Mitt Romney

Tepid Support for VP Pick Paul Ryan, but Room for Improvement

|

Recent polls from USA Today/Gallup and the Washington Post/ABC News and recent coverage of these polls demonstrate tepid support for Republican Vice Presidential nominee and House Rep. Paul Ryan. However, a closer look at these polls suggests the Ryan narrative has not yet solidified.

Among those who have heard of Paul Ryan, slightly more Americans think Ryan is an "only fair" or "poor" Vice Presidential choice, compared to a "pretty good" or "excellent" choice by a margin of 42 to 39 percent. Although this is a slim margin, vice presidential candidates typically enjoy a much wider margin of support. For instance, Sarah Palin enjoyed a +9 point margin, Joe Biden a +14 point margin, and John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, and Dick Cheney enjoyed margins of +36, +25, and +21 respectively.

According to Gallup a clear majority, 58 percent, of Americans has never heard of Paul Ryan. Although John Edwards, Dick Cheney, Jack Kemp, and Al Gore had a great deal more support than Ryan, only about a third of the country had never heard of them. This suggests that both the Romney and Obama campaigns have a clear incentive to take great efforts to shape the initial public perception of Ryan as a means to reposition the presidential debate.

Although Ryan does not carry a spectacular or distinctive amount of support overall compared to other Democratic and Republican Vice Presidential picks, his favorability did increase after the announcement. As the Washington Post/ABC News poll demonstrates, Paul Ryan's margin of favorable-to-unfavorable leapt from -10 percent to positive 6 percent. For Republicans, this margin jumped from +34 to +49. For Independents, the margin shifted from negative to positive, from -9 to +7. In other words, Ryan favorability among Independents doubled. These shifts do not likely result from changing minds, but rather more Americans who had not previously heard of Ryan, passing a positive judgment of him.

While NBC's David Gregory, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities' President Robert Greenstein , and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow condemn Paul Ryan's proposals as "draconian," "radical," or "extreme," others such as Reason's Nick Gillespie and Jesse Walker and the Cato Institute's, Gene Healy have argued Paul Ryan's plans are neither radical nor draconian when put into context. Nevertheless others such as RedState's Erick Erickson and the Wall Street Journal's editorial board applaud Ryan's efforts and audacity to propose concrete solutions to real problems. Over the next few months, these arguments will continue, amplify, and evolve and will likely shape the 2012 presidential narrative.

NEXT: Tepid Support for VP Pick Paul Ryan, but Room for Improvement

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. *Grabs popcorn and awaits another meltdown*

    1. You know, I wasn’t going to vote for either Obama or Romney, but the fact that Romney chose Ryan forces me to vote for Obama. Logically, what else can I do?

      1. Vote for Gary Johnson?

        Remember, a vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson!

        1. I guess that was too subtle.

          1. I couldn’t be too sure. Obama’s getting his votes from somewhere.

          2. I think Paul missed the whole John freaks out thing yesterday.

            the rest of us got it.

            1. I did. I’ve been a bit absent on HR the last couple of days after the Paul Ryan announcement. The whole thing has left me with an overwhelming feeling of ennui.

              I swear to Gaia, you’re gone a few days here, and seven or eight new memes pop up. Who can keep up with this shit?

            2. Wait, there was a John freak-out yesterday? Guess I picked the wrong day to play hooky.

              1. Yeah Reason wrote an article about how Ryan supported TARP. John then said he has no choice other then to vote for Obama.

                Hilarity ensued.

                https://reason.com/blog/2012/08…..port-of-ta

                1. Wow. I was most amused by his false dichotomy of voting or jerking off. Pretty sure most commenters here are coordinated enough to do both.

                  1. Wow. I was most amused by his false dichotomy of voting or jerking off. Pretty sure most commenters here are coordinated enough to do both.

                    At the same time even.

