Support NeoGAF

[Paches]

Got a fear mongering letter from my local house representative. Two pages of nonsense about Obamacare going to make you lose your doctors, government going to intrude in your medical decisions etc.

You will be put on a death panel, your life history will be reviewed, and then the Grand Arbiter of Death will decide whether you can live or not. This is an annual process by the way.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I read this and was dumbfounded by the author's stupidity. True, Obama has done very little to stanch the flow of wealth from young-to-old, and yet, who the fuck is the alternative? Republicans explicitly promise that young people will get less benefits than today's elderly. Is that who young people are supposed to vote for?

Guns?

 

[pigeon]

According to Robert Samuelson, PoliGAF has a lot in common with social conservatives who vote against their economic interests based on social issues.

The social and economic reasons for Generation Squeezed

Man, it's too bad we're so dumb.

This is concern trolling of a high order, I think. Sure, Obama hasn't fixed the issues that face the youth -- but Romney is actively trying to make them worse. To throw his name in there abruptly as if to suggest that we're screwing ourselves by voting for him is...well, it's the kind of thing a father would do, isn't it? (Not my father, my father was a truther.) My father-in-law said this exact thing to me: "I'm just worried for your future." I was like, "Me too! That's why I'm a socialist!"

 

[Black Republican]

Burton not backing down from the super pac ad is surprising

Obama chi town people just dont give a fuck anymore,wow

lucky hes not tied to the super pac because it could hurt is personal ratings

 

[Paches]

Burton not backing down from the super pac ad is surprising

Obama chi town people just dont give a fuck anymore,wow

lucky hes not tied to the super pac because it could hurt is personal ratings

Well the ad didn't tell a lie, which is something Romney can't really say about any of his ads.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Coulter apparently is ripping on Andrea Saul for her Romneycare gaffe:

http://www.therightscoop.com/ann-co...swoman-andrea-saul-says-romney-must-fire-her/

And it's interesting to read the comments below - so many conservatives now want Saul fired lol.

 

[NullPointer]

Man, it's too bad we're so dumb.

This is concern trolling of a high order, I think. Sure, Obama hasn't fixed the issues that face the youth -- but Romney is actively trying to make them worse. To throw his name in there abruptly as if to suggest that we're screwing ourselves by voting for him is...well, it's the kind of thing a father would do, isn't it? (Not my father, my father was a truther.) My father-in-law said this exact thing to me: "I'm just worried for your future." I was like, "Me too! That's why I'm a socialist!"

That's been 2012 in a nutshell. There is plenty of anti-Obama sentiment to go around, but I'm not seeing any Pro-Anything that was or is supposed to have done a better job of handling things.

So yes, again, many would say that they're not doing as well as the were four years ago, but who and what exactly would have made things better?

 

[Clevinger]

And it's interesting to read the comments below - so many conservatives now want Saul fired lol.

Fired for just mentioning Romneycare. And yet they'll vote for the guy who actually implemented it in November. Blows my mind.

I want this dumb ass election over already.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

That's been 2012 in a nutshell. There is plenty of anti-Obama sentiment to go around, but I'm not seeing any Pro-Anything that was or is supposed to have done a better job of handling things.

So yes, again, many would say that they're not doing as well as the were four years ago, but who and what exactly would have made things better?

War Plan Crimson.

 

[bananas]

Fired for just mentioning Romneycare. And yet they'll vote for the guy who actually implemented it in November. Blows my mind.

I want this dumb ass election over already.

Three more months! Yay!

 

[Tim-E]

Three more months! Yay!

Shit is bananas.

 

[pigeon]

Oh Romney

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/romney-ad-ohio-oklahoma_n_1756773.html

Okay, this is at the point where I'm kind of checking myself. This is exceptional, right? Normally Presidential campaigns don't make mistakes like this every week, right? Is Obama releasing daily stupid ads with bad stock video that I'm just not seeing because I read the wrong blogs? I need a reality check here, because this seems like an embarrassingly shitty campaign.

 

[NullPointer]

Three more months! Yay!

Yep. Three more agonizingly long months until Halo 4.







(which I'll play as a vote-mas gift to myself, of course)

 

[el retorno]

Young people are going to get less. The question is how much less. The sooner changes are made, the less the ultimate disparity will be. The geezers now lived through decades of low inflation high growth that we will never see and are going to get our money on top of it.

Why do you state that as fact. Why is treated as a given? Its not.

