GolfHos

Once or twice on figs, I copied and pasted something Krugman wrote, taking out the obvious flags that Krugman wrote the words, and post it as my own.

I told myself this was experimental plagerism.  Because I was trying to see whether it would evoke a reaction from the diehard righties over there.

The bottom line was they tended to find as extremely reasonable what Krugman wrote so long as it wasn't attributed to Krugman.  If I posted it as me, no problem.  Not that any of them ever thought I was reasonable.  So it was weird result and I probably needed a higher sampling number but I wasn't really comfortable plagerizing. whatev, I got bored and left.

Anyhoo, here are Krugman's perfectly reasonable thoughts on some more complete and total bull*feces* from Mitt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/03/opinion/krugman-romney-isnt-concerned.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


 

Nuts and bolts, that was an enormous gaffe for a politician that isn't under any real pressure from his opposition. That does not bode well for him in October.

They say McGovern ran a bad campaign back in the day.  I wouldn't know.

But there is no question that Mitt is just a really, really, really bad campaigner. 

About all he is accomplishing in the primaries is loading the Obama gatling guns with ammo.

McGovern was scuttled by Bob Novak, and wasn't the nominee coming out of the convention.

Nixon's landslide was as much a reaction the disarray Democrats were in as anything. Nixon was still Nixon.

http://youtu.be/Tn4hijKmMNk

Tactically, I think Obama should say very, very little except:

'I killed Osama Bin Laden'

and not even that very often between now and election day. The derp brigade and the fudge packer are doing a fine job of *goshdarn* themselves over.