            3. John freaked out? What thread was this?

              1. Oh thanks, nevermind then.

    2. Happy VJ Day everybody! I don’t care if the Reason staff thinks that defeating the most barbaric regime of WWII is RACIST, it is good.

      1. As bad as the Japanese were, I don’t think they topped the Nazis. Heck if we count pre-war deeds, Stalin’s USSR was worse as well

      2. That’s not what they said at all, but nevermind the facts, right?

      3. But the FDR regime wasn’t defeated.

      4. Longtorso said you were dead. I guess not…

  2. I wonder if Paul Ryan prefers deep dish or thin crust pizza.

    1. I don’t think he’s your type, Epi. I mean, maybe he is in private, but in public he’ll denounce you as an amoral terrorist-coddling atheist austeritarian America Hater.

      Also, I don’t care how deep in the closet they are, nobody is gay enough to actually enjoy watching tennis.

      1. Are you saying I’m not the gayest monster since gay went to Gaytown?

        Also, this.

        1. Um, definitely NOT gay. Yummy is more the word that comes to mind.

        2. Are all those pictures of the same woman?

          If not then yes I am a reverse racist.

        3. If you were, Epi, you would have been showing some love for Federer, not Nadal.

          Mmm, Federer.

          I mean, how can you even tolerate those short pants? They must violate your strict fashion sense.

      2. Big difference between watching tennis and watching women play tennis. Kind of like beach volleyball or two girl synchronized swimming. Oh. there’s a score?

    2. I wonder if Paul Ryan prefers deep dish or thin crust pizza.

      So you are saying that I should vote for Obama because Ryan once ate the abomination called “deep dish”?

      /John

      1. Ryan’s eating of deep dish in fact forces you to vote for Obama. You have no other choice.

        1. This is where your usual opposition to TEAM is simply wrong. Deep dish eaters are evil, they will destroy our way of life, and they LIKE reality TV!

          TEAM Thin crust are the salt of the Earth. No matter their positions or actions, they are always right because they like REAL AMERICAN pizza. What is deep dish anyway, some foreign crap?

          First they come for your guns, then they make you eat deep dish. (shudders)

          1. TEAM Thin crust are the salt of the Earth.

            You mean New York style? Yeah sure salt of the earth…

            By the way Papa Murphy’s (really can’t get more salt of the earth then half assed DYI) serves all kinds.

          2. I really have no problem with their baked pizza toppings in a pan. It just can’t be called pizza, because it’s not. I mean, I’ll put pizza toppings on chicken or hamburgers and it’s pretty good, I’m not gonna go around calling it pizza though.

          3. Don’t you mean they want to salt the earth? Because that’s what will happen when Team Thin Crust takes over. Team Deep Dish would NEVER let that happen. Vote Deep Dish today!

    3. Drudge told me has has like 6% body fat.

      He probably does not eat pizza.

      The left is correct…Ryan is a horrible monster.

      1. So, wait… For those of us who missed it, is there a Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of the John freak-out? Is he publishing his side of the story over at NRO or something?

        1. https://reason.com/blog/2012/08…..port-of-ta

          John| 8.13.12 @ 12:17PM |#

          He is clearly worse than Obama. Vote Obama Randian. You gotta go with at least a known evil here.

          Clearly the pledge of allegiance and fucking same sex marriage are much more important issues than whether we go broke or not. And you need to make this decision based on the important things.

          1. You’ve got to have something crazier than that. That’s just a bit of snark.

            1. It’s gone on for hundreds of posts over several days.

              I’m sure it’ll be back on the morning links.

            2. It’s gone on for hundreds of posts over several days.

              I’m sure it’ll be back on the morning links.

        2. It’s not condensed, but read this.

          1. Oh Johnnycakes…

    4. More importantly, does he prefer Kirk, or Picard?

    5. A more important question: boxers or briefs?

      This is apparently how we elect our presidents.