That article is biased in the same debt hysteria that everybody (including many dems) seem to think is around the corner. There is no need to radically, if at all, to cut benefits for future retirees. Its scary that so many think they aren't going to get anything because its going to lead them down voting for getting nothing by seeing it as something inevitable (everybody in my generation seem convinced they're getting nothing).

We have the money to pay our retirees a healthy and not poverty riddled retirement at 65. We have solutions within the current framework (raising the cap) but whose to say we even need to stay within it? Why can't we change our spending priorities?

All of this analysis is biased in the current system projecting out to something like 2050, 2060. Who is looking back at 1974 for our solutions to our current problems? 38 years before the new deal we were still living in the gilded age. Society changes and policies change. There's a long as time any maybe in it we decide to stop treating caring for our citizens as some kind of special one time deal and treat it as a priority where other things need to change to maintain it rather than the reverse.

Everybody in this crisis keeps trying to make everything the same as before 2008? Why? Why can't we change the system? Why is everybody from the right (with their desire for some mythical 50s that never existed) or occupy (with their reverence for the new deal which wasn't as radical as portrayed) with looking towards the past?

 

[empty vessel]

According to Robert Samuelson, PoliGAF has a lot in common with social conservatives who vote against their economic interests based on social issues.

The social and economic reasons for Generation Squeezed

And then there are the costs of aging. Gains in productivity — from new technologies or better skills — that would normally flow into paychecks will be siphoned off to pay for retiree benefits, underfunded state and local government pensions and infrastructure repair. Taxes will rise; if not, public services will fall. Or both. Population change can’t be repealed. The ratio of workers to retirees, 5-to-1 in 1960 and 3-to-1 in 2010, is projected at nearly 2-to-1 by 2025...Sooner or later, the system’s oppressive costs will become so obvious that future benefits will be curbed. Chances are the young will still pay for today’s elderly without themselves receiving comparable support...

To aid the young, we could tighten Social Security and Medicare, raising eligibility ages and reducing payouts for wealthier retirees. Unlikely. Younger voters seem clueless about advancing their economic interests. In 2008, 18-to-29-year-olds supported Barack Obama by 34 percentage points. They love his pseudo-youthfulness. Or his positions on other issues (immigration, gay rights) trump economics. As president, Obama has done nothing to improve generational fairness.

I'd suggest that Samuelson learn something about our monetary system. Whether the young will still "pay for" today's elderly without themselves receiving comparable support depends entirely on whether charlatans like Samuelson hold sway. The US will not be poorer in the future than it is today. Accordingly, the US can "afford" to "support" its current young to whatever tune it wants. The limits of government spending is not how many dollars it collects (or collected in the past), but rather the real resources available for its command and direction. This sentence, in particular, is almost comical for its incoherence: "To aid the young, we could tighten Social Security and Medicare, raising eligibility ages and reducing payouts for wealthier retirees. Unlikely. Younger voters seem clueless about advancing their economic interests." A linguistically equivalent statement to this is: "To aid the young, we could depress the economic interests of younger voters. Unlikely. Younger voters seem clueless about advancing their economic interests." He seriously proposes that the young reduce their future economic benefits in the name of advancing their economic interests. Nothing has to change in order for the government to be able to pay out whatever level of benefits citizens want for its retirees, now or in the future. This is not an opinion, it's an empirical fact.

This isn't the first time Samuelson has said stupid things, and I'm sure it won't be the last:

Which brings me to the awful contribution this week (December 19, 2011) by the Washington Post’s Robert Samuelson – Bye-bye, Keynes?. This article is about how Robert J. Samuelson cannot identify an elephant from any angle.

He thinks it is a serious question to ask why bond yields are low in the US and are rising in Italy and Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland. He seems to bemused about how deep that question is – challenging us with its profoundness.

A rude response would be to “get a life”.

A more reasoned response is to suggest that there is an elephant present that he seems to have avoided seeing as it crowds out all available space in the room he is typing from.

He says that “Greece, Portugal and Ireland have already reached” the tipping point of too much debt and “(h)eavily indebted Italy and Spain could lose access to bond markets” and then – in a Hallelujah moment he says:

Thankfully, the United States is not now in this position. Interest rates on 10-year Treasury bonds hover around 2 percent; investors seem willing to lend against massive U.S. deficits. Just why is unclear. It’s not that U.S. budget discipline is noticeably superior.

