"...Everybody's Talkin At Me...I Don't Hear A Word They're Sayin...Must Be The Op/Ed Page..."

Just finished perusing a pretty big chunk of the tidal wave of post game commentary about last night's Biden-Ryan matchup.

Somewhere, ever so slightly visible in the sandstorm of say so, is the pretty obvious consensus that, at least in terms of a winner and/or loser, the match was a draw.

Not that it matters.

Because it really doesn't.

We don't vote for VP.

We vote for P.

And unless it turns out that either Biden or Ryan spent some time helping Jerry Sandusky out in the showers, the election is not going to be swayed one way or the other by one running mate or the other.

That said, it occured to me as I ploughed through the op/eds from both sides of the spectrum, that there is actually a pretty easy way to keep from wasting time reading opinions, editorials and/or manifestos that are, well, a waste of your time.

Here's what you do.

Rather than read the whole piece, simply give it a quick scan. Even just doing that, you should be able to get a reasonable idea as to whether the writer is, for example, pro Obama or pro Romney or whatever.

Now, glance either up or down (depending on where you need to glance) at the "writer info", that is, the little bio information about the writer of the piece you just scanned.

Okay.

If the quick glance tells you, for example, that the writer is pro Obama and you see from a glance that the writer is a Democrat, then reading the whole article is a waste of your time.

For the obvious reason.

Same thing, just as obviously, goes for an article that is pro Romney written by a Republican.

For the same obvious reason.

If, however, you should stumble across the occasional, and startling, shiny nugget in the stream, an article by a writer of either loyalty that seems to be attempting, even if not achieving, a reasonable and balanced look at one or both of the candidates positions, then read that thing from cover to cover and share it with as many friends as humanly possible.

In fact, take it to Kinko's, print up copies and hand them out to everybody you meet between now and election day.

Because that article will be a one in a million, once in a lifetime shining example of journalistic integrity, fair and balanced reporting and a testament to the bright red, white and blue principles of open mind and heart.

Oh...afraid that many copies will bankrupt you?

Not to worry.

Two chances Kinko's will be greeting you anytime soon.

Slim and none.

"...Deep Down, We Want It To Be Complex....But It's Really Not..."

Seems like everybody has had their "morning after" say.

I had to work this morning, though, so here's my "afternoon after" say.

The "experts" are pretty much predictably divided on who "won" the VP debate.

Those who think Romney is the anti-Christ are sure that Biden took it.

Those who think Obama is the anti-Christ are sure that Ryan took it.

At this point, I don't think either Obama or Romney are the anti-Christ and here's what I'm sure of.

Those who think Romney is the anti-Christ still think Romney is the anti-Christ.

Those who think Obama is the anti-Christ still think Obama is the anti-Christ.

And none of the above give a shit  what the "experts" think.

Present company included.

And present company included.

"...Please Support...Oh, Wait, Not You....Our Candidate..."

Old joke.

 

New punchline.

 

Back with both in a moment.

 

 

 

The celebrity vote for Mitt Romney has a potential new member: Lindsay Lohan.

 

The 26-year-old actress revealed her current presidential pick on Thursday at a promotional event for Mr. Pink's Ginseng Drink, E! News reports.

"I just think employment is really important right now," Lohan told press on the red carpet. The issue doesn't appear to be a major issue for the news-making star, seeing that she's appearing in Bret Easton Ellis' "The Canyons," the Lifetime movie "Liz & Dick," as well as "Scary Movie 5."

Nonetheless, her concern means that, at the moment, she's going with "Mitt Romney," Lohan said. "As of now."

If Obama's campaign is disappointed over losing the LiLo vote, however temporary it may be, perhaps they still have time to change her mind. For those who may be surprised by her stance, Lohan explained, "It's a long story."


Old joke.

The definition of mixed feelings is watching your mother-in-law drive off a cliff...

...in your brand new Lexus.

New punchline.

And I suspect some of my hard core Republican friends are writing it just about now.

"...Better Into The Sunset Than Off The Cliff..."

Wednesday night wasn't about the book of politics.

As it was about the book of Ecclesiastes.

It was a rough night for President Barack Obama and Big Bird at the first of three presidential debates. It was even worse for Jim Lehrer.

