not amazed (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:29:47 AM EST
    that you think it's just fine.  I am amazed, however, at how willingly some people will compromise the principles of other people.

    In that situation (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cal1942 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:19:02 AM EST
    it's important to remember that control of whichever house is paramount.  Having control means having a majority on every committee and controlling the agenda.

    So given a choice between a blue dog Democrat and a Republican is a no brainer, IMO.


    Q &A (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 04:26:15 AM EST
    Elizabeth Hasselbeth asks a question to President Obama:

    Q. "Some would ask is it unfair to assume that Mitt Romney may fail the middle class when statistically speaking, they'd argue that your administration is failing the middle class," Hasselbeck said. "How do you respond to that?"

    A. "Well look, we've gone through the toughest economy, the worst financial crisis and the worst recession since the Great Depression," Obama said. "And that's not a surprise to anybody. We've been living it for the past four years, and everything that we've done has been designed to deal with not only the immediate crisis but to make sure that the middle class...is feeling more secure."

    He added, "The question now I think for the American people [is] how are we going to move forward in a way that assures that if you work hard in this country, if you take responsibility for yourself and your family, you can get ahead. And what this campaign is really going to be about is a choice between two fundamentally different visions about how you do that."

    Romney could never come up with an answer like that...

    I realize the question she asked was (5.00 / 6) (#7)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 06:44:41 AM EST
    about the middle class, but I think the answer Obama gave doesn't really differ all that much from what Romney's saying, it's just that Obama's saying it more elegantly.

    What I would have liked to have heard him say was, "[T]he question now I think for the American people [is] how are we going to move forward in a way that assures that if you want to work, and are able to work, there are good, well-paying jobs out there that will allow you to take responsibility for yourself and your family, so that you can get ahead. And if you've worked all your life and want to retire, you don't have to do it in poverty.  That you don't have to choose between paying the rent or the mortgage and buying food or prescriptions.  That if your child wants to go to college, that you don't have to say no because you can't afford it.  Or if you've fallen on hard times, that there's a strong support structure for you and your family that helps you get back on your feet.  And what this campaign is really going to be about is a choice between two fundamentally different visions not just about how you do that, but about the role government plays in creating the conditions that encourage it, and being there for people when that doesn't happen.  It's about what kind of people and what kind of country we want to be."

    That would be a different vision than what Romney is offering; saying that "if you work hard and take responsibility" is just a more eloquent way of saying what Romney's been saying.

    There are plenty of people out there working really hard, and among them are those who have cobbled part-time jobs together to have something resembling full-time work, people who have had to add a part time job on top of the full-time one in order to try to keep up, often at minimum wage and without benefits, people laboring at physically demanding jobs long after their bodies have started to give out, because there's nothing else out there for them.  

    "Working hard" is not the magic key that frees everyone from poverty or allows people to be self-sufficient, and I'm tired of hearing that as if it's the answer to everything.

    It's not.


    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:48:01 AM EST
    ...I think the answer Obama gave doesn't really differ all that much from what Romney's saying, it's just that Obama's saying it more elegantly.

    I was being a little snarky when I said that Romney couldn't come up with an answer like that - because I think if you printed the vacuous reply to that question without attribution, I don't think anyone would know who had in fact said it - Rom or Ob.

    I mean. Jeez:

    The question now I think for the American people [is] how are we going to move forward in a way that assures that if you work hard in this country, if you take responsibility for yourself and your family, you can get ahead.

    Take responsibility for yourselves you lazy heathens.


    I like your answer (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:19:52 AM EST
    much better than his.
    Anne for President!

    Good observations re "workin' hard" and (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:17:33 AM EST
    cobbling together a living.  But the words you'd prefer hearing coming from Obama's mouth are fairy tales too.  People are not equal, certainly not created equal, and will never be equally rewarded for their work, no matter how hard.

    But (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:55:38 AM EST
    everyone is a citizen.

    It's just that some will bear an unequal tax burden, and some will be among those more likely to be sent to fight in undeclared wars.