A whole raft of financial statistics (debt ratios, deficit to GDP ratios) follow to show how “bad” the US is relative to the EMU nations and he thinks for the US that “piling up more debt, it would still risk aggravating a larger crisis later”.

Just why Robert J. Samuelson writes this is “unclear”.

He thinks it has something to do with his claim that “(p)reviously gullible investors will wake up one morning and conclude that the situation is beyond salvation”. He claims that “(i)f history is any guide, this scenario will develop not gradually but abruptly”.

Which history is he talking about? US bond yield history? Upon what basis are these investors gullible?

The reality is that the bond investors know exactly what they are getting themselves in for. They know that US bonds are zero risk and that is why the tenders are always oversubscribed at very low rates. There hasn’t been a time in US history (since we have data) where the bond markets have concluded “the situation is beyond salvation”.

That is sheer fantasy – ignorant and uninformed.

Yields are low and bond auctions over-subscribed because the bond markets know the US government is fully sovereign in its own currency as are Japan, UK, Australia and just about everywhere else.

Bond markets also know that the central banks in these nations can easily control all yields if they wish and totally deal them out of the equation.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=17496

See also: http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/robert-samuelson-qbye-bye-darwinq

What a load of BS. I'm going to touch on one thing. I clicked the link to see if the part about Social Security was out of context. It wasn't. He does something very bad in this article – he makes it seem like Social Security's problems are impossible to fix or require some great sacrifice on the part of today's workers. They aren't and they won't. In fact, Social Security is very easy to fix: just lift the cap on the payroll tax. Bam. Done.

Social Security is far easier to fix even than that. Instruct the government to pay the fucking benefits. Bam. Done.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

How about just allowing people to not be forced into paying social security tax and opt out?

 

[el retorno]

How about just allowing people to not be forced into paying social security tax and opt out?

I don't think EV would be opposed to that (he hates payroll taxes)

He still wants the benefit given though

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

I don't think EV would be opposed to that (he hates payroll taxes)

He still wants the benefit given though

Oh yeah I forget his attachment to the government can just print more money and it's fine theory.

 

[Black Mamba]

Ezra Klein talks to economists Romney Campaign cites; Economists reply their papers don't say what Romney's camp says.

Oh Mittens.

Oh yeah I forget his attachment to the government can just print more money and it's fine theory.

SS shouldn't be separate. It should all be income taxes. We should stop trying to tie in things like SS to a specific tax. Just tax income and that's that.

 

[Black Mamba]

In what may be the most eyebrow-raising reaction to President Obama's controversial pro-gay marriage stance to date, a right wing Tea Party author and conspiracy theorist is claiming that Obama himself might be secretly gay or bisexual.

"This is something I've accumulated a great deal of evidence on -- the evidence, I think, is very strong," Jerome Corsi states in a new video. "The question is not to condemn Obama here for being bisexual or gay, if that's in fact what he is, but to wonder why he's gone to the extent of hiding it...what's the duplicity? What's the hypocrisy?"

Corsi, who is also the author of "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality," claims in the video that Obama was seen wearing a wedding band in photographs that were taken years before marrying his wife Michelle. "He's not married as far as we know, unless of course this is a love affair with Pakistani male roommate," Corsi notes.

Saying that Obama's life contains "lies, mysteries" and other "disinformation," Corsi states, "Obama had all these roommate pictures [where he] seems to be sitting about on the guy’s lap. I’ve not seen a lot of roommate pictures where two guys are that chummy!" He then asks, "Was he married to a guy, I mean, what’s the deal?"

Corsi also penned an extensive blog on the so-called "wedding ring mystery" on his website, 1776 Nation.

Earlier this year, Corsi gave a presentation to a New Jersey GOP group in which he reportedly used Adobe Illustrator software to separate the layers of Obama's birth certificate in an effort to reveal inconsistencies and revive the so-called "birther" theory.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...46.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Kenyan Muslim Socialist isn't enough. Gotta add more to it!

lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

Romney is getting blasted by conservatives over this Romneycare shit lol. Really shows the general lack of love conservatives have for him. Bush ran the deficit up and increased entitlements, but at the time the complaints were regulated to some conservative blogs; overall they seemed to at least respect Bush, and like him. No one gives a shit about Romney, and it's showing. He's just a means to an end (defeating Obama)

 

[RDreamer]

I'm not sure if someone posted this or if it was overshadowed by Andrea Saul's gaffe:

Romney in Iowa:

We’ve got to do reforms in health care and I have some experience doing that as you know. And I know how to make a better setting than the one we have in health care. I want to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions are able to get insurance and that people don’t have to worry about getting dropped from their insurance coverage and that health care is available to all people.

