I dunno, and yeah, I’m biased, but I agree with Adrastos…I also think the punditocracy, particularly good old librul MSNBC, allowed themselves to get dragged under by an avalanche of bulllshit truly remarkable to behold.

As remarkable as Mitt’s performance, which to me reeked of an amped-up-on-caffeine Eddie Haskell (even though Mitt’s religion prohibits him from touching the stuff).

From Album4

Hello, Mrs. Cleaver. That’s a lovely offshore bank account you have.

Mitt’s “victory” rings hollow in my book — while he managed to not saying anything jaw-droppingly cloddish for once — he sure as hell didn’t do anything to change the opinions of a mostly decided electorate. And watching the reactions of the chattering class was a tiresome exercise. Wingers, like lab rats self-administering cocaine, pressed every hot button they could think of in hopes liberals would press the panic button (because everyone knows “a librul is a wussy who won’t even take their own side in an argument”)…

Sad to say, at least a few libs took the bait. Sigh.

I call bullshit, or, in this case, spinshit.
Obama “won” this debate — not that I particularly like the whole “winner, loser” nonsense — but he won by not losing. Mitt’s performance was the political equivalent of garbage time in a meaningless basketball game. To quote Bill Hicks, “we hope you enjoyed your fireworks show.”

3 thoughts on “Spinshit

  1. So of course CNN polls the critical “over 50 white southern male” demographic to get their win/lose result.

  2. I stayed on ABC long enough to see them drop in awe before the glory that is Romney, and have been trying to avoid the punditry since.
    It was a dull and largely unproductive performance by both that was marked only by the introduction of what I expect will be the GOP’s new catchphrase “trickle-down government”, and Romney’s utterly predictable mid-debate pivot where he committed to no tax cuts that would grow the deficit.
    None of his ‘zingers’ worked either. Especially that line denying the tax deduction for off shoring (“Maybe I need a better accountant”) which he must have practiced for weeks was delivered flat and lay there dead for a long second.
    Of course I can’t even figure out how anyone could debate this guy. Any debate prep you do on his stated positions becomes out of date the moment you call him on it. I expect next debate will include light bulb jokes (how many 47%s does it take to screw in a light bulb? NONE! They expect the government to do it for them!) and a denial that he ever lived in Massachusetts.

  3. To beat a dead horse to death:
    All the win/lose coverage hype/tripe is based on rather dubious criteria.
    *) It wasn’t a debate as much as it was juxtaposing commercials from both sides
    *) A real judging of a real debate would have experienced, impartial judges scoring each side on their ability to put forth logical arguments. The “judging” of this “debate” seems more based on some sort of entertainment factor as A parodies so well in her post).
    *) of course, the network pundits have turned into a chance for individuals to put forth an agenda rather than to actually analyze the networks.
    *) Win/Lose in these debates, even if based on a true debate with judging on facts, does not necessarily translate into being elected.
    *) The win/lose criteria reported by the news media are insane. Romney wins because he didn’t lose / because he managed not to say anything totally stupid.
    To me the last is the worst. Especially a “SCIENTIFIC” analysis of the mention of each candidate on Twitter. (If it is scientific then it must be good, right?) It starts with the basic error of respondent selection – Dewey beats Truman based on a phone poll; this time, those of us on the crack van had decided that we’d rather be with friends than wade through twitter. It then obviously gave more weight to those who were more vocal to even bullying. The one who shouts loudest wins (well might go well with supporting Romney).
    So the biggest weight in the Twitter analysis is for those who stand around shouting their candidate’s name over and over, and therefore have little time to listen. I believe it is attributed to Lincoln (an icon for the republicans) a saying about better to keep your mouth shut than to open it and prove your ignorance. Also the old saying about having two ears and one mouth.

Comments are closed.