    Individual abilities (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:57:36 AM EST
    are only relevant to a global vision in that those abilities should also be allowed to blossom.  If you start caveat-ing your vision before you even have one, then why bother?

    Joe Scarborough says that he thinks (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 07:52:58 AM EST
    Romney is going to do well in the debates.  He also says that he doesn't think that Obama will do well because he can't communicate in shorter answers...he's really only a good speechifier.

    The Republicans remaining who still have powers of speech are so desperate.  Has Scarborough really forgotten every 60 Minutes or The View interview that Obama has ever given?  The man has the ability to give great short answers too.

    Each day is fresh craziness from the rightwing punditry.

    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 07:59:38 AM EST
    I agree with Scarborough here. Romney is better with short answers and Obama tends to talk is circles and can be confusing in debates. He tends to be all over the map with his statements.

    That being said I think the GOP is holding onto the debates in desperation. I mean how many minds have they changed? George W. Bush was abysmal in debates sounding like a trained monkey and it did not matter one bit.


    I remember Obama debating very well (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:21:15 AM EST
    When facing down Clinton and Edwards.  Just because we haven't  recently seen him debate and it is been all about making speeches does not mean he lost the ability.  And both Clinton and Edwards could beat Romney with both hands tied behind there back.  Short A-hole solution answers from Romney or answers that lead to no solutions will win NOTHING for him at this juncture.  I think the debates will utterly destroy more support for all Republicans.

    At this point (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:31:05 AM EST
    Romney is going to have to try for soundbites, so he'll have a cheat sheet full of potential one liners hoping for a laugh and headlines.

    Coming off as presidential won't help him at this point as he's already off the cliff. In trying to grasp a headline with his patented smirk he'll at best hold his position far behind and at worst come off as a petulant frat boy.


    Honestly (none / 0) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:27:22 AM EST
    I don't know. Bush was the ultimate frat boy. I guess I'm going to be the dissident voice here on this one. Not that I think the debates are likely to change anyone's mind but I could be wrong about that too.

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:59:16 AM EST
    (That's an honest "really?" not a sardonic one)

    Because I kind of remember a lot of "what she said" from him.


    Well he didn't win the nomination (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:23:12 AM EST
    because we employed affirmative action.  In my lifetime so far I've never experienced such a horse race of gifted astute well spoken Dem candidates.  And he whipped John McCain's a$$ and Mitt Romney is no debating John McCain IMO.

    I wanted Obama to lose those Dem debates and all I remember was he would not quit holding his own and Clinton and Edwards are no cakewalk.


    Actually (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:23:42 AM EST
    I remember his being terrible. "You're likable enough" was horrible and then so many times Hillary would get asked a question and then Obama's reply was "the same as hers". The problem largely that I see with Obama in debates is that he does not have an ideological compass.

    I think there's potential here for both (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Anne on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    candidates to have problems that could affect their numbers.

    With respect to Obama, if Romney starts jabbing and needling him, look out: Obama doesn't handle that kind of thing well.  He visibly bristles and gets defensive - and if he goes off-script, he could end up saying things he'll wish he hadn't, because the GOP and the PACs will be relentless in their use of those sound bites and video clips.  And it could be fairly effective.  Will it change any minds?  Maybe not - but it could dampen some enthusiasm; how much damage that does, I have no idea.

    But the reality is that even if Romney gets Obama off his stride, it could still end up being a wash for Obama because of Romney's potential to have nothing but stupid issue from his mouth when it's his turn to sound presidential.


    Good point. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:24:49 AM EST
    I had forgotten Obama's thin skin when it comes to needling. I'm sure Romney will try that.

    Agree with Anne (none / 0) (#71)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:32:42 AM EST
    Obama gets sulky and put-upon when needled.  And his answers are way too long and rambling.  His preppers should be writing one sentence answers to everything Romney might throw out.

    Well, let's be honest (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    you're not exactly an unbiased observer of the man- you think virtually every political action he's taken has been a mistake and were convinced that he'd lose to McCain at this point 4 years ago.

