And all of that prosperity preaching ignores Jesus saying that it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to Heaven.

What gets me with the religious right is their absolute HATRED for the poor. How can anybody look at the utter selfishness and toxic Ayn Rand misanthropy of the right-wing and think they are even remotely Christian.

Stephen Colbert nailed it years ago, "...if this is gonna be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition -- and then admit that we just don't want to do it."

According to Chuck Todd, the Romney campaign already believes they are at 271. That Billy Graham endorsement must have put them right over the top.

LOL! You believe Chuck Todd? He is the biggest Republican stooge. He has been trying to sell Romney as ahead for weeks now. Pay attention to Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog at the NY TImes (http://fivethirtyeig...gs.nytimes.com/). Nate called the 2008 down to the a few votes correctly using well done statistical analysis, not the wishful thinking that the Republicans are currently engaged in. Nate currently has the President at 290 electoral college votes to Romney's 247.2, giving the President a 70.3 percentage chance of winning the election. Right now the early voting in Iowa has the President on track to win that state which will help put the final dagger in Romney on election day.

Edited October 23, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

Stephen Colbert nailed it years ago, "...if this is gonna be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we've got to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition -- and then admit that we just don't want to do it."

ICAM. Thanks for sharing that.

LOL! You believe Chuck Todd? He is the biggest Republican stooge.

Come on Ann, do I really come across as one to take Chuck Todd seriously??? I didn't realize he was a Republican though. All I know is he was pushing red and blue around on a digital map one day and soon after he became their political guru. But MSNBC has highly questionable taste in their on air talent anyway. At one point they even had Stephen A. Smith on various shows as a political analyst which is beyond head shaking and laughable. He seems to believable that the louder you are, the more right you are. Now he's back at ESPN which claims to be the worldwide leader in sports but they also seem to be leading the pack and way ahead of MSNBC in their poor taste in on air talent (and I'm being generous with the word "talent" for some of their special personalities).

Anyway, I take Chuck Todd slightly more seriously than I take Stephen A. Smith pretending to have more than a superficial knowledge of football.

It looks like nobody here knew that "Republican stooge" Chuck Todd worked for the 1992 presidential campaign of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). And his wife co-founded a company that "provides direct mail and consulting services for Democratic candidates and progressive causes."

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Chuck_Todd

Edited October 23, 201213 yr by Max

It looks like nobody here knew that "Republican stooge" Chuck Todd worked for the 1992 presidential campaign of Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA). And his wife co-founded a company that "provides direct mail and consulting services for Democratic candidates and progressive causes."

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Chuck_Todd

I don't care whether he's a Republican or not because I honestly never considered his possible party affiliation since neither he nor Andrea Mitchell are blatantly pushing any agendas as the rest of their MSNBC show mates are.

Even so, is it not possible that from 1992 to until now, he could have changed party affiliations, if he was ever affiliated with the Democrats to begin with? 20 years is a life time for some people and one can grow and see things so much more differently in that span of time--even shorter at that.

Also, it's possible for a person to work for a candidate without being affiliated with said candidate's party. He might have just believed in this man's platform.

And as far as the wife goes.....James Carvile and Mary Matalin ring a bell?

I should have said network mates not show mates

I don't care whether he's a Republican or not because I honestly never considered his possible party affiliation since neither he nor Andrea Mitchell are blatantly pushing any agendas as the rest of their MSNBC show mates are.

Even so, is it not possible that from 1992 to until now, he could have changed party affiliations, if he was ever affiliated with the Democrats to begin with? 20 years is a life time for some people and one can grow and see things so much more differently in that span of time--even shorter at that.

Also, it's possible for a person to work for a candidate without being affiliated with said candidate's party. He might have just believed in this man's platform.

And as far as the wife goes.....James Carvile and Mary Matalin ring a bell?

Carville and Matalin are most likely the exception, and not the rule.

If he believed in Harkin's platform, he was certainly a Democrat at the time, since Harkin is most definitely not a DINO.

Perhaps you don't care what Todd's party affiliation is. If that is the case, then why don't you take him seriously? When you responded to Ann's posting calling Todd a Republican stooge, I got the impression that you don't trust him because you think he is a Republican who biased in favor of Mitt Romney. (If that was the wrong impression, I apologize.)

Edited October 23, 201213 yr by Max

Carville and Matalin are most likely the exception, and not the rule.

If he believed in Harkin's platform, he was certainly a Democrat at the time, since Harkin is most definitely not a DINO.

Perhaps you don't care what Todd's party affiliation is. If that is the case, then why don't you take him seriously? When you responded to Ann's posting calling Todd a Republican stooge, I got the impression that you don't trust him because you think he is a Republican who biased in favor of Mitt Romney. (If that was the wrong impression, I apologize.)

Apology accepted.

Right now I may have more of a disdain for Republicans than Democrats based on their public positioning of themselves as the moral compass of this country and I'm by no means implying that there are not individuals within that party who are genuinely compassionate and care about the poor and downtrodden. I'm talking about what key members say publicly. But that's not to be mistaken as my having any great love for the other party. Democrats seem to be publicly more sane than most of the Republicans that generally have control over the microphones--at least that's how I see it.

If you go back and read what I said about Chuck Todd, you'll see that I was questioning his rise based on his ability to light up those red and blue colors on the digital electoral map. Maybe that's unfair of me because that doesn't speak to how smart he actually may be. I've just never been bowled over by any analysis I've heard from him. I feel the same way about how Luke Russert is rising at MSNBC/NBC as if they've got Tim Russert Jr. in the wings,

I can't watch Fox cable news because I find them far less tolerable than the few minutes it takes me before I get annoyed with Lawrence O'Donnell pushing himself as that great writer of "The West Wing" and his endless griping about the evils of Mitt Romney. It doesn't feel like deep hatred...just disgust but Fox is mired in deep hatred. I'm not a fan of either candidate but I don't hate either of them and I don't care to listen to anyone spewing venom at them that feels personal.....disdain for their positions or how phony those politicians are but hating people doesn't make you any better. The only people I admittedly hate are pedophiles.

