Here come the excuses.
Its not your poor candidates, platform or lack of ideas? Its the Media’s fault?

I’m really sick of this line. Just because conservatives believe in personal responsibility doesn’t mean they can’t identify and attribute causation.

Funny how Lena Dunham and her ilk are never called ‘values voters’ as if voting according to one’s personal standards is contemptible — a smear specially reserved for conservatives — despite actively encouraging it. However, I’m of the belief that economics and government intervention have a strong influence over personal values and that if free-markets and small government were embraced, our cultural rot would decline or at least traditionalism would strengthen.

I completely agree.

Well, that includes a convenient little assumption that Republicans are always way ahead of Democrats. Do you understand that it could actually work the other way, and that Republicans might be the ones getting a boost from the media’s insistence on it being a close race?

Only if one assumes that failing to cover up Obama’s lies on Benghazi is harmful to Obama’s numbers, and reporting that Mitt Romney is responsible for a man’s murder actually drives him up in the polls.

The media has consistently, regularly, and repeatedly suppressed information that is harmful to Obama while pushing every single story that could in any way be used to smear Romney.

I didn’t say any of that.

Lie.

So they do everything they can to make sure that the elections are close

And finally:

Ugh. Why did I bother trying to explain something to you?

Comment by Levi — November 6, 2012 @ 3:24 pm – November 6, 2012

Because you thought you had a logical argument, and ended up getting your butt kicked.

Now run off and sulk and whine and refuse to answer like you always do when you get your butt kicked. We can always tell the threads in which you’ve been overwhelmed by facts because you don’t have the balls to respond.

The GOP has done a terrible job reaching out to these groups — at its own peril.

Yes it has, at least to the extent that the Dems have done so. Some of it has to do with not framing the immigration debate in the correct way; other parts have to do with not making the economic arguments relevant to particular groups. (This should be a no-brainer for most Asians, many of whom are small business owners who just get killed by government regulations which treat every business the same.)

But there’s a xenophobia which exists among many Republicans (incorrectly, but conveniently, labeled as raaaacism by the supporters of the Dems) which inhibits many of those outreach efforts. George W. Bush was able to overcome that via his experiences in Texas, and he was rewarded for that at the polls. Unfortunately, many pols act like the support should automatically flow into them, instead of going out to snag it. On the other hand, the Romney campaign has tried to an extent, with their Spanish-language media efforts.

So Levi admits that the media manipulates news to keep the race close.

Which would include deliberately lying and covering up for Barack Obama and liberals to drive their numbers up AND relentlessly attacking Republicans to drive their numbers down.

Well, that includes a convenient little assumption that Republicans are always way ahead of Democrats. Do you understand that it could actually work the other way, and that Republicans might be the ones getting a boost from the media’s insistence on it being a close race?

So Levi admits that the media IS biased and reports news in a biased fashion to deliberately harm one political party and support another.

I didn’t say any of that. I said they are motivated by profit and will do what it takes to maximize their profit, including covering the political race as if it’s a barn-burner when it’s not.

Which ties directly to Dan’s assertion that, were the media not manipulating the results to support Obama, the race would not even be close in California.

Thank you for playing. Imbecile.

Ugh. Why did I bother trying to explain something to you?

Yes, big difference. There are courageous blacks, Hispanics, Asians but having worked with and socialized with members of all ethnic groups, all they need is the welcome mat to reconsider their political affiliations. The GOP has done a terrible job reaching out to these groups — at its own peril.

Outreach? YES. Pandering? NO. There’s a huge difference, but I think you see that.

Which would include deliberately lying and covering up for Barack Obama and liberals to drive their numbers up AND relentlessly attacking Republicans to drive their numbers down.

So Levi admits that the media IS biased and reports news in a biased fashion to deliberately harm one political party and support another.

Which ties directly to Dan’s assertion that, were the media not manipulating the results to support Obama, the race would not even be close in California.

Thank you for playing. Imbecile.

So Levi instead of the rant, why don’t you discuss the absolute degeneration of the MSM?

Gladly. The media is a for-profit industry that relies on viewership and web traffic. A good way to increase your viewership and web traffic is by being sensational and dramatic. So the media makes its profits by being sensational and dramatic. The media therefore chooses to cover politics by making it seem really exciting and really close. The last thing that the media wants is a landslide, across-the-board victory by one party or candidate. So they do everything they can to make sure that the elections are close, or at least appear to be very close, because that keeps interest better and keeps profits up.

