Quote Originally Posted by Lager View Post
I just can't buy this hurricane explanation. Seriously. Do we really think that anyone who was going to vote for Romney actually switched because they saw Obama acting presidential? And I noticed the author called republicans "anti-immigration". Shouldn't that be anti "illegal" immigration? Has anyone on Romney's team said they were against people immigrating here legally? That's the kind of misrepresentation that the dems don't have to deal with. They don't even have an immigration plan. No one has asked them to present one. The only fault I find is Romney was totally inept and impotent in countering these claims. And I also think Boehner has done a horrible job. It's not enough to act as a firewall to the liberals, he needs to do a better job of explaining why some of their actions need to be stopped.
While it staggers me, this apparently actually did swing some votes in Ohio and Pennsylvania. It was an internal polling question that was discussed while I was in Ohio last weekend campaigning. Did that alone mean the election? I rather doubt it. But it certainly was a factor: the fawning media delightedly put Obama on display being "bipartisan" and "Presidential," magnanimously walking down streets with houses blown off their foundations. They did everything but photoshop in unicorns and rainbows trailing in Obama's wake.

Nevermind that the FEMA "response" has been an unmitigated failure, because the MSM won't bother reporting that. People, ordinary everyday people, saw news that showed Obama acting concerned and things getting better. It was completely false, but that's what they showed. If you live in Columbus, how do you know that what you're seeing on NBC Nightly News is completely contrived BS? You don't. And the exit polls bear this out: something like 78% of all voters surveyed said that Obama (not FEMA, Obama) was handling the hurricane well. They had no idea that it was yet another completely botched FEMA debacle all over again.