Letters from the Lunar Outpost

Desire of having is the sin of covetousness.
- Shakespeare, English Dramatist and Poet (1564-1616)

Obama-Loving Media MeltdownJust how bad was Obama’s performance in the debate last night? Look no further than the reactions from his most dedicated propagandists in the Obama State Media:

It was so bad, Obama’s Secretary of Youth Propaganda, Jon Stewart, wondered if Obama even wants a second term:

“I thought he had a very difficult night. I’m concerned that he may not reelect us. He may walk away.”

From the man who feels a thrill going up his leg when Obama speaks and even once went so far as to forget Obama was black for an hour, Chris Matthews said this:

“I don’t know what he was doing out there… Where was Obama tonight? … What was Romney doing tonight? He was winning!”

Wow. When a sycophant like Matthews can’t even find a way to spin it as a win for Obama, you know it was a disaster.

Charles Blow, a typical Obama-lover from the New York Times, offered this up:

“There are two more chances for the president to change tactics, or at least to show up to the debates energized and nimble: President Xanax just doesn’t cut it.”

Though more adept in keeping his liberal bias buried between the lines than his successor Brian Williams, there’s no doubt about Tom Brokaw’s leftist leanings. Here’s what he had to say:

“If it had been Romney performing like the president last night, [the election] would have been over.”

Through his high-level posts in the Clinton team to his jobs at ABC, George Stephanopoulos has never stopped working tirelessly for the Democrats. As a man who managed to declare with a straight face the Democrat candidates winners of eight of the last nine presidential debates, even he had to give it up for Romney:

“I think Governor Romney definitely more crisp in his presentation tonight… he was able to be aggressive without being offensive.”

Ed Schultz, maybe the most disgustingly partisan of all the partisans on MSNBC, said this:

“I think the President created a big problem for him tonight, for himself. I don’t think he explained himself very well on the economy. I thought he was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight.”

Some of the best tweets of the night from the Obama-loving hacks in the OSM:

One of Obama’s top surrogates at the New York Times, Nick Kristof:

Million dollar donor and the nastiest spewer of filth on television, Bill Maher:

The best two tweets come from Andrew Sullivan, Obama’s Zombie-in-Chief at The Daily Beast:

Approximately 67 million people watched Obama bomb as Romney turned in a stellar performance. It was a beautiful thing to witness.

Click here to subscribe and never miss out!


7 Responses to Obama-Loving Media Meltdown

  • Great post, Mike!

    Romney was brilliant last night! As a Canadian, I LOVED his stress on the fact that America needs to become energy aggressive, meaning oil. He actually mentioned the Firestone Pipeline between America and Canada.

    • Glad you enjoyed the post, even more so, glad we were watching and cheering together! You’re absolutely right, there is so much the US and Canada can be doing together to boost our economies, to abandon our oil dependence on nations which hate us and solve our energy needs at home.

  • Awesome post, Mike! It was a thing of beauty to watch Obama finally be questioned and to stand there like the baffoon most of know he is.
    Democrats should take heart.. they still have Biden next week. hahahahaaha

  • Win, lose or draw – cheering, drinking, and mental high-fiving aside – debate is not sport. There are no rules in debate that are infallible and most debate rules (if not all) are susceptible to corruption by candidate’s moral bankruptcy. Furthermore, debate scoring is far too abstract, subjective, unscientific and relative. Winning a debate is more like winning a ‘mock-trial’ with no presupposed ‘evidence’ than it is like winning a championship game.

    The post-game celebration and ass-slapping among Romney supporters seems just a little contrived and out of context as a result.

    Not that Romney didn’t seem confident in his preparedness or do better than what was expected of him – he did – remembering the caveat of how incredibly low expectations were set for him. Though, isn’t it just slightly pathetic that out of all the blog posts and discussion thread topics and even reports from the partisan pundits – hardly any mentions of Romney’s ideas, plans or even his rhetoric made it to publish?

    Mike, even your piece – more than it evidences a Romney win – or as you put it, an “Obama bomb” and Romney turning in a “stellar performance” (“beautiful to witness”) – it evidences an Obama loss, and in the realm of debate, where arithmetical scoring is impossible, that my friend is the most slippery of slippery slopes.

    This notwithstanding, and conceding a Romney victory, Mike it is with great difficulty that I have tried to discern what the rationale is motivating the media, causal political commentators (such as yourself) and supporters of both candidates to so heavily weight style and posture – energy and quickness of tongue – etc., in their evaluations of the debate. Can you provide any insight on this? What were Romney’s main winning points? How factual were they? How aligned with his base and campaign platform were his points?

    Where is that celebration for this, hell…. where is the discussion even?

    Since the tone of today is as if Mitt Romney won the Super Bowl, I’ll use a sport analogy: Athletes are not rewarded league MVP’s, invitations to all-star events, etc. on the basis of how hip their uniforms fit, the coolness of their Nikes or how awesome they look celebrating a TD, slam dunk or eagle putt (in spite of having direct involvement in the celebrated play’s success or not). Derek Rose will not edge LeBron James out as NBA MVP because Bulls fans end up thinking that it is really amazing that Derek could score 15 points a game after knee surgery. Or because he is more charming in post-game press conferences. Just saying.

    So, intuitively then it seems that the stakes might be even higher for presidential candidates in the sense that informed voters and citizens participating intelligently in their own governance (as intended by the founders of our Republic) would be impervious to getting gassed up and giddy on appearances and style points given to one candidate or another. Is it then valid that I am perplexed beyond perplexity as a result of the nature by which Romney’s victory has been qualified, validated and amplified?