The profit motive is a far better explanation for the behavior of these big media companies than whatever forced conspiracy theory about ideology you’d like to believe. If you think the guys signing checks at these places are more concerned with who is President than how much money they’re making, you’re fooling yourself. Take Fox News. I don’t think those people care that much about the ideology, but they do care about money, and they’re making it by appealing to conservatives. If Rupert Murdoch could figure out a way to make more money by running a liberal network, I don’t think he would hesitate for a minute.

The same for-profit principle applies to reporters. Politicians control their access more than ever before, and reporters looking to make a name for themselves and to get paid the big bucks are desperate to get that access. They’ll do anything to get it, and once they get it, they’ll do anything to hang onto it. They know they’re immediately replaceable, and so they go to great lengths to avoid publishing anything that embarrasses a politician or reveals something or hurts them politically in any way. The people that the big media companies pay to interview the politicians are not journalists, they’re stenographers that want to get paid. And they want to get invited to parties and they want to meet world leaders and celebrities.

This is my appraisal of the media and its defects, and I think it makes a lot more sense than just complaining that there is a secret liberal crusade to trick people into voting for Democrats. You need to follow the money. American politicians and the media have a sweet little arrangement that allows politicians to fling nothing but bullshit and makes billions of dollars for a few huge media companies. Money is always a better motive than ideology.

I don’t think California would be in play-shoot I don’t think PA is in real play, but I do see a media so intent on getting Obama reelected that they are derelict in their duty to hold government accountable.

When was the last time this president was asked a tough question and the president actually answered the question asked?

All politicians avoid tough questions, and yes that includes Democrats. The media does their best to avoid asking these tough questions, and in the event one does squirt out, they usually refuse to follow up or press on. Again, this makes complete sense once you realize that politicians have complete control over who they give interviews to and once you understand that a reporter is more concerned with protecting their access than they are with applying pressure.

I’d be remiss not to talk about what constitutes a ‘tough question,’ since conservatives have no sense of proportion on this issue at all. A conservative is more likely to label something a ‘tough question’ depending on well or poorly their candidate answered the question. Asking what someone reads, for example, is not, in any instance, a tough question, but conservatives claimed it was after Sarah Palin embarrassed herself when she answered. Meanwhile:

If any president other than Obama had failed in Benghazi and then covered it up by scapegoating a man who made a movie, the media would have hounded him 24/7. Obama just doesn’t get held to any standard by this media and it is sickening.

This doesn’t really make sense. I think a tough question for Obama about Benghazi would be something along the lines of:

Mr. President, your standing in the Arab world has plummeted dramatically since you took office, due in large part to your approval of drone strikes that have killed many innocent civilians across the Middle East. Considering the possibility that the Benghazi attack may have been a reaction to your drone strike policy, how do you plan on adjusting your foreign policy to not only prevent additional attacks, but also repair the damage that’s been done to US – Middle East relations?

I think Obama’s answer to this question would be far more revealing than whatever questions you want answered about when he called it and what he called it or whatever you guys are pretending is so important. I don’t think you can blame Obama for what happened, I don’t think you can blame Obama for thinking the video had something to do with what happened (it was likely seen as an opportunity by the attackers), I don’t think you can call the Obama administration’s behavior a cover-up. Clearly there needs to be an investigation and we need to make sure this kind of thing doesn’t happen, but the tough questions here all involve how our foreign policy is counter productive to our goals in the Middle East, not some trivial semantics.

So, to be clear, the GOP needs to focus on economic issues to win votes away from the president who has admitted he has no plan to fix the economy? And to demonstrate they’ve done that, the GOP needs to nominate a guy who you specifically identify as agreeing with you on social issues, including the abrogation of one of our Constitutional rights?

I feel I should apologize, Mike. Before I read this I responded to something you said in another thread about the federal debt as if you actually cared and were open to answers. Sorry for wasting everybody’s time.

For example, he screams about Republicans “turning off” constituencies – even as he and his Barack Obama Party call all white people racists, insist that anyone with religious beliefs is stupid and ignorant, and insist that small business owners “didn’t build that” and are just being selfish.