    He (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 03:42:02 PM EST
    actually was losing to McCain according to the polls until the collapse.

    Actually no I don't think every one that he's made was a mistake but the guy has no ideological compass or rather he has NO compass for anything on the left. He's in love with Reaganism and his policies have been center right when the policies should have been center left. Even one of his biggest fans calls him the Democrat's Reagan.


    You are wrong as usual, Ga6thDem (1.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Politalkix on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 06:14:29 PM EST
    "He actually was losing to McCain according to the polls until the collapse."

    This is akin to saying someone was ahead of Usain Bolt at the 60m mark in a 100m race and that rival would have won, had a strong gust of wind not blow across the track. There was just a little time after the Repubican Convention when McCain was slightly ahead. BHO was suremely confident, just as we were, that he would win easily on election day. He made that clear when he chose Biden (Bayh and Kaine were the other two in the short list) running mate. McCain, also knew that he had no chance against BHO, so he went for a Hail Mary pass while choosing Palin.


    Confident? (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 06:33:15 PM EST
    So that matters more than polls? I remember George W. being supremely confident that he was going to win and he didn't even get the most votes.

    Look Obama's record has been pretty abysmal for the most part. He's just lucky that the GOP has literally imploded.


    Sorry, but you're wrong and Ga6th is right (none / 0) (#108)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 07:58:29 PM EST
    McCain was ahead in the polls until September, when he took the ill-considered move of suspending his campaign for a number of days and going to attend some head-fake desperation summit on the economy. Then Obama took great advantage of the lack of competition on the stump, and captured the lead.

    Shoephone, you are postively wrong (1.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Politalkix on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:59:43 PM EST
    I know that it was a strongly held belief within the HRC campaign (she herself believed it) that if BHO got the nomination, he would lose the GE like McGovern did. However, this belief was not based on facts.
    Sorry, shoephone you are quite wrong on this matter, the trendlines of the election in 2008 were clear many months before November. Some folks who were too emotionally involved in the HRC campaign just found it difficult to see clearly things what was obvious to everybody else.

    What I see in that graph from 2008 (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by shoephone on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 01:03:26 AM EST
    supports my view: Though Obama was ahead for much of the summer, in August the red and blue lines go up and down, up and down, crossing over each other until... September, where they diverged completely. I stick by what I said. It was in September, when McCain suspended his campaign to play Dr. of Economics, that the race changed for the final time and Obama took the lead.  

    You are wrong again, Shoephone (none / 0) (#125)
    by Politalkix on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 11:50:43 AM EST
    Yes, BHO was ahead for much of the summer. BHO led in Gallup polling till Sept 4. Between Sept 5-15, McCain had taken a slight lead. This was because of the Republican Convention bounce (GOP Convention was held between Sept 1-4) + emotions arising from 9/11 anniversary. Gallup on Sept 15, itself,link reported that Obama had regained his previous edge in the polls.This was based on  polling conducted on previus days leading to Sept 15 (even on Sept 14, BHO was ahead). McCain announced suspension of his campaign on Sept 24. BHO was already leading by that date (Sept 15-24). Your timeline is wrong!



    Thanks for that link (none / 0) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:05:52 PM EST
    It's one to keep long term for those times when my memory isn't as good as I would like, and I can't find some archived Nate Silver article that has probably already covered the topic.

    Fairy tales (none / 0) (#118)
    by Yman on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 08:15:34 AM EST
    Entertaining, but not "based on facts."

    Agree with this (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:36:11 AM EST
    But this is looking back after 4 years.  At one time, full video of all the debates was available on-line. I wonder if it still is.  I'd kind of like to rewatch/review them.

    In the Democratic primary (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:16:48 AM EST
    debates, Mr. Obama, in my view, became progressively better, although he never attained the debating skill of Mrs. Clinton.  Part of my perception of his debating prowess  was his sometimes halting responses that we have now come to recognize as his interview style.   Moreover, the primaries presented the challenge of differentiating policies that were not all that different.