      1. Depends.

  3. Rayn is also squarely in line with the Fundie-Nuts who want to ban pill-based contraception.

    He co-sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life Act, a bill that would define human life as beginning at conception.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics…..d=16994248

    1. I know you are a stupid fucking troll but your first sentence does not follow from your second.

      1. What is so hard to understand for you?

        The Christ-Nut GOP wants to ban abortifacients which include normal birth control pills.

        Ryan co-sponsored the Act.

        1. Doesn’t most (but not all) birth control work by preventing conception? Hence the name “contraception?”

          1. Mostly. The pill hampers ovulation and prevents conception most of the time. Some women still conceive though. In those cases the pill prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining.

            Plan B (the morning after pill) is an intentional abortifacient.

            Nevertheless the government apparatus to police pills would be much larger than Homeland Security.

            1. you do recall in teh debate when this issue came up that Romney, who will be the nominee, basically said that there is nothing wrong with contraception as it is, leave it alone. But let’s pretend the Veep’s far more minority viewpoint, provided he actually holds it, will carry the day.

              1. Romney also recently told Mike Huckabee on his radio show that he supports the Human Life Act.

                Seriously, can you name an issue he has not taken both sides on?

                1. Yeah, I just think Rommey is so clueless he doesn’t realize this is one of those sneaky fundie bills, or that some people will argue the normal, everyday Pill kills babies. But it is, and they do.

            2. Plan B is not an abortifacient Shrike, it has never been shown to be. Only so called “christ-fags” say it is. Are you seriously buying their bullshit?

              1. Shrike doesn’t have to buy their bullshit anymore than I have to buy their bullshit in order to know they will swear up and down that plan B and the regular pill are abortifacients by virtue of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg.

                1. It hasn’t even been shown to do that either. Pretty much the science is “we don’t know.” I don’t know if Paul Ryan has expressed any sentiments about it but Ron Paul who was also a sponsor of the bill said that Plan B would be and should be a perfectly legal contraceptive under his understanding as a doctor.

                  Needless to say, treating a fetus as a person with rights does not require the banning of the pill or plan B which is what he insinuated in his op.

      2. I hope that no one’s first sentence follows from their second!! 🙂

  4. If he’s no longer a Randian, it could be the result of a natural evolutionary process. Rand has been described as a gateway drug to rightwing politics.

    1. That is not true. I read Ayn Rand and admire her and I am no right-wing whackjob like John or Santorum.

      Atheism is a key component of her philosophy.

      1. She thought so, but I don’t see it.

        1. That’s kind of the thing about Objectivism, though. All-encompassing, morally totalizing (to borrow an important distinction from Fluffy earlier), and pretty much defined solely by the woman herself.

          1. Why couldn’t she have just stopped at a defense of capitalism and freedom?

            Tragically, the pseudo intellectual cult of Rand discredits he efforts in those areas.

            1. For the same reason you can’t build a transmission and an engine stop and then call it a car. Libertarianism is that incomplete mess Objectivism is the whole car. And it’s a fucking sweet car just don’t let Lenny Peikoff drive it off a cliff.

              1. Gotta disagree.

                I think any ultimate theory of everything is always wrong.

                1. A is A.

                  Where’s the problem?

    2. And now you’re back to being dumber than John.

      Your fall was as meteoric as your rise. If meteors rose, obviously.

    3. Rand has been described as a gateway drug to rightwing politics.

      Right, because anyone who opposes the central authority of the state is headed straight to Hitlerville.

    4. Well, objectivists aren’t inherently libertarian and libertarians aren’t inherently right-wing. Libertarianism and the free market is the only system that allows far Leftists to voluntarily and peacefully contract and organize themselves into their own communitarian systems without forcing them to accept either corporatism/consumerism and with minimal government interference in their voluntary economic systems. It’s able to do this without forcing individualists to adhere to their community’s values and principles.

      1. Well put.

        Its interesting that there are not more communes. Hippie idealists should have millions living in them by now.

