Tag Archives: FOX news

Why Romney Must Win By A Landslide

Romney
Romney (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

If Romney wins, which seems increasingly likely, he must win by a landslide for the security of our nation.

More and more today people believe that the majority of the population agree with them. Call it part of our human capability of rationalization, blame the media echo chambers and liberal bastions of big cities where people can go their whole lives without meeting a single person they disagree with substantively. Whatever the cause, people, especially people on the left or supporting the left, think that they are a significant majority, and that people who don’t think the way they do are backward, ignorant, abusive, small, mean, vulgar, cave men, knuckle dragging, pea-brained, idiots, etc.

Recent polls indicate Romney is ahead by a slim but significant margin, but they also indicate that huge percentages of Obama supporters are absolutely convinced their candidate will win. It’s one thing to be confident, it’s another to be confident in the face of increasing evidence otherwise.

Or perhaps that’s the problem: They aren’t seeing any evidence otherwise because they tend to get their news from sources they agree with (Fox News? Fox News? Fox News?). They don’t know anybody personally who plans to vote for Romney. They never see them on TV except when there’s something odd or stupid to be said about them. There is nothing that intrudes into their consciousness which gives them any inkling of the level of support for Romney or the level antipathy and discontent there is with President Obama.

This spells a bit of trouble.

If you were absolutely convinced your candidate was going to win, and everybody you knew was planning on voting for him, and all you heard on the news and in papers and any other sources of information and infotainment was the idiocy of the challengers supporters and the ubiquity of your own candidates supporters, and then you watched the election returns come in and you saw your candidate lose, there would be hell to pay.

Fraud! You’d charge. You’d take to the streets. The Occupy movement and the Tea Party would be nothing compared to your outrage and that of your friends and neighbors and everybody else who voted for your candidate.

This is why, when Romney wins, he must win by a landslide. It is not enough to say “I’m in a safe state, I’ll stay home because he’s already got our electoral college votes“. No, each and every person must and should vote because, if the election is anything but a landslide, even a victory for Romney will be a hollow one.

The first steps towards undoing the dissension and division the Great Uniter has foisted upon us will have to include those who thought he was the messiah recognizing they are not an insurmountable majority. They’ll have to recognize first that people exist who disagree with them, and then that those people are reasonable people with reasonable goals and reasonable reasons for having supported someone besides their beloved. Only once they realize the world is populated with all kinds of people will they begin to be able to accept they may not have a monopoly on common sense.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Today’s Interesting Stuff: October 23rd, 2009

Burning KnightSexual Shamelessness

Andrew Klavan on PJTV has an excellent video skewering our culture’s libertine sexual shamelessness. Klavan tends to fall on the libertarian side of things, but I have to agree with the gist of his arguments here. After successfully lampooning Letterman and Polansky, showing them for the shameful cad and the predator they are, respectively, Klavan points out the real result of sexual shamelessness:

A world without sexual shame soon becomes a world not, unfortunately, of endless physical pleasure, but of unrestrained predators, victims without recourse, and children without hope or support.

But why read my description? See it for yourself (Caution: this does deal with mature topics and current events and uses some slight innuendo):

Why can’t we have more men in the media spotlight of the caliber of Paul Newman?

Why fool around with hamburger when you have steak at home?

Psychology and an increased understanding of human nature and design supports the fact that the best relationships, sexual or otherwise, always occur when there is the most trust. When there is not an expectation and trust in fidelity, in honest and open communication, in the primacy of this relationship before others in a natural and acceptable order of hierarchy, there cannot be true intimacy.

In other words: the more we know, the more we can trust what we’ve always known.

Experiencing wonderful intimacy inside my marriage with the wonderful and amazing Grace, I can only feel sorry for those who deceive themselves and cheat themselves out of the wonderful possibilities.

ACORNs Still Falling

ACORN claimed the reporting duo who brought the monstrous organization to it’s knees last month would never release the tape from their encounter in Philadelphia. The MSM carried their water, as usual.

And yet. And yet. And yet…

This video was not necessary for the slaying of the ACORN dragon. It was necessary for the further delegitimatizing of the MSM. ACORN is already discredited, defeated, and, short of some miraculous event, dead for all intents and purposes. But the MSM was caught with their pants down, their hands in the cookie jar, and with egg on their face in this video.

In Bill Whittle’s assessment of the original take down, he likened the assault on ACORN to a battle where the scrappy underdog takes out the monolithic giant using feints and parries to draw him into a vulnerable position, and then destroying him.

This latest video is yet another blow to an enemy already weakened and yet too full of it’s own self, too invested in it’s own lies, and too spiteful to recognize their own death knell.

See how the mighty have fallen.

In Other News

Mark Steyn points out that when Rush Limbaugh does not say something racist, he’s a racist and ought to be vilified and and run out of town on a rail, but when Anita Dunn, the President’s Media Czar, says something insane and dangerous to free people everywhere, it’s a non-story.

Rush Limbaugh’s remarks are “divisive”; Anita Dunn’s are entirely normal. But don’t worry, the new Fairness Doctrine will take care of the problem.

Read Limbaugh Bad, Mao Good.

Cal Thomas, in World Magazine writes:

The administration’s primary beef appears to be that Fox is doing the job the broadcast networks and big newspapers should be doing were they not still deeply in the tank for this president and his policies.

Read “Radio Free America”.

Neil Simpson, always a reasoned and reasonable man ready and willing to do verbal ambassadorship with those with illogical or incorrect views, is dealing with a fresh source of readers and their questions (let’s see if he picks up a hint from the choice of words above…):

The moral: Look to the reasons behind the beliefs.  If you have good reason to question the motives of the person in question, that is different.

Read this week’s Roundup.

Wintery Knight, spoiling for a good debate, points out the transcript of Hugh Hewitt’s (the best talk show host, period.) radio debate with Richard Dawkins. The good bits:

HH: Well, you repeatedly use the analogy of a detective at a crime scene throughout The Greatest Show On Earth. But detectives simply can’t dismiss evidence they don’t want to see. There’s a lot of evidence for the miracles, in terms of eyewitness…

RD: No, there isn’t. What there is, is written stories which were written decades after the alleged events were supposed to happen. No historian would take that seriously.

HH: Well, that’s why I’m conflicted, because in your book, you talk about the Latin teacher who is stymied at every turn, and yet Latin teachers routinely rely on things like Tacitus and Pliny, and histories that were written centuries after the events in which they are recording occur.

RD: There’s massive archaeological evidence, there’s massive evidence of all kinds. It’s just not comparable. No…if you talk to any ancient historian of the period, they will agree that it is not good historical evidence.

HH: Oh, that’s simply not true. Dr. Mark Roberts, double PhD and undergraduate at Harvard, has written a very persuasive book upon this. I mean, that’s an astounding statement. Are you unfamiliar with him?

RD: All right, then there may be some, but a very large number of ancient historians would say…

HH: Well, you just said there were none. So there are some that you are choosing not to confront.

RD: You sound like a lawyer.

HH: I am a lawyer.

Read Wintery Knights analysis.