That’s because Obama supporters like Levi project their racist views onto the world. It is impossible for Levi to imagine that a gay person might be a small business owner, that a black person might have religious beliefs, and that a white female might criticize Obama. In Levi’s world, these just don’t happen: gays vote on sexual orientation, black people vote on skin color, and women vote based on their lady parts.

That’s the reason for the Obama Party strategy, as Sultan Knish so beautifully laid out before:

After 2010, the numbers were crunched, and it was clear that Obama and the Democrats could not win a mainstream campaign. Instead, they targeted narrow groups, stirred up conflicts over issues aimed at that group, whether it was union pensions, racism or birth control. There was no more pretense of a national election, only a frenzied rush to polarize as many groups as possible and join them together into an acrimonious coalition, not so much for anything, as against Republicans.

There isn’t any inspiration here. Just paranoia over everything from gay marriage to abortion to racial profiling to illegal immigration. A dozen illegal benefits being handed out with the explicit threat that they will be lost if Romney wins. A dozen mini-civil wars being stirred up to divide Americans and set them at each other’s throats for the benefit of the Obama campaign.

From Occupy Wall Street to Wisconsin, from Trayvon Martin to Chick-fil-A, the goal of these manufactured conflicts has been to divide and conquer the electorate by emphasizing group rights over individual economic welfare.

Obama can’t win on the economy. He can’t win on foreign policy. He can’t win on any aspect of his administration. All he can do is stir up violence and then promise to heal the country in his second term while winking to all the representatives of the grievance groups……

There is not a single Obama voter anywhere in the land who believes that another four years of him will make this country better. Not a single one from coast to coast. No, what they believe is that he will make the country a worse place for those people that they hate. That he will have four more years to sink their ideas deeper in the earth, regardless of how many families go hungry and how many fathers kill themselves because they can no longer take care of their families. What they believe is that Obama will grant their group more special privileges and the rest of the country can go to hell.

This is why we see white liberals like Levi threatening to lynch black conservatives and calling for the rape of conservative women. Levi, in typical fascist fashion, will not tolerate anything that threatens the racist “purity” on which his fascist regime rests. According to Levi, gays, blacks, and women are all to be slaves of white liberals like him , since white liberals like him know what’s “best” for them and deserve to be in charge.

How tiring.

Regards,
Peter H.

socially conservative positions are killing the Republican Party

Let’s see. Republicans in the south are socially conservative. Republicans in the northeast are socially liberal. Which Republicans are more successful at winning elections?

I can see why a Democrat cultist like Levi would want Republicans nationwide to emulate losers.

Remember, Levi believes that the MSM is covering up Bush’s part in 9/11, but is being open and transparent on Benghazi.

Facts and Levi don’t meet much.

I don’t think California would be in play-shoot I don’t think PA is in real play, but I do see a media so intent on getting Obama reelected that they are derelict in their duty to hold government accountable.

When was the last time this president was asked a tough question and the president actually answered the question asked?

If any president other than Obama had failed in Benghazi and then covered it up by scapegoating a man who made a movie, the media would have hounded him 24/7. Obama just doesn’t get held to any standard by this media and it is sickening.

You have to stop making excuses for your crappy candidates. It wasn’t too long ago that conservatives were worrying about Romney securing the nomination, and now you guys talk about him like he’s the best candidate you’ve ever had. Do you remember that? The Republican primary season was a series of tryouts for literally any candidate other than Mitt Romney. Now you guys are going on and on about how enthusiastic conservatives are to be voting for him.

So which is more likely – Mitt Romney is the best candidate ever and would literally have a shot at winning California if the media was coordinating against him, or Mitt Romney is a kind of mediocre candidate that just isn’t going to beat Obama? All you’re doing with this blame the media nonsense is giving Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment a pass. It’s plain to see why the Republicans are having a hard time – too many demographics are sprinting away from you. What you should be doing is holding the Republican establishment accountable, trying to get them to appeal to these constituencies that they’re getting slaughtered by. Gays and women are the perfect example. It’s abundantly clear that socially conservative positions on gays and abortion are costing you guys votes and races. Dropping that nonsense from the party platform would make you instantly more competitive. But that will never happen as long as you continue believing that the Republicans are already the truly popular party, and that they’re being victimized by the mean, mean liberals in the media. This is an excuse that prevents you from recognizing the failure of leadership in your own party. Wake up.