        Instead, 60’s hippies bought single-dweller homes and old Volvos by a 100-1 ratio.

        1. Instead, 60’s hippies bought single-dweller homes and old Volvos by a 100-1 ratio.

          I see you’ve been to Georgetown.

        2. There are plenty of communes that exist. A few are even big and enduring ones like Koinonia Farm, a charming little left-wing Christian community in Georgia I spent a week at in college as an agnostic libertarian. It was founded by Civil Rights leaders and provides housing and education for international refugees, assistance for elderly neighbors in the surrounding communities and sells baked goods and books and takes donations for revenue. Volunteers live or visit there and work in exchange for shelter or food. It was one of few places where I saw the progressive ideals consistently in action without involving the use of force.

          Most small scale communes fail for the same reason large scale communism does – a system that gives all labor equal value will lead to a extreme depreciation of labor quality, especially without either an element of force or threat of exile or expulsion. Hippies and crusty punks in those communities trend towards laziness, letting the foolish and most idealistic to carry the weight of the community. Friendship, idealism and moral relativism make it “not cool” to kick out freeloaders.

      2. Why can’t these communitarian systems be as big as states? They seem to have evolved that way regardless, on every corner of earth. Why shouldn’t people be free to live in a modern form of society? They are certainly free to leave them and try to find something better, but nobody does. Even a small commune will have rules and regulations to prevent chaos. And if they persist, new people will be born into them, necessitating a system of automatic citizenship and assumed acceptance of those rules. Government is only natural.

        1. See, you’re now a Tenther!

          1. Or as big as a planet?

            Seems to me the scope of government should match the scope of need for it. We do have a few global problems.

            1. We aren’t talking about the scope of government. We’re talking about the scope of a voluntary community of people with the same principles that contract with each other without force or compulsion. The notion that state emerged out of democracy is beyond absurd – democracy was an imperfect response to millennia of government brutality, monarchy and exploitation.

              In theory a voluntary community with a collectively agreed upon self-government can organically grow as big as a state or the world, and if everyone involved (not simply a majority) voluntarily agrees with its principles there would be nothing contradicting libertarianism about that. The fact that you can’t distinguish community from state and free choice from democracy demonstrates the inherent flaw in most “progressive” thinking.

              1. How do you account for new people being born? And how do you get anything decided if you need unanimity for everything?

                Once you start applying the simplest practical measures to your system, it quickly begins to resemble the actual world.

                1. If your parents raise you in a voluntary community, you have the same choice as you do if your parents raise you in a specific neighborhood, under a specific set of household rules, or if they send you off to school with certain rules to follow: not much. You do have legal rights that the community and your parents must protect by law, like the right not to be abused or molested. You can leave these communities and their voluntarily agreed upon rules when you become an adult or gain legal emancipation from your parents and then you can move to a community with the complete opposite values and rules.

                  Your false argument is that this self-government is the same thing as moving to a different city in a democratic society where his views match with 50% plus 1. If you’ve become a localist, I suppose that’s progress and just about every libertarian would suport increased localization of government as preferable to centralization, but it’s still not the same as voluntary organization.

        2. Why can’t these communitarian systems be as big as states?

          Because not enough people want to live that way voluntarily. And when it has historically be forced by people like Mao it has resulted in widespread famine and death.

          Why shouldn’t people be free to live in a modern form of society?

          They are, so long as they don’t force other people to submit to some arbitrary authority.

          And if they persist, new people will be born into them, necessitating a system of automatic citizenship and assumed acceptance of those rules.

          Yes, which is why we should write down the rules and limitations of whatever government comes up so we know what they are and people like you can’t distort them to mean something else. Tragically, the Founding Fathers have failed on that account.

          Government is only natural.

          No, it is artificial and inherently parasitic. To quote Rothbard:

          “The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute.”