    In the Obama/McCain debates, the superiority of Mr. Obama was easily discernible.  For the debates with Romney, Mr. Obama will have the resources and confidence of a president in office--potential strengths provided deployed with respect to the challenger (no Al Gore eye-rolling on Romney's idea for power-windows for airplanes, for example).


    Exactly how I remember it too (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:25:03 AM EST
    Hillary had better flow, but Obama can throw and land mean ole punches even if sometimes halting.

    I think (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 09:02:57 AM EST
    it will be somewhat amusing, if sad, to try to distinguish Obama and Romney on the issue of starting a war with Iran.

    I feel the same about many issues.

    I think that Obama is different from Romney on many issues mostly in the way he expresses himself. As Anne says, it is more elegant.
    But in substance...

    Since the SCOTUS is a major issue here, it will be also interesting if these two are asked about the qualities they would look for in a Justice. That should be fun. Let the parsing begin.

    It's going to be an interesting debate to watch.


    Romney should be the favorite (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:04:25 AM EST
    He is good at the one-liners and disciplined attacks.

    Yep (none / 0) (#46)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:19:21 AM EST
    Also, he is not hampered by the truth.

    Taking any bets on this? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:53:42 AM EST
    I'm not a gambler but I have money that says the exact opposite.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by lilburro on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:32:19 AM EST
    does he even know who he is anymore?  I think he'll be so overcoached by the time he gets to the debates that Obama will have a fairly easy time.  He needs to draw Romney into looking like an @ss which shouldn't be hard.  He has none of the "I'm just like you yuk yuk" quality that GW had so when he looks like an @ss he looks like a pompous one, not the guy next door.

    I guess (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:54:44 AM EST
    if any of us wanted to really know how well Romney debates we could go pull up his debates with Kennedy on You Tube.

    Sure he is 'good' at them but they are (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    not effective. They make him look like a jerk. He would be better advised to stick to the policy points.

    Mittens only cares about his... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:07:21 AM EST
    internal polling, not the public ones like Bloomberg.  I'm sure his likeability is through the roof in his own opinion.  

    Oh, you mean the internal polling in Mitt's (none / 0) (#12)
    by caseyOR on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:12:57 AM EST
    head, not the polling conducted by the campaign. Yes, i am sure Mitt is riding high in that bubble he lives in.

    Here's some polling today (none / 0) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:24:28 AM EST
    from CBS/NYT/Quinnipiac that's going to just freeze the wheels inside that Romney bubble:

    Florida - Obama +9
    Ohio - Obama +10
    Pennsylvania - Obama +12


    BTW Coral Gables (none / 0) (#52)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:35:48 AM EST
    I did register to help Joe Garcia down here in the Keys but they haven't called me yet.  It looks like David Revera is sinking himself in his money anyway.  Guess I'll stick to helping the Visiting Nurses by delivering supplies up and down the 126 miles of the keys.  Nooo bedpans for me.

    Don't forget Jeralyn's (none / 0) (#54)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:40:55 AM EST
    birthday is this Friday the 28th.  I know she wants my new ip5 but no way jose.  I think $$$ donations would be the answer.

    oops...David Rivera (none / 0) (#55)
    by fishcamp on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    Convince those nurses (none / 0) (#78)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    because Joe obviously isn't the most organized and needs all the help he can get. I haven't received any reply to an email or phone call either. Joe could also use someone younger handling his facebook and twitter account for him. I'm rooting and plugging for a poorly organized Dem Joe Gracia to defeat an extremely crooked Republican David Rivera.

    Baby steps indeed lol

    The Miami Herald does another takedown of Rivera today as the phantom Dem primary candidate against Garcia admits to the FBI he was funded by Rivera.


    A distinction without a difference... (none / 0) (#76)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    in this case.  Do you really think he has anyone on his staff that if going to dare go against the narrative in Mitt's brain?  

    Vox populi... (none / 0) (#1)
    by lilburro on Tue Sep 25, 2012 at 10:32:05 PM EST
    and they say we're stupid!

    Election of the least damage (none / 0) (#3)
    by koshembos on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 12:19:03 AM EST
    Romney and his polling numbers show that starting from money you can lacking any useful abilities and still make a lot of money.