    Furthermore, from a former athlete – having won some big time games and having lost some as well – was the win so unexpected – was Romney’s performance such an upset that you are incapable of winning graciously? Are you even 100% certain of a “win?” Might it be even slightly possible that your excitement over Romney’s incredible and “stellar” debate performance stems from how were repeatedly warned and told to expect that he would perform poorly? Might the fact that he didn’t fall to the ground foaming at the mouth speaking gibberish been enough to pencil him in for a “W”?

    Seriously, Mike your post was a metaphorical riot through the streets of Boise after a Boise State BCS championship shocker over say, Alabama. The flat out name calling and sophomoric timbre of your post obfuscate what (if any) point you intended to make beyond saying “nah-nah-na-nah-nah” and sticking your tongue out at alleged left leaning journalists and liberal TV personalities. Not that there is anything wrong with that – if that is what makes you happy, more power to you.

    But Romney didn’t win the Super Bowl, and his demeanor didn’t throw the winning TD pass to conservatism at the last second. Just a thought that might help us have a more meaningful discourse on future debates.

    • I always know I’m going to get a thoughtful and thought provoking reply from you, Damion – thought provoking and chock full of sports analogies. 😉

      ~~ it is with great difficulty that I have tried to discern what the rationale is motivating the media, causal political commentators (such as yourself) and supporters of both candidates to so heavily weight style and posture – energy and quickness of tongue – etc., in their evaluations of the debate. Can you provide any insight on this? ~~

      I’ll agree with you 100%. Blame it on John Kennedy, in the televised era, style outweighs substance to a great degree. (Remember, a majority who listened on the radio thought Nixon won.) That’s just the reality of it.

      The reason why Gore lost in 2000? No one wanted to invite into their homes the man who would lecture America like the professor speaking to dim-witted school children each time he made a televised address. Pure and simple, that was the tipping point, who wants to invite that guy into their homes through the TV?

      What’s a beautiful thing is when the guy whose ideology you wholeheartedly believe in turns out to have outshone his opponent on his likeability and his ability to look presidential.

      It’s also undeniable that mentally, Romney was far more sharp, far more prepared and had a much better ability to tick off lists of facts and data.

      It should also be pointed out that when you talk of the heavy emphasis on style, this whole post is based entirely on comments from Obama supporters.

      Finally, as far as my “metaphorical riot” of a post, just realize that the vast majority of analysts are straight-laced and their educations molded them into writing in a format that emulates a professorial dissertation. I can only be true to myself, an intellectual observer with the soul of a feral child, a person who idolizes William F. Buckley, Jr. and yet laughs at the humor of Howard Stern. I’d like to think that my serious observations mixed with irreverence and a flippant attitude makes for something unique, insightful and humorous.

      You just have to realize that I’m quite aware and calculated with the hyperbole and it’s completely designed to both elicit laughs and provoke responses. Yours are some of the best.

      • Well stated, good sir. Very well stated. I accept your rebuttal and will continue to appreciate your: ~~”calculated [use of] the hyperbole and it’s [being] completely designed to both elicit laughs and provoke responses.” ~~ I am in no way offended by your stating: ~~ “I can only be true to myself, an intellectual observer with the soul of a feral child, a person who idolizes William F. Buckley, Jr. and yet laughs at the humor of Howard Stern.” Truth to one’s self is of grave importance – in my opinion – as it relates to one participating efficaciously in her or in his own world view.

        It is with solid conviction that I say this discussion has landed me in an intellectual happy place; one where I am as peaceful and loving as I have ever been in a similar context, no matter the fact that we don’t necessarily agree. For that I thank you. Now that I understand (and can actually see the humor in – although some of those straight laced guys you took to task wouldn’t insult a cricket publicly) the POV from which you insulted the liberal, and media commentators that you skewer in the post – I only ask that you elaborate a little bit as it realtes to: ~~ “[a] beautiful thing [being] when ‘the guy whose ideology you wholeheartedly believe in’ turns out to have outshone his opponent on his likeability and his ability to look presidential.” ~~

        Do you sincerely believe in Mitt Romney and Mitt Romney’s ideas/ideals wholeheartedly? How long has this been the case? Not even trying to be funny or an a**hole (ok… maybe just a little); do any of us actually know what Mitt Romney’s ideology actually is? 🙂

        Aside from this – I’d like to share that I am embarking on a journey of self-actualization brought upon by a spiritual reawakening. I share that to say this: when I woke up this morning I decided that my commentary on your post last night would be the last political commentary that I would ever produce. In fact, I intend to significantly reduce the amount of attention & energy that I spend researching, thinking and discussing matters of politics. The reason for this is that my ideologies, perceptions and (most importantly) reality transcend the political realm of the society that inhabits the landmass known as the United States of America.

        In other words: big government, small government, tea parties, occupations, taxes, tax cuts, wall street, main street, democrats or republicans are not – in any way – were not in any way and will not be in any way – factors that affect my acceptance of abundance into my life. And though I backslid offering some light political commentary here – it is of little consequence being that it came from a spiritual, soulful place. And it has brought us to this moment of utter perfection (as all moments are) where I – with extreme gratitude, Mike – suggest that you might be a person capable of facing – what the spiritual teachers, physicists, monks, neuro-biological scientists, psychologists and professors whom I have recently studied refer to as the ego and it’s place in the universe relative to the soul. Doors, windows, even the floodgates have started to open in my life – what’s holding you back from taking your place unbound by finite thinking? #jusfoodforthought. 🙂

  • Damion,
    This is the most clear, unbiased response to the debate I have read. The high-five’s that have been going on, are quite amazing. One debate can’t unravel the tangled web of deceit and lies of the “Slick Mitt” Romney campaign.
    Thank’s for your clear headed response.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Currently Listening To:

Team of Rivals
Doris Kearns Goodwin