I say yes, you say no, OR People are Strange

Alexandria - "cross examination" - as a "test" to see if you'd get "riled'? Still think it's a possible..

Scoot - what did I miss?  A biopsy of what?  where?  sorry if I missed something.....DEEEP finger crossing for B9

GardenGumby - I'll be in your pocket too....aren't all these tests just the scariest... get the chills just thinking of them...and my next ones aren't until November.....

Civility?  gone.  If NBC's Magazine format tv progam is on tonight - think it's called Rock Center - after my bedtime, Ted Koppel is talking about this in the media...

On to IMPORTANT things - Downton Abbey is coming back...speaking of no sequitors...

Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell both rock!!

 On growing a brain - I remember some joke in the Bush years, comparing his presidency to the Wizard of OZ, with Bush singing If I only had a Brain, and Cheney, If I only had a heart.  Guess Romney could sing both.

It's cracking me up how righties think ALL the polls showing Romney behind are deliberately skewed by a leftist conspiracy. The fact that NO mainstream polls show Romney ahead does not register.

You know, desperate people can do very stupid things, so it is all the more embarassing when that desperate person happens to be a presidential candidate. Mitt is now griping over a statement by Obama saying you must change Washington from the outside - something which sounds perfectly reasonable. After all, who ever heard of anyone inside the beltway changing the beltway? This place is like a crack house - no one wants to change - everyone is hooked on politics as usual.

But what Obama was conveying is that you had to be someone with a fresh perspective - an "ideas" outsider  -to effect change. The meaning of his phrase is philosophical, and it is something which, historically and across cultures, has held.

Mitt (or his desperation) reads it literally, like a child. He is thinking this means that Obama cannot change because he is in the White House.

If Romney were president, nothing would happen. I do think we would be in a state of permanent nothingness for four years. He doesn't have any ideas or ambitions for the country. He would just be a placeholder president until 2017. 

Shaking head. Here goes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-change-washington_n_1901523.html

I noted the part that spoke about out of context twice  in the last 48 hours.  Romney reminds me of a kid in a candy store ( he admits he didn't check anything -- just used it ) and therefore will end up with egg on the face and surrounding areas once more.  Well, not to worry---I'm sure a certain news source can get a better spin on it, but the horse has already left the building. 

Jackie

Didn't he just vacation on the water somewhere?  Might it be an honest-to-goodness tan combined with bad makeup?

Ya....just trying to give him some help here.  He's getting it from all sides.  I don't really feel sorry for the man because he's smart enough to know and do better, but it seems only fair to .... oh hell, I got nothin.  Never mind.

kad2kar,

If a candidate is incapacitated prior to the election, his or her replacement is decided by the candidates party.  As I understand it the Party's National Committee decides.  It's not a constitutional thing so it wouldn't have been covered in civics anyway.

Scoot, the link I saw shows him his usual pale self just a few hours before, plus you can see the line where the makeup starts and stops along his neck and jawline. Let me find it.

Oh good grief. What genius thought that up?

We don't have a president - the Prime minister is the elected head of the party in government we don't elect the leader - probably the same as Canada as it's based on the Westminster system. We have state governments and local town councils as well as the federal gov. An election campaign goes for maybe 6 weeks or a couple of months. Yes they have TV ads that the relevant party pay for, but there are no big gatherings like you have. It seems all quite bizarre from my point of view. Also, it's compulsory to vote here - you get fined if you don't.

And you just KNOW they would pick Ryan. If not the teabaggies would revolt. 

Sunny, just had to add, my little guys (yard squirrels) are positively estatic about the cool weather. Doing cartwheels and backflips all over the place, inbetween chowing down on the corn and seed blocks I leave out for them! Life's good when you're a squirrel in my back yard! 

That's a nice booklet, HL.

Friday morning brain droppings: 

A bit amazed and dismayed that Obama's remarks about some millionaires not paying taxes isn't getting more play in the press. I hope his millionaire donors weren't offended. He has to repeat that message, thought, and rephrase it to say (in case his rich donors cry foul) that they don't pay federal income tax and that this is because of loopholes in the system that have to be closed.

There needs to be more talk about corporate welfare. If we are going to talk about a nanny state or about how people are entitled, how about starting with the segment truly afforded that entitlement by successive administrations.

There's no monopoly on good or bad values by party - I'm sure all of the low lifes in supermax prisons would vote democratic, frankly.  But they are in prison, paying their dues for what they did (minus a very few innocents). Meanwhile, the banks threw the nation under a bus in the Bush years, taxpayers bailed them out and the impunity continues - anbd one of the candidates for president hails his so called prowess in capital allocation, yet can't manage his own presidential campaign properly.

There is no better sign of the bankruyptcy of neocon capitalism than Romney's campaign, and republicvans seem to relish having candidates who make a mess of things but then style themselves as able corporate titans. Carly Fiorina comes to mind. Get fired from HP for making a mess of things, then run as the business candidate. Does that strike anyone else as wierd?

I am blaming a complacent government - both executive and legislative-- and a flawed ideology shared by Reagan and Clinton that what is good for Wall Street is good for everyone. That may have been true at some point, but not in the late 1920s and not today either.

America was founded on people actually making things of value, inventing and innovating. The fact that we allow underperforming parasites to derive bonuses every time they cause a company to collapse is a sign of a bankrupt business ideology and capitalism run amok. It also shows that the meritocracy system we always prided ourselves on is no longer really there.

Lindasa and Susie - yes, the money is a headache. The best I can say is this is still the good ol' USA and everything we do is BIG. Marketing, campaigning, self-promotion have always been big industries here. But, in our defense, we are running to elect the most powerful person in the world, which may explain the heightened interest. If you look at it from the other side of the coin: I can tell you that in other countries people do follow US politics. It is the "greatest show on earth" for good and for bad. I am sort of agnostic about the money factor. It's one of those things that are too deeply ingrained to even think of complaining about. What I do worry about is how money can skew fair play.