    Hopefully, Romney will sink with some other Republicans running for office. I doubt whether Obama, not Clinton, is interested in much beyond reelection.

    My goodness (none / 0) (#4)
    by kmblue on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 02:12:12 AM EST
    they noticed.

    And the House may be in play (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 07:39:04 AM EST
    as well according to Kristol at The Weekly Standard.

    The Weekly Standard? Kristol? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:19:19 AM EST
    Man, you've got a strong stomach.

    Heh, I was given a helpful hint (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 08:23:57 AM EST
    to go look on Morning Joe.

    from BTD's favorite (none / 0) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 10:53:47 AM EST
    pundit (snark) Sully:

    Obama the Democrat's Reagan

    More proof that maybe Obama was really saying what he believed when he said "Reagan was transformational"

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#73)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:35:53 AM EST
    Reagan was "transformational'.

    He transformed the rich into the richer and the poor into the poorer.

    He transformed Union shops into non-union shops.

    Let me count the transformations this corporate shill laid upon us.

    What Obama must be referring to is Reagan's ability to make himself appear likable at same time he was shafting us.
    He knew how to put one over.

    Not a trait I particularly admire in a politician.


    One issue where we're in (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 12:00:32 PM EST
    total agreement -- the revisionist deification of St Ronnie and Obama's too generous summation of his presidency.  Not just Obama but a number of other Dem pols have been far too soft about Reagan's place in history.  

    Media idiots and historians too have joined in.  We really get a distorted picture of our history and presidents these days -- the Overton window has shifted rightward for these groups too.  As with that ridiculous Newsweak poll of presidents noted upthread.


    Question. (none / 0) (#85)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 01:22:46 PM EST
    To what would you attribute "Obama's too generous summation" of the Reagan presidency?

    Mostly Obama's rather (none / 0) (#97)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 04:06:42 PM EST
    overeager desire to extend his postpartisan olive branch to the Repubs by saying some nice things about their hero Reagan, and partly to stick it to Hillary (in that primary season) by downgrading Bill's presidency in comparison.

    There's another more speculative, deep psychology reason, but I'll save that for another time.


    I notice you leave out (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 04:08:48 PM EST
    the possibility of genuine admiration for Reagan.

    Oh there was that too obviously -- (none / 0) (#99)
    by brodie on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 04:43:14 PM EST
    explicitly stated in his remarks In the narrow way O expressed it.  Admiration for the fact that Reagen acted boldly, using the full powers of his office, and transformed his party politically, while Clinton chipped away at the margins and had much less party influence.

    The Q I thought was being asked was in effect Why did Obama express admiration for St Ron?

    And, no, I dont think it had much to do with ideology or policy.  Obama in 2008 in that context was speaking as the same naive pol still smitten by his 2004 convention ideals, as well as the more immediate political reason I cited.


    Personally I think it had ... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    ... a great deal to do with ideology and policy.  But that's me.

    Well, that's the question, isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    Was O's expressed admiration for Ronnie's policies, or for his skills as a politician?

    Many people (me anyway) think it was some of both. What we'd like to know, and don't to this day, is how much was policy?


    I (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 05:30:09 PM EST
    feel that this is the real Obama. He admires Reagan. He thinks he was transformational. I think Reagan was a twit who sold appliances for GE on TV and was good at it - so the people behind the curtain decided to use him to sell their agenda. And he did.

    Obama was touted as a great orator. I never thought so. He was compared to Lincoln for Chr*st's sake.

    I think that Obama is just as ready to sell out the poor and the middle class as was Reagan. He is also under the impression that he can be as good a carnival barker as Reagan, but I don't think so.
    I think he has lost his luster. Nobody is going for it anymore.

    He's just lucky as he!l to be running against a total nit.


    "Clinton chipped away", etc. (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 05:11:28 PM EST
    It's true, and he played the silly game of bashing Sister Souljah, and ending-welfare-as-we-know-it, all in an effort to stack up cred with conservatives -- an interesting strategy for the guy who was knighted by the media at the time as "our first back president."