I really don't get what he's going to do or what he thinks he can pull over on people. His aides have said they will not ban insurance companies from blocking patients with pre-existing coverage. So if he won't, then he's lying here. If he does, then I still don't get what he's going to do. Is he just going to replace Obamacare with Romneycare? Same old shit, just with less Kenyan socialism in the name? Seriously what the fuck are the republicans going to replace this legislation with? I get the repeal part. It's the replace part that I don't understand.

 

[Measley]

Coulter apparently is ripping on Andrea Saul for her Romneycare gaffe:

http://www.therightscoop.com/ann-co...swoman-andrea-saul-says-romney-must-fire-her/

And it's interesting to read the comments below - so many conservatives now want Saul fired lol.

If/When Romney loses this election, the conservative movement is going to rip itself apart.

 

[PantherLotus]

Let's review today/last night:

1. Romney Press Secretary (intentional?) gaffe about Romneycare, angering the base.
2. Romney mentions his experience in health care reform (ok, now it's on purpose).
3. Welfare attack roll-out.
4. ...Newt Gingrich is now a surrogate.
5. Read that again. Newt Gingrich is now a surrogate for the Romney campaign.

I think it's time to start asking whether or not this is a joke campaign. It took us a few weeks with Herman Cain reading Pokemon lyrics to get that it was really a performance piece, but I think it's time.

That...or Romney just now realized he still hasn't secured his base. (!!!!!)

 

[PantherLotus]

Coulter apparently is ripping on Andrea Saul for her Romneycare gaffe:

http://www.therightscoop.com/ann-co...swoman-andrea-saul-says-romney-must-fire-her/

And it's interesting to read the comments below - so many conservatives now want Saul fired lol.

hooooooo ooooly shit!

Man I love/hate Coulter so much (she's really good at her job). Man she's on fire here! I want the transcripts plastered EVERYWHERE!

 

[RDreamer]

Let's review today/last night:

1. Romney Press Secretary (intentional?) gaffe about Romneycare, angering the base.
2. Romney mentions his experience in health care reform (ok, now it's on purpose).
3. Welfare attack roll-out.
4. ...Newt Gingrich is now a surrogate.
5. Read that again. Newt Gingrich is now a surrogate for the Romney campaign.

I think it's time to start asking whether or not this is a joke campaign. It took us a few weeks with Herman Cain reading Pokemon lyrics to get that it was really a performance piece, but I think it's time.

That...or Romney just now realized he still hasn't secured his base. (!!!!!)

6. Not only is Newt Gingrich a surrogate, he's bashing Obama by praising Clinton.

 

[Measley]

Let's review today/last night:

1. Romney Press Secretary (intentional?) gaffe about Romneycare, angering the base.
2. Romney mentions his experience in health care reform (ok, now it's on purpose).
3. Welfare attack roll-out.
4. ...Newt Gingrich is now a surrogate.
5. Read that again. Newt Gingrich is now a surrogate for the Romney campaign.

I think it's time to start asking whether or not this is a joke campaign. It took us a few weeks with Herman Cain reading Pokemon lyrics to get that it was really a performance piece, but I think it's time.

That...or Romney just now realized he still hasn't secured his base. (!!!!!)

PD hit it on the head; Romney is just a means to an end. He's no Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush. He's just a tool that Conservatives are using to unseat Obama.

What's interesting is that if Romney wins I fully expect him to get primaried in 2016 by a "true conservative".

 

[Shirokun]

Romney is getting blasted by conservatives over this Romneycare shit lol. Really shows the general lack of love conservatives have for him. Bush ran the deficit up and increased entitlements, but at the time the complaints were regulated to some conservative blogs; overall they seemed to at least respect Bush, and like him. No one gives a shit about Romney, and it's showing. He's just a means to an end (defeating Obama)

Looks like he's gonna have to do more to get his base fired up. Is Ryan as VP inevitable?

 

[PantherLotus]

PD hit it on the head; Romney is just a means to an end. He's no Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush. He's just a tool that Conservatives are using to unseat Obama.

What's interesting is that if Romney wins I fully expect him to get primaried in 2016 by a "true conservative".