The 78-year-old moderator, who is executive editor and former anchor of "PBS NewsHour," was torn apart by critics who said he lost control of the debate, held at the University of Denver, as the two candidates talked over him throughout the 90-minute exchange.

The trouble began early, when Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney interrupted Lehrer—moderating his 12th presidential debate—as he tried to change topics.

"I get the last word of this segment," Romney said.

"Romney just ran right over Lehrer," tweeted Dana Loesch, the conservative radio talk show host.

The New York Times' Ashley Parker described it as a steamroll.

Some compared Lehrer, who came out of semiretirement to moderate Wednesday's debate, to NFL replacement officials. Others said he was like a rug or, worse, an empty chair.

"Lehrer has completely lost it," Reuters' Felix Salmon wrote.

"I feel badly for Jim Lehrer tonight," The Washington Post's Ezra Klein tweeted.

It wasn't long before "Poor Jim" began trending on Twitter.

"Regardless of who you think is winning," ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams wrote on Twitter, "Jim Lehrer is losing."

"New drinking game," he added. "When Jim Lehrer is ignored ... DRINK!"

BuzzFeed promptly produced a sizzle reel of Lehrer's pummeling.

Lehrer's "open-ended questions frequently lacked sharpness," Associated Press television critic David Bauder wrote, noting that at one point Lehrer asked Romney, "Would you have a question you'd like to ask the president about what he just said?"

"I wondered if we needed a moderator since we had Mitt Romney," Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said on CNN.

"It's likely that he knew most of his efforts to move the candidates off their talking points were going to fail," USA Today's Robert Bianco wrote. "Which might be why, fairly quickly in, he seemed to give up."

CNN contributor Erick Erickson tweeted: "I think it is safe to say last night was the last debate Jim Lehrer will moderate."

We are taught, from early on, to respect our elders.

As well we should.

But Scripture kicks in here.

"to everything there is a season".

Time to write books and offer life wisdom from a well earned comfortable back seat, Jim.

And let somebody else drive.

"...In For A Penny...."

First, the latest shocking revelation.


NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The big drop in the unemployment rate a month before the presidential election brought cries of disbelief and conspiracy theories from Jack Welch and other critics of the Obama administration Friday. But the Labor Department was quick to dismiss such claims.
  
"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," tweeted Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE, Fortune 500). Welch did not respond to a request for further comment on his tweet. But in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Welch said "I wasn't kidding" about his accusations.

 

The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1% a month earlier. The drop was due to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' survey of households showing that 873,000 more people had jobs than in the previous month. That was the biggest one-month gain in more than nine years.
  
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis criticized the conspiracy theories Friday. 
  
"This is a methodology that's been used for decades. And it is insulting when you hear people just cavalierly say that somehow we're manipulating numbers," Solis told CNN's Richard Quest.


Might as well get it all out in the open.

Barack Obama kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.

Barack Obama planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Barack Obama was on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November, 22, 1963.

Barack Obama killed Jimmy Hoffa and buried him in the Rose Garden.

Barack Obama killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and framed O.J. Simpson for the other crime that put him behind bars.

Barack Obama shot J.R.

Barack Obama impersonated Dr. Conrad Murray and slipped Michael Jackson a fatal dose of Propofol.

Barack Obama is actually Bruce Wayne who is actually Batman.

And Barack Obama actually fathered that child that made Maria Shriver kick Arnold Schwarzenegger's ass to the curb.

Honesty is what elections should be about.

Truth will out.

So, there you have it.

Oh, one more.

In the spirit of blunt truth and uncompromised honesty.

Jack Welch and his like minded "critics of the Obama adminstration" are fucking morons.

Truth ain't truth unless it's the whole truth and nothing but.

"...All The World's A Stage...And Both Major Party Standard Bearers Merely Players...."

It has been, at this writing, almost twenty four hours since the beginning of the first presidential debate of 2012.

In this instant news culture, that translates to this:

Almost everything and/or anything new that can be said about the performance of the two candidates has already been said.

So, here's politics in plain english.

The consensus seems to be that Mitt Romney outperformed Barack Obama.

And that Obama's performance was surprisingly lackluster, unfocused and, essentially, disappointing.

As to who "won"?

Awarding of that recognition to either candidate is academic.