    But Clinton didn't chip away at the margins when it came to the economy. He wasn't afraid to go ahead and raise taxes without first asking permission from the rabid right, which tried every day to destroy him. Obama is Mr. Austerity. The Catfood Commission is Obama's creation, and he regularly hints at "reforming" social security and instituting his odious and dangerous Grand Bargain. Let's not forget December 2010 and the Bush tax cut fight.

    I think it's folly to assume Obama's admiration for is Reagan merely an example of his (failed) post partisan schtick. A Democratic president who touts Reagan as transformational, while only grudgingly giving any nods to FDR -- and aggressively punching the DFH's and "professional left" -- is not a liberal, and is not someone who has moved the party further to the left than Clinton.

    And I don't even need to mention Obama's assaults on our civil liberties and his failure to hold the previous criminal administration accountable, do I? Liberal? Center Left?? Nope. Not by a long shot.


    Lets not forget Clinton's bowing (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 03:28:30 PM EST
    to the superior market wisdom of the Alan-the-bug-eyed-Randian-monster and his henchmen Rubin and Summers..

    Some economic timebombs were set back then in the late nineties.


    I've noticed that the same people (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 03:22:18 PM EST
    here who romaticize Churchill (much more than the English do), feel compelled, seemingly almost against their wills, to romanticize Reagan..

    Two pols who, in their own lifetimes, were morphed into Dickensian and Norman Rockwell caricatures: by the pr mills and the public's own starved-for-meaning imaginations.


    Question. (none / 0) (#67)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:27:07 AM EST
    The president does have one clear advantage -- his economic plan is breaking through with more Americans,

    I was wondering what exactly is Obama's economic plan?

    To keep (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 11:49:42 AM EST
    Wall Street and the banks happy, obviously.   ;-)

    You're too cynical, Ms Zorba (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by NYShooter on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    And, I can prove it.

    Back in 2008, when the bank bailout funds were authorized, Phase 1 (125 Billion Dollars) was sent to the 9 TBTF Banks. And, since Obama's significant other, Timmie Geithner, insisted that the money go to them with "no strings attached" they could have taken all of it as bonuses for the fine job they did in blowing up the world`s economies. And yet, those 9 CEO'S, humbled by the fact that they were allowed to keep their jobs, and ever so grateful to not be in prison where they belonged, did their civic duty and authorized only 108 Billion Dollars of the windfall for their bonuses.

    So, you see, Ms Zorba, I didn't want to hurt your feelings, but it needed to be said. And, I hope, now that you know the facts, you see the Bankers in the light that they deserve to be seen, true American Patriots. I mean, they left 17 Billion Dollars on the table when they didn't have to leave anything.

    I hope we can still be friends....everyone makes mistakes sometimes:)


    LOL! (none / 0) (#94)
    by Zorba on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 03:06:58 PM EST
    Very funny, Shooter.  Yes, those poor, benighted, maligned, super-patriotic bankers.
    What was I thinking????    ;-)

    Free Debate Advice... (none / 0) (#84)
    by kdog on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    for the president...during the opening remarks, ask Mitt Romney which NFL team he owns and if the Bain business model was a tough sell to the other owners.  Or if Mitt just did some consulting regarding the referee lock out.

    Game, set, match...

    Ask Mitt if he's pissed off ND dropped (none / 0) (#86)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 01:28:13 PM EST
    Michigan from its schedule.  And after we gave =em the game!  The nerve.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#107)
    by sj on Wed Sep 26, 2012 at 07:39:44 PM EST
    Has hit more than one thread.

    Does this person Beanhung (none / 0) (#119)
    by fishcamp on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 09:03:14 AM EST
    (gotta love that name) even think we can read or understand that language.  What's the point of being a site violator anyway?

    As near as I can tell (none / 0) (#121)
    by sj on Thu Sep 27, 2012 at 12:23:08 PM EST
    it's all about scrounging for site traffic.  It's just irksome, though, isn't it?