          1. ASM

            Thanks. I won’t reply to fuck nozzle, but sometimes it’s hard not to.

            You about covered it. Too bad he won’t stop to consider one syllable of your rebuttal.

          2. Because not enough people want to live that way voluntarily.

            Nearly everyone wants to live that way, it would seem.

            They are, so long as they don’t force other people to submit to some arbitrary authority.

            It’s not arbitrary, it’s authority determined by the people in elections. Which is more than you can say for the poor kid born to bad parents. Where is his voluntariness?

            it is artificial and inherently parasitic

            I’d describe capitalism in exactly that way.

            And yes all states have come from a history of conquest. It’s how things have been done. Yet you’re entitled to a society that leaves you completely alone, just because you say so, and you’re not even providing an army for yourself.

            1. a society that leaves you completely alone,
              ——————

              what society would that be because this one seems to want to dictate damn near everything I do, from my dining choices to gas mileage to light bulbs and on and on. No society leaves you “completely alone”; the meaning of society makes that statement an oxymoron. There are differences in the level of freedom that citizens are afforded.

              1. I completely agree. And in social welfare states, freedom is objectively more available than in ones without.

                1. And in social welfare states, freedom is objectively more available than in ones without.

                  North Koreans everywhere agree!

            2. $

            3. Saying a libertarian must be a capitalist is like saying a libertarian must be a libertine. Libertarianism is about maximizing individual choice about how you want to live your life. Government ideally exists only to intervene when those choices conflict and violate the rights of others.

              I don’t defend capitalism or its excesses, and I think most of how it exists currently is purely a function of government. How can you possibly expect a government by the elite to not favor the elite? It always does. The regulatory state is a huge boon to megacorporations, who just buy politicians and loopholes instead of being expected to be responsible for their actions. I think mutual, voluntary communitarianism combined with small scale, competitive and responsible free enterprise is preferable to exploitation and conglomeration, but I’ve long moved beyond believing government can ever create such a system artificially without resulting in more exploitation and conglomeration, and without killing competition, community, individualism and voluntarism.

              1. I don’t defend capitalism or its excesses, and I think most of how it exists currently is purely a function of government.

                Don’t confuse our current system with capitalism. Not even close.

                1. Don’t worry – I don’t. I consider capitalism, corporatism and the free market three very distinct things.

                  Capitalism does not have the subsidization/corruption/regulatory state/market interference of corporatism. But unlike the free market, it still maintains State-created bankruptcy and limited liability legal structures that artificially disconnect business owners from personal responsibility for their business and its finances. Without the regulatory state to offset the moral hazards this causes, the excess risk from capitalism is socialized on victims and taxpayers instead of being privatized through either liability insurance or individual liability by the owners.

            4. It’s not arbitrary, it’s authority determined by the people in elections.

              The idea that 50% + 1 knows what is best for the other 49.9% is very arbitrary, as is the absurd idea that this gives what the state does any legitimacy or moral authority.

              Which is more than you can say for the poor kid born to bad parents. Where is his voluntariness?

              What does that matter? He’ll be free to exchange his labor for whatever he can get and he’ll be free to puruse his own ends as best he can. Plenty of successful people come from poor backgrounds because they don’t ask for pity.

              I’d describe capitalism in exactly that way.

              Lenin and his cronies thought so too when they tried to immediately dismanlte capitalism after the revolution. They discovered that people will always engage in mutually beneficial trade to get what they want no matter how authoritarian the government is. Markets will always exist because they are organic.

              And yes all states have come from a history of conquest. It’s how things have been done.

              Well I guess we shouldn’t try to, you know, learn from our barbaric past then.

            5. Nearly everyone wants to live that way, it would seem.

              If that was true, nearly everyone WOULD live that way. Few people do, even those that extol it’s virtues, because the reality of it sucks.

              It’s not arbitrary, it’s authority determined by the people in elections.