Because those who supported Romney going in still support him.

Those who supported Obama going in still support him.

But in a culture that measures almost everything in terms of style as opposed to substance, the inferior performance always inevitably must concede "defeat" to the superior.

And though it was most surely not his intention, Barack Obama proved something last night that has been lurking around the edges of conventional wisdom since at least the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, just waiting for the right time to be accepted into the mainstream.

The art of politics has been forever replaced.

By the art of performance.

And candidates will no longer be required to sell us on their ability to do the job.

But simply their ability to play the part.

"...Not Necessarily An Actual Alternative...But An Incredible Likeness..."

There's, like, a very, like, important issue, like, at play in, like, the current presidential, like, campaign.

It, like, goes like this.

Name your favorite flavor of ice cream.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that your answer is vanilla.

Now, I'm going to ask you why you like vanilla more than any other flavor.

I can't begin to imagine, obviously, what you will say.

But I can predict, with dazzling accuracy, what you will not say.

You will not say it's because you don't like chocolate.

That response would, also obviously, seem silly, even a little stupid, to the both of us.

This flavor fracas forumulated in my frontal lobes the other day as I saw yet another of my Facebook friends/peers/co-horts and/or co-conspirators indicate, with the applicable click of the applicable button. that they "like" Mitt Romney.

Bringing the total of those who, in that context at least, "like" Mitt Romney to a pretty, like, healthy number.

Not being a professional pollster, I couldn't begin to tell you what John or Mary Q. Public are thinking as they determine who they like, why they like or what makes them like whatever it is that they, like, like..

And Joe The Plumber is obviously sitting this year's ballot battle out, so no insight to be found there.

Some of the aformentioned Facebook family, though, are people that I actually know, people that I consider friends, peers, co-horts and/or co-conspirators.

So, there's a case to be made that I might have a reasonably acceptable perspective on where they're coming from in the whole, like, process of liking.

And, in more than just a couple of cases, knowing those particular cases the way I do, I'm willing to predict, with more of that never ending supply of dazzling accuracy, exactly why they like Romney.

Because they don't like Obama.

Despite the admittedly deserved perception that I very much enjoy the sound of my own voice and the rhythm of my own rhetoric, I really do spend a lot of time reading, pondering, studying and, yes, naysayers, listening to what people have to say, what people are thinking, what people are, like, liking.

Frankly, I'd offer that any good writer couldn't be a good writer unless they had a capacity for hearing what's going on around them, given that without that input, their river of material would dry up pretty damn quick.

But, that's a position for another paper.

Can't, and won't speak, for you.

But here's what I'm hearing.

A lot of people who say they like Mitt Romney.

But almost nothing in terms of what they like about him.

Or what they like about, like, what they expect him to do when, and if, elected.

Or, like, what they see as the fundamental, and critically important, differences between what he will bring to that table in the Cabinet Room as opposed to that brought by Obama.

And, like, just for the record, although it's, like, frankly a little wearying to always have to throw in the obligatory disclaimer, here's, like, the obligatory disclaimer.

This piece is not an obvious, nor veiled, thinly or other wise, endorsement of Barack Obama for a second term.

That said, I will say this.

It seems a little silly and stupid that it would seem a little silly and stupid to choose vanilla over chocolate simply because one didn't like chocolate and yet it doesn't seem at all silly or stupid to choose Romney over Obama simply because one doesn't like Obama.

In the course of the aforementioned reading, pondering, studying and, yes, naysayers, listening to what my Facebook friends, family, peers, co-horts and/or co-conspirators are offering up in the way of a rationale for liking Romney, I have yet to read/see or hear a detailed articulation of why they do, in fact, like him, beyond, of course,  the rationale that he, if nothing else, isn't Obama.

Maybe it's just me, but I think "if nothing else" is a pretty weak foundation on which to build a choice for President of The United States.

Meanwhile, I really would welcome, and assuredly praise, any detailed articulation any of my friends, family, peers, etc, would care to pony up.

Working without that, for the time being, I can only fall back to what seems to be the only conclusion my friends, family, peers, co-horts and/or co-conspirators are making available at, like, this time.

With Romney, you're not sure what or when or how or how much or, even if.

With Obama, you pretty much know what.

Like it...

...or not.