An African American woman was burned in an alleged KKK attack in Louisiana for wearing an Obama t-shirt. SMH.

An African American woman was burned in an alleged KKK attack in Louisiana for wearing an Obama t-shirt. SMH.

This link says that the reports she was wearing an Obama shirt aren't true and while I have no doubt the people who did this heinous act were bigots, recent history shows that people who like to use the tag "KKK" are rarely members of an organized hate group. Most hate groups prefer to operate under the radar, you know, until they blow something up.

http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1189946

Edited October 23, 201213 yr by marceline

Wales, thank you so much for graciously accepting my apology and for clarifying your feelings about Chuck Todd.

Interesting comments this morning...

I really think, based on his performance last night, that Obama has lost the presidency. All Romney needed to do was hold firm and steady and not do anything to stem the current tide rising in his favor. He did, in fact, remain steady and did not get trapped on any policy issues. He was flat on foreign policy but not clueless; he demonstrated adequate capability, in my opinion.

This debate was Obama's best. He is consistent and steady. While I didn't feel he was overly aggressive, I did think he was overly defensive - but again not adequately defending his economic policies. This is what I believe will cost him the election. Obama is simply unable to defend his record. And it doesn't matter whether you are a Conservative who thinks the stimulus and Obamacare continue to hobble the economy... or if you are a Liberal who feels Obama didn't go far enough with the stimulus and that Obamacare isn't as all-encompassing as it should be - you just aren't satisfied with what Obama has or has not done.

Polls continue to indicate momentum in Romney's favor and nothing in last night's debate will change that. Unless, of course, some huge surprise comes our way and Gloria Allred produces shocking pictures of Romney at a gay orgy or taking a dump on the hood of somebody's car after a drunken binge... You never know. But without dirty tricks from either side... without some ridiculous nonsense from the media... odds are definitely in Romney's favor at this stage.

Brian, I wish I could agree with you, but (with all due respect) I fear that this is wishful thinking (though I hope I am wrong). If the election was held today, I do believe that Romney would win the popular vote (between 0.5% and 1.0%). Unfortunately, Romney seems screwed in the electoral college. If the election was held today, I think the results would look like this (these predictions are not final, as I will revisit this topic right before Election Day):

Obama: Non-Swing States (237)+IA (6)+OH (18)+NH (4)+NV (6)+WI (10)=281 EVs

Romney: Non-Swing States (191)+CO (9)+FL (29)+NC (15)+VA (13)=257 EVs

Also, I suspect there will be an October surprise from "Mother Jones." They were the ones who released the 47% video in September. If that was the worst they had on Romney, it would seem logical to release that video right before the election instead of then. Thus, it seems to be a reasonable assumption that they have something far worse to be released as an October surprise.

There is also the November unemployment report that will be issued the Friday before the election. I anticipate the unemployment rate to continue to go down because retailers are hiring part-time help for the holiday season and because more long-term unemployed will stop being counted as part of the labor force. These continued developments will give the false impression that the economy is experiencing a robust recovery and will be spun as a triumph by the mainstream media.

Edited October 23, 201213 yr by Max

Okay Ann, this article seems to substantiate what Chuck Todd was saying about the Romney campaign's claims:

In recent days, the vibe emanating from Mitt Romney’s campaign has grown downright giddy. Despite a lack of any evident positive momentum over the last week — indeed, in the face of a slight decline from its post-Denver high — the Romney camp is suddenly bursting with talk that it will not only win but win handily. (“We’re going to win,” said one of the former Massachusetts governor’s closest advisers. “Seriously, 305 electoral votes.”)

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romney-says-hes-winning-its-a-bluff.html

An African American woman was burned in an alleged KKK attack in Louisiana for wearing an Obama t-shirt. SMH.

I prefer to wait for an investigation into this. I remember the story of the woman who scratched the "B" in her face and lied about it.

Okay Ann, this article seems to substantiate what Chuck Todd was saying about the Romney campaign's claims:

I totally believed what Todd has been saying, however, what I am saying that he has been pushing this narrative for the last couple weeks only now he is reporting/admitting that it has been coming from the Republicans directly. It is political game playing through the media, but it remains crazy talk. There is no statistically evidence that Romney is close to 270. If anything, the opposite is true.

Edited October 23, 201213 yr by Ann_SS

I totally believed what Todd has been saying, however, what I am saying that he has been pushing this narrative for the last couple weeks only now he is reporting/admitting that it has been coming from the Republicans directly. It is political game playing through the media, but it remains crazy talk. There is no statistically evidence that Romney is close to 270. If anything, the opposite is true.

Let them keep saying it. It'll help keep the iffy Romney supporters home because they think he's doing fine without them and it'll help energize the Obama voters.

I totally believed what Todd has been saying, however, what I am saying that he has been pushing this narrative for the last couple weeks only now he is reporting/admitting that it has been coming from the Republicans directly. It is political game playing through the media, but it remains crazy talk. There is no statistically evidence that Romney is close to 270. If anything, the opposite is true.

I actually got that.....I really did.

Let them keep saying it. It'll help keep the iffy Romney supporters home because they think he's doing fine without them and it'll help energize the Obama voters.

Energize or scare?