              Which gives them authority over all those that didn’t vote for them how? And when they do something in office that those who voted for them don’t want, how is their authority in that matter NOT arbitrary? Part of not being forced to submit to authority is having the freedom to STOP submitting to that authority.

              I’d describe capitalism in exactly that way.

              Except capitalism is a system of voluntary exchange that comes from people freely deciding to trade with each other. In what way is an emergent system of exchange artificial?

              And yes all states have come from a history of conquest. It’s how things have been done. Yet you’re entitled to a society that leaves you completely alone, just because you say so, and you’re not even providing an army for yourself.

              And now we’ve gone back to your fellation of the state. Because it’s always been done that way, it’s morally right? I didn’t know you were so socially conservative, T o n y. In truth, you don’t give a damn about people’s freedoms, you just want Team Blue to have enough power to make people live the way YOU want them to.

        3. I love how “being free to live in a modern society” = living in a country with a big government that infringes on people’s freedoms

          1. Putting aside the question begging, you’re free not to. Know of any small-government paradises where you’d like to live? Maybe one will even let you in.

            1. there are plenty of places where one can live and live well in relative freedom: Costa Rica is one spot, the Caymans are another, and there are spots in Europe and Asia where the reach of the state only extends so far.

              But I am admittedly spoiled by the creature comforts of the US. I have lived abroad before and would do so again, but probably not permanently.

            2. “Love it or leave it” – wrong when the Republicans said it in 2003, wrong when the Democrats say it today.

              If you believe in your purported values so strongly and are so obviously right, and there are enough like you, why wouldn’t individuals voluntarily recreate your system without government interference? If the Tony collective purchases land, invites all likeminded, responsible people to live under contract within his community and be provided free healthcare and education contractually in return for a cut of each individual’s pay, with all members employed with some division of pay (equal or value-based) by the community, and all individuals agree to the rules of the Tony collective, what about that is contradictory to libertarianism? The individuals can leave whenever they want, or be exiled if they violate the collective rules. If it’s as obviously mutually beneficial as you claim, why does it require force to reach your ideal?

              1. isn’t this, in an admittedly roundabout way, what The Free State Project aimed to do?

                1. I love it when you guys bicker with it and then lecture on the futility of politics.

      3. I would think that objectivists would be libertarian but not necessarily Libertarian.

        1. The Objectivist political program is largely libertarian with improvement to IP and FP.

  5. I wish we could hold an actual horse race to choose the next president.

    1. I just want to see what it’s like to switch horses midstream.

      1. This is not recommended according to these experts

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GozB3INkldI

    2. This kind of horse race?

  6. and will likely shape the 2012 presidential narrative.

    Why not say “will shape” rather then “will likely shape”?

    1. Don’t be mean to Emily Ekins. We want her to keep coming around.

      1. If I was being mean I would have called her an idiot.

  7. In other news, poll respondents will swoon for pretty much any smooth-talking weasel who comes down the pike.

    1. Old Woman: Are you gonna take care of the crime problem here?

      Dennis: Absolutely. I say we put ’em on buses and ship ’em over to Iraq, make ’em fight the terrorists.

      Old Woman: (smiling) You’re very handsome.

    2. I was the first to say Ryan does Obama better then Obama.

  8. if the Maddow wing calls Ryan’s proposals “draconian”, why is my inclination to believe that they are not. Alternatively, of course, the Dems are welcome to put forth their version of entitlement reform. Ron Wyden would be a good place to start. No, wait; Wyden, a loyal liberal from Oregon, co-sponsored Ryan’s bill. Does that make Wyden draconian, too?

    1. Does that make Wyden draconian, too?

      History may prove that in a few years Shrike will be calling Wyden a pragmatic free market capitalist of the Clinton stripe.

      The fact that Team X is quicker to latch onto growing deficits as problem then Team y is more of a coincidence of timing then anything else.

