I wish that for ONCE a conservative would simply ask "why are you asking me this question?" and the premise of the question. Liberals NEVER get asked this question, because to the mind of a liberal "journalist" that is irrelevant or preposterous. I wish conservatives would do more to destroy the insane liberal view that conservatives are anti-science.
The problem for Obama is that the Libyan attackers are nameless, faceless. Even if they know the names of the attackers, it's easy to doubt they have the actual attacker if they ever capture any. Look how many people really believe that the prisoners at Gitmo are innocent.
I agree that Romney's faith is more of an asset than a liability- BUT, many if not most Mormons would probably prefer him not "going there" much. Mormons are more aware of their "weirdness" than anyone else, with possibly the exception of Mormons in Utah, even though "non-Mormons" in Utah delight in informing Mormons how awful they are. btw- the number of American Jews and the number of American Mormons are actually quite similar, with possibly the number of Mormons exceeding the number of Jews. and btw- I know of what I'm talking, since I'm LDS (a Latter-day Saint, or Mormon)
I really think Reid wants to show his liberal base he's willing to go after another fellow Mormon, and that they should, too. In other words, give them permission to go the "Mormon" route in attacking Romney. I mean, Reid's a rude, insulting moron, as the world knows, but even he can't believe his own bull when by law the IRS receives from banks and financial institutions income from interest, stocks, bonds, etc. Even Romney can't hide $250 million dollars overseas and live so publicly and richly in the US
Clinton knows exactly what he doing. The few remarks now are NOT for the "most voters" who aren't paying attention. It's for Democrats, donors, politicians, and other countries.
I think ultimately Axlerod and Ploufe will realize that if they make a stink about Trump, someone Americans find fascinating, that the Republicans can effortlessly make a stink about an amazingly long list of controversial Obama associates. Also, publically on television, few commentators will challenge Trump because it will cause everyone to notice and comment (remember the Rosie fuel? how'd that work for her?) and Democrats DON'T want this discussion on characters associated with candidates. For all the negatives, Trump does make some interesting and entertaining television that's is so much more palatable than Jersey Shore types.
I don't find liberals stupid per se, but I do find them extremely foolish. I observe daily the failure of liberals to live up to their own ideals of peace, love and harmony, especially with all the insulting and sneering behavior that flows so easily from liberals that I wonder if it has evolved into a knee-jerk reaction. I observe daily the intellectual dishonesty of the liberal news media in the choice of topics, words, and visuals. I have observed far too frequently the shocking lack of historical understanding and context amongst liberals who refuse, absolutely refuse, to accept that their liberal ideas are both unsustainable, unworkable, unfair, and ultimately destructive. They truly believe that liberal ideas have simply never been applied properly and that proof to the contrary never mind, liberalism is so noble it's a goal society should keep pursuing (to it's own damnation unfortunately). This is why I find liberals completely foolish.
I would love to know why Douglas Gordon Baird hired Obama and why he wanted him full time. I know a Harvard graduate law professor who was also in the top of his class and on the Harvard Law Review. He was obligated to do something Obama apparently was not- PUBLISH. Publish not only as a student on the Harvard Law Review but as an non tenured professor. Now he has tenure but the requirement for him to publish hasn't evaporated. Baird suspiciously says "most" tests are blindly graded, leaving open the possibility re: Obama. Why did not Baird hold Obama to the same standards as is the NORM for almost ALL professors at all universities? Do part-time professors (known as adjunct professors in most places) have different lower standards of performance at the University of Chicago? Why did a part-time, aka adjunct, professor have full medical benefits and other perks? (John Steele Gordon, I think your cousin isn't helping his cause to defend Obama because he doesn't look so good himself now.)
I believe Obama is bright but nowhere near brilliant. I think people want to believe, want to have faith, so they see what they want to see in Obama. Baird will never see the stupidity that others without the "faith" see.
I sure hope he tries! Besides completely disgusting the American public, I think Bill Clinton would looooovvvvvvveeeeee the opportunity to "be invovled" in Obama's re-election- to make sure it's a bigger loss than what Carter suffered. It wouldn't hurt Hillary at all, contextually, because Americans would see her as someone who is running for the good of the country. It would take Obama out politically forever, all the while re-instating the Clinton's power in the Democratic party.
What so surprises me is how absolutely stupid liberals are. Most American women are mothers, period. Many ultra-liberal feminists are not mothers and certainly not stay-at-home mothers. Whether one agrees with Ann Romney's political view or not, most Americans, male and female, relate to her. Relate to her role as mother, grandmother, her down-to-earth qualities. She's so likable in ways ultra-liberal women simply are not. I just hope Obama keeps up the stupid.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Branch