PD hit nothing on the head. He's the best of a terrible field, the remains of a circus act. He's no means to an end, he's all they got.

 

[delirium]

PD hit it on the head; Romney is just a means to an end. He's no Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush. He's just a tool that Conservatives are using to unseat Obama.

What's interesting is that if Romney wins I fully expect him to get primaried in 2016 by a "true conservative".

If Romney wins he would be President. Has a incumbent President ever been given the boot by this own party?

 

[NullPointer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...46.html?ir=Politics&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

Kenyan Muslim Socialist isn't enough. Gotta add more to it!

lol

I expect this to lead to only one conclusion:

Obama is actually the hidden Imam of the Mormon Faith. Romney is purposefully sabotaging his campaign to both marginalize any kind of conservative patriot resistance while guaranteeing another four years to sacrifice the American economy and rugged individualist freedoms, all for the greater Mormon/Al Queda/Illegal Immigrant/Anarcho-Socialist/United Nations Gay agenda.

Its really only a matter of time.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Lol holy shit! Romney is actually going to try and make the conversation about healthcare...

 

[B-Dubs]

Lol holy shit! Romney is actually going to try and make the conversation about healthcare...

If they do that Obama is going to be laughing all the way to his reelection. I expect that the Romney camp will walk all this back over the next few days after someone points out how dumb they are being.

 

[RDreamer]

Lol holy shit! Romney is actually going to try and make the conversation about healthcare...

I can't wait until this comes up in the debates.

 

[Black Mamba]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPIDbf4INro

Obama campaign ad refuting Romney's welfare ad. Even shows Romney's signed letter I mentioned yesterday. lol.

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPIDbf4INro

Obama campaign ad refuting Romney's welfare ad. Even shows Romney's signed letter I mentioned yesterday. lol.

Well made, but it's not an ad, just a web video.

 

[NullPointer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPIDbf4INro

Obama campaign ad refuting Romney's welfare ad. Even shows Romney's signed letter I mentioned yesterday. lol.

Romney: Flexible on Welfare, and the truth.

 

[PhoenixDark]

PD hit nothing on the head. He's the best of a terrible field, the remains of a circus act. He's no means to an end, he's all they got.

You're missing the point. It's not that Romney is the last man standing, it's that there is no love whatsoever for him among the base; in many ways they despise him, but will support him simply to defeat Obama. We would not be seeing this if Santorum was the nominee.

Conservatives will fall in life if Romney wins. That being said, they won't keep in line the same way they did under Bush (unless we get hit with a terrorist attack/new war). Republicans almost revolted over Medicare part d, but the senate and house leaders kept their members in line. I don't think republicans would be willing to take similar votes for Romney.

 

[Stinkles]

You're missing the point. It's not that Romney is the last man standing, it's that there is no love whatsoever for him among the base; in many ways they despise him, but will support him simply to defeat Obama. We would not be seeing this if Santorum was the nominee.

Conservatives will fall in life if Romney wins. That being said, they won't keep in line the same way they did under Bush (unless we get hit with a terrorist attack/new war). Republicans almost revolted over Medicare part d, but the senate and house leaders kept their members in line. I don't think republicans would be willing to take similar votes for Romney.

That's actually a pretty interesting observation. Democrats get a lot of shit for not ever coordinating in lockstep, but it's funny to think the repubs are basically one abortion or gay rights law away from flying apart.

 

[Clevinger]

If Romney wins he would be President. Has a incumbent President ever been given the boot by this own party?

I don't know if they've ever succeeded, but they've tried and screwed the incumbent over like when Kennedy primaried Carter.

I don't think Republicans will do that. Once Romney wins, Fox News and the right wing radio machine will go full on propaganda behind everything Romney does and the sheep will quiet down for the most part.

 

[kehs]

Well made, but it's not an ad, just a web video.

Welcome to 2012 where people watch ads on the internet.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Welcome to 2012 where people watch ads on the internet.

It's an important distinction. A web video like this will get a few thousand hits. An ad with any decent money behind it will be seen by hundreds of thousands, and likely more. The point I was making was that the web video will have a dramatically smaller audience than an ad buy.

Welcome to 2012, where people still watch television.

 

[Jackson50]

Man, it's too bad we're so dumb.

This is concern trolling of a high order, I think. Sure, Obama hasn't fixed the issues that face the youth -- but Romney is actively trying to make them worse. To throw his name in there abruptly as if to suggest that we're screwing ourselves by voting for him is...well, it's the kind of thing a father would do, isn't it? (Not my father, my father was a truther.) My father-in-law said this exact thing to me: "I'm just worried for your future." I was like, "Me too! That's why I'm a socialist!"

