Could it be that global warming enviro-radicals are afraid that advances in climate cooling science will hinder their fear mongering? I think so...
There's little room for doubt. As much as it pains me to say it, professional campaigner Mitt Romney won this one. As an honorary member of the "anybody but Mitt" club, I have to say that Mitt did exactly what he needed to do in this debate, which was to look presidential.
Mitt gave smooth, polished answers. He made no mistakes. He lied convincingly about Romneycare (i.e. "nothing" changed for people in Massachusetts who were already insured). Most importantly, Romney looked like someone who could go toe-to-toe with Obama and win.
Having said all that, I wouldn't necessarily say that "Obamney" performed better than everyone else in debate. He won with the inertia of several years of campaigning -- but he didn't say anything particularly powerful, original or inspiring.
Without further ado, the grades...
I'm racking my brain trying to remember: When was Warren Buffett was elected to speak foranyone?
While refusing to put his billions where his mouth is (with a voluntary infusion of his own money to the U.S. Treasury), Buffett has lobbied relentlessly for higher taxes for financially successful Americans, many of whom hold only a tiny fraction of the wealth that Buffett enjoys...
Out of the closet!
Surely David Brooks must know that he confirmed his own idiot status long ago, when he admitted to a pants-leg inspired 'Bromance' with Barack Obama. Now Brooks is openly and explicitly admitting that he's a gullible fool...
Anything to distract from Obama's miserable failures...
The economy is in the latrine, likewise for Obama's approval numbers, so Obama's "Journolist" fanboys at the New York Times have no choice but to change the subject and try to portray the GOP as a radical bunch of Dixiecrat crucaders whose judgement is clouded by tribal superstitions. Hugh Hewitt explains:
Former editor of the New York Times Bill Keller is out with a piece that encourages his colleagues in the Manhattan-Beltway media elite to do their best to stoke the fires of religious intolerance by turning this presidential campaign into the occasion for an inquisition into all of the Republican's religious beliefs... Having just returned from Jerusalem where one thinks a lot about the consequences of religious intolerance, Keller's naked appeal to prejudice is startling to me. Can he not know --really not know-- how his lines of inquiry play out and how they have always preceded the worst sort of religious intolerance?
So the New York Times thinks folks running for high office should answer obnoxious questions about their religious background?
Fair enough!
Let's ask Barack Hussein a few questions. He's an important guy in politics, right? Other conservative bloggers have already come up with a bunch of good questions ― here are mine:
Now the cowards of Team Obama are shifting blame for their own failures to a popular but leaderless grassroots movement that has done everything in its power to avert the ruinous disasters that will ultimately send Team Obama crawling back to Chicago.
The leader of the free world dithers daily while his activist allies in the mainstream press make lame excuses and markets plummet on fears of global economic turmoil.
Yes he can?
I will, to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