      1. the debt is either a problem that needs to be addressed or it is meaningless. What I see in the last couple of decades is the party bitching about it is the one that lacks the power to actually address it. The growth of the debt is directly tied to the genesis of the tea party so it’s not like regular folks haven’t noticed it.

        One difference here is a plan that purports to address it. The merits or flaw of Ryan’s plan are fair game, but it’s the only one on the table right now.

        1. Romney’s loose “plan” makes the deficit much worse on both the revenue and spending sides.

        2. So if someone put a giant pile of literal horseshit “on the table” that would provide it with some measure of virtue?

          Obama has a budget too, so you’re not telling the truth.

          1. And Obama’s budgets have all been shot down in the Senate and House not just by Republicans, but by Democrats as well. The one you linked to failed 99-0.

            1. Not quite true. The Budget Control Act of 2011 passed Congress and contained spending cuts the GOP wants to renege on now.

              It was a real budget with the force of law behind it. Not a template like others proposed.

              1. A budget control act isn’t a budget. And fuck the Republicans. If they didn’t want the cuts, they shouldn’t have voted for them.

            2. I thought the qualification was “on the table.”

              1. tony,
                when a plan fails to get a single vote, even from your own party, it cannot be considered ‘on the table.’ The lack of support has swept if off the table.

          2. A one year budget with a $0.9 trillion deficit is not “a plan that purports to address [the debt]”.

          3. Obama has a budget too, so you’re not telling the truth.

            A budget that even Harry Reid did not vote for.

            Anyway the Republicans have control of the House and could simply not approve spending they want cut. They have not done that. The fact is Republicans are not serious about balancing the budget.

          4. Obama has a budget too, so you’re not telling the truth.
            ————————

            and not a single Dem will vote for it. That could be a clue.

          5. Obama has a budget too, so you’re not telling the truth

            That’s not a budget. That’s a stack of paper Congress wiped its collective ass with.

            1. To Congress’s credit.

  9. The real room for improvement is in the alt-text department.

  10. Epi, I’m surprised you haven’t said anything about the clear TEAM changes in favorable/unfavorable numbers before/after the announcement.

    1. There’s no need to state the blindingly obvious. Even without that chart, we all knew what would happen.

      No, the deep dish/thin crust question is the truly pertinent question.

      1. quite a step forward from the boxers/briefs question, which was an actual question that took up real space in the media, posed to the governor of Arkansas.

      2. I still don’t know what happened with the chart. I have no idea what it means without alt-text to help me.

        1. Ms. Ekins doesn’t do alt-text.

          But here, I’ll help you:

          HURR DURR TEAM RAH RAH RAH

          1. Ms. Ekins doesn’t do alt-text.

            How is this a defense?

  11. You want unhinged?
    Richard Belzer is going conspiracy unhinged on Piers Morgan.

    1. Belzer looks a lot like Hope Solo.

      1. Wow he changed guests.

        1. So what was Belzer on about anyway?

          1. He wrote a book about conspiracy theories and famous murders. He was going on about RFK assassination theories.

    2. He was pretty good in that thing where he played a quirky detective.

      Seriously, I wonder if he’s set a record for playing the same character on different TV series.

      1. Yep. He’s been John Munch on like, no shit, ten different TV shows.

        Norm and Cliff from Cheers were in like five or six shows.

        1. Seconded–he does have the record. You can look it up on tvtropes. I was just reading about this a day or two ago.

          1. Best LO Crossover: Elizabeth Rodgers (Played by Leslie Hendrix) cameo on Community.

            1. no ampersand! LyO

  12. Yeah, “narrative” they might shape, but the only thing that’s going to decide the election is what voters think about Obama. All you political pundits have an interest in making it look as if other factors matter, but they don’t. In terms of electability, it doesn’t matter one bit who the Republicans nominate for prez or VP. It’s just Obama vs. someone else.

    It’s not always like that, but with Obama in the White House, it is.