His entire premise is a patent false dilemma. We can readily afford investments in infrastructure and securing our future economic vibrancy without harming senior citizens. Fatuous article.

I'm not sure I'd categorize it as close...Obama made it nearly mathematically impossible for Hillary to win by the time super Tuesday was over. Everything after that was dragging out the inevitable result, and pointless hand wringing over superdelegates

I don't remember the exact delegate count, but I don't think Clinton was effectively eliminated by Super Tuesday. And even if she were, that's not an entirely accurate metric given the condensed nature of the primary. An unprecedented half of the states held an election on Super Tuesday. For most of the primary, they were both competing fiercely for delegates, endorsements, and fundraising.

I don't know if they've ever succeeded, but they've tried and screwed the incumbent over like when Kennedy primaried Carter.

I don't think Republicans will do that. Once Romney wins, Fox News and the right wing radio machine will go full on propaganda behind everything Romney does and the sheep will quiet down for the most part.

A challenger has not succeeded, but Ford and Carter came perilously close to losing their party's nomination. An interesting counterfactual would have been Johnson's decision to remain in contention in 1968.

 

[Clevinger]

Scott Brown goes full retard

Scott Brown Decries Legally Mandated Voter Registration Effort, Says It’s A Conspiracy To Elect His Opponent

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA)’s today lashed out at his opponent’s daughter and his home state of Massachusetts for ensuring that a federal law is properly followed. The freshman Republican charged that by helping to signing up welfare recipients to vote, the state was “clearly” aiding Democratic nominee Elizabeth Warren’s campaign.

The 1993 National Voter Registration Act — better known as the Motor Voter bill –requires that citizens be offered the opportunity to register to vote when they get a driver’s license or apply for social services. Voting rights groups — including Demos — filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was not in compliance, after a 35-year-old woman was not offered the chance to register to vote when she filed paperwork with the state’s welfare office last June. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, recognizing its obligation under federal law, settled the case out of court. As part of that settlement, the state government agreed to contact, by mail, the 477,944 welfare recipients who might also have been denied their right to be offered a chance to register to vote and give them that chance now.

Voting rights groups have brought similar suits in other states. But seizing on the fact that Warren’s daughter is chair of the board of one of the groups suing, Brown made the argument that this amounts to a conspiracy to elect his Democratic challenger. His statement today said:

I want every legal vote to count, but it’s outrageous to use taxpayer dollars to register welfare recipients as part of a special effort to boost one political party over another. This effort to sign up welfare recipients is being aided by Elizabeth Warren’s daughter and it’s clearly designed to benefit her mother’s political campaign. It means that I’m going to have to work that much harder to get out my pro-jobs, pro-free enterprise message.

It is surprising that a U.S. Senator would object to a state complying with federal law and attempting to remedy its mistake when it may not have done so. It is also surprising that Brown would, in effect, say that having more eligible welfare recipients registered to vote would automatically mean more votes for Warren.

Brown says on his campaign website that “Partisan bickering and political gamesmanship won’t help us save that America, and I refuse to participate.”

 

[kehs]

It's an important distinction. A web video like this will get a few thousand hits. An ad with any decent money behind it will be seen by hundreds of thousands, and likely more. The point I was making was that the web video will have a dramatically smaller audience than an ad buy.

Welcome to 2012, where people still watch television.

Nielson figures I bet.

 

[PantherLotus]

I think the distinction should also come with a demographic caveat. Obviously web videos will get more penetration among liberals than conservatives. I'm not sure the converse is true for TV ad buys.

 

[Stinkles]

Scott Brown goes full retard

HOLY SHIT

 

[B-Dubs]

It's an important distinction. A web video like this will get a few thousand hits. An ad with any decent money behind it will be seen by hundreds of thousands, and likely more. The point I was making was that the web video will have a dramatically smaller audience than an ad buy.

Welcome to 2012, where people still watch television.

Normally it would, but there are times the news will cover an add like this which is better than an ad buy. Even money NBC covers it in the next week.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Scott Brown goes full retard

*rubs eyes*

WHAT

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm starting to believe Brown will lose. Going full retard might work when you have crazy folks in your corner, but Brown has been abandoned by the tea party folks who got him into office.