Robert Ariail for April 18, 2012

Good one, Robert.

Obama made a mistatement about the 57 states when he was tired, and the record is very clear. But unlike GOP mistatements (like the howler above about there being proof that he was born overseas), he never defended it, because it was a mistake. The lies from Mitt (“he didn’t cause the recession, but he made it worse”) are repeatedly shown to be false, but he keeps repeating them. The truth will never get him elected.

“The most obvious example is he wants the gov to take over EVERYBODY’s healthcare whether you like it or not, or whether you need it or not. THAT’s a socilist!”That is misinformed opinion, not fact. The “obamacare” law that was passed by both houses of Congress was a bipartisan comprise. Read up on what the Republicans demanded get added to it before you opine about Obama wants.

Sooo, where did you get the information that is so top secret nobody else has seen it?

Maybe robo-dad should have been abusing drugs instead of abusing dogs.

“Liberals know the most conservative candidate—provided s/he’s the real deal—wins elections, when s/he’s the nominee.”-Are you saying that McCain is liberal compared to Obama?

Har!

Ima said, “Obama is in the left lane driving 100 MPH towards America’s destruction.”

And Americas Right is in the right lane driving at 200 MPH towards America’s destruction…which is just perfect for the rest of the world. May Allah, in all his 99 names, be praised.

“Which is worse?” -Are you seriously suggesting that a pre-adolescent child eating what was put on his plate is somehow immoral? The whole Mitt-strapped-his-dog-to-the-roof-of-his-car meme is a non-issue, but you seem to think there’s virtue in doubling down on such rediculousness…. Is any attack on Obama valid? Is anything designed to smear a liberal a viable weapon? How desperate does tribalism make you for a cudgel? Does it even matter if it’s sane or true?

No, I don’t think any old attack on Romney is valid. I mentioned that the dog-on-roof was silly. And a cudgel is used as a club, just as these attacks are used as a club.-The point of my rant was that the reciprocity isn’t about facts or morality, it’s about hitting someone with anything available, whether it makes sense or not. The Seamus story was used in the Republican contest because someone (don’t remember who) knew it would make Romney look bad. There was no consideration of if it was relevant to anything, just “I’ll hit him with this”. Now, you think that ‘Obama ate dog!’ is a proper response because it grosses people out that he would dare eat an animal so beloved as a dog. No matter that the person who was eating the animal was a child; as long as it gets a reaction and can be used against your chosen enemy, use it! Using these tactics reduces politics to childish tribalism, and discussion to pointless sophomoric posturing. This dosen’t advance ideas, values, or society, it just reduces dialogue to pointless one-upsmanship and namecalling.

Romney’s dog story isn’t going to die. Obama’s dog story is a non-story.

Obama will do well to focus on the issues, whereas Romney’s team keeps bringing up the dog.