    1. I once heard that some men like small boobs. Is this true, or is it just something men say to flat-chested women?

      1. It’s all about proportion.

      2. All boobs are welcome. My favorite pair ever (after my wife’s, of course!) was a small B with nipples the size of thumbnails.

      3. Yes.

        Unless you are a hungry child, more than a mouthful is too much.

        Of course, we are in the minority. A very, very small minority.

        1. Unless you are a hungry child, more than a mouthful is too much.

          Of course, we are in the minority. A very, very small minority.

          Yes. You are correct. Only about 3% of the American population is gay.

          1. Now that just hurts.

            They serve no purpose. They just hang there, their elevation inversely proportional to the age of their owner.

      4. Variety is the spice of life. Translation: I like them all.

      5. I foolishly said “like” when I meant prefer outright. Obviously men like all boobs. Even my 3 year old son is a boob man, and no, I didn’t breastfeed after he was a year (NTTAWWT).

        1. Stu: “Kids!? (singing to self) Back away, not today, Disco Lady!”

      6. Some of us like them very much. They are firmer and don’t dangle. After having to dissect boobs in medical school, and seeing the larger ones were nothing but big piles of fat, smaller breasts have always been my choice.

        Of course, a gymnast/ballet body to go with those small breasts is essential. Small breasts do not work on chubby women with big rears.

  13. Racism, Straight Up From The New York Times

    When Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate, needed something done in China, he often turned to his company’s “chief Beijing representative,” a mysterious businessman named Yang Saixin.
    Mr. Yang arranged meetings for Mr. Adelson with senior Chinese officials; acted as a frontman on several ambitious projects for Mr. Adelson’s company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation; and intervened on the Sands’s behalf with Chinese regulators. Mr. Yang even had his daughter take Mr. Adelson’s wife, Miriam, shopping when she was in Beijing.

    Asians, so inscrutable! What could his motives possibly be?

    1. I’ve heard that every time Mr. Yang enters a room, they play this music followed by a gong.

      1. +run

    1. We know you are a spoof sock-puppet.

      The only question is who…

      Also we have joe back…do we really need your services anymore?

      1. Plus, the screen name is too close to mine and I don’t want people confusing me with you.

  14. re Biden’s Shackles comment.
    The consensus on CNN is that “Biden will be Biden”

    1. That’s funny, I don’t remember there being a similar meme when Dan Quayle was the Veep saying stupid shit…hmmmm….I wonder why that is?

      1. No VP has ever said more stupid shit than Joe Biteme, ever, not in the history of the universe, or even the multiverse.

  15. NY to LA in 46 minutes. But it may kill you.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technol…..-test.html

  16. These are great times we’re livin’ in, bros. We’re like Jolly Green Giants roamin’ the Earth…with GUNS.

  17. Meh, wtf are you doing out here this late AET, I thought you were running for POUTUS?

    I am only here cause wifey is pissed at me, but at least I don’t have to endure her scorn because here niece is here to deflect it.

    Actaully, right now, there is a more interesting article here:

    More shit about Mars

    1. And fuck, I spell checked this GD post twice. Fucking Reason, edit feature already, damn you.

      1. I was going to ask if English was not your second language.

        1. Apparently beer is my 2nd language, and I am way more fluent in it than I am Portuguese which is supposed to be my 2nd langauge. But you should hear my Portuguese when I am drunk, it is way better! Go figure.

          1. Just fuck it already.

    2. Finding shit, an actual turd, on Mars would be a Ziggy Stardust mind-blower to humankind.

  18. 58 percent, of Americans has never heard of Paul Ryan

    Is this a reasonable figure for the completely oblivious in our country? i think so. What may be more clarifying is that 70% of those who *have* heard of him describe him as a “teabagging extremist”. Adding these groups together explains much about our country.

    Oh, that, and the libertarian “OBAMA VOTERS” who fail to genuflect to the right TEAM when required. SPLITTERS!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.