The Soft Sell . . .

So, now we begin to see the "softer" side of Willard Mitt Romney.



Soft, gentle, "trust me" eyes. Nodding head, with a quirky smile. Selling BS the whole time.



"I tell you, this car was driven only on Sundays, by a little old lady, back and forth to Church". "High miles? Oh, that's nothing for THIS baby . . . Smells of cigarette smoke you say? . . . No, that's the residual incense smoke from services . . . " (see previous paragraph).



And he will deceive many . . .



Add a comment

Debate?

More like a Carnival Side show barker (selling snake oil on the side), versus a bored Professor watching a "whirling dervish".



What is it with Willards metronomic blinking, anyway? He rattles off these intense statements and then sits here staring, unfocused, blinking once a second, with a smirk that says, "OK, answer THAT!".



Obama, tho, let him get away with too much. Americans react all too consistently to a high energy, emotional presentation, the facts be damned. He was way too Gentlemanly, even passive.



And the "moderator". Please. He let Willard M. run on over time, could not seem to raise the gumption to reign him in, but had no problems putting the ruler to Obama's knuckles.



Media bias? In full view last evening. Just analyze the framing of shots and the time each one spoke. Add a comment

Afforable Health Act (ObamaCare) is so bad, we have to repeal it.

Yes, we hear this from "conservatives" as rote. But, yet, they tell us they believe in the Constitution.



Let's see now, the Constitution, as written, was so perfect it was almost immediately amended 10 times. You remember, the "Bill of Rights"? Oh, that.



And, up till now, it has been amended what, 27 times?



Yet, we do not hear that this document was "so flawed" it had to be tossed out and re-written, do we?



No, rather, the rational course was taken and it was amended, over time, to make it "more perfect".



So, we see the real reasons behind the mindless frenzy to repeal lies elsewhere.



Let's be real now, shall we? Add a comment

So much for "no Legislating from the Bench" and "Judicial Restraint"

The fighting words"no Legislating from the Bench" and "Judicial Restraint" were heard for years, from those with Right Wing views.



Remember the term "Stare Decisis", uttered so many times at the Roberts Senate confirmation hearings? The concept being that "established law" would be respected was affirmed by Roberts as part of his philosophy and portrayed as how he would guide the Court.



Yet, in it's recent ruling on a Union issue, the US Supreme court demolished those cherished principles, and its own rules and traditions, to reach beyond the issues before it and "made law from the Bench". Roberts himself put lie to his own testimony at his confirmation hearing.



Any question about the hypocrisy of those on the Right, at least those in actual positions of power, should be laid to rest now.



Where are the cries on the Right for impeachment that were so loud when Earl Warren was Chief Justice, for precisely those accusations?



Are Roberts, Scalia and Alito immune from that measure? Add a comment