Maybe it is just my subjective impression then, though some of it is based on (also subjective) memories of wotmania. Back then the other party had the White House, and critics were accused of being unpatriotic a lot more both on the site and in general. I can see how a liberal might argue complaints about supporting the government in the form of taxes is unpatriotic, but it is not exactly the preferred approach. My experience has been that liberals are usually more enthusiastic about government assistance than government authority (with a few notable exceptions like gun control, but then, there is a reason I am more moderate on that issue than are most liberals. )


Probably you, me and Cannoli (in no particular order) on word count. ' />

What irks me more than anything is I see no way urging people post LESS of ANYTHING helps the CMB. As with so many other things, the best solution to the problem is for folks to take some initiative. Anyone who dislikes the most common topic of conversation is welcome and encouraged to change the subject, but those already talking will not just shut up and wait for that to happen, if only because the record indicates it would be a long wait.


Well, I am not insensitive to recent sentiment that too many posts were either political, mine or both. The combination of classes, online and otherwise, the holidays and Tebowmania also reduced my posting, but since I am between classes until next week, the holidays are over and Denver (and Houston) are out of the playoffs I have a little more time to get reacquainted with the CMB. Whether that is a good or bad thing remains to be seen; a few political topics caught my eye yesterday, but I hesitate to post threads on them for obvious reasons.

That said, you might find at least one of them interesting; Electoral Vote Predictor had an analysis of why the Votemaster thinks Gingrich broke his earlier pledge not go negative: http://electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Jan10.html

Basically,

1) Romney outspent him 30:1 to come from behind and beat him in IA,
2) Gingrich is incensed at Romney denying all responsibility for attack ads aired by a pro-Romney PAC there and
3) He is friends with a multi-billionaire who financed $5 million in SC anti-Romney ads.

I find that interesting mainly because financing from a guy with $21 billion might allow Gingrich to stay in the race against Romney a lot longer than I expected. If Gingrich can match him dollar for dollar, or even stay close, the result could be titanic and extended primary fight. I still think Romneys party connections will be the difference in the end, but if Gingrich finally forces Romney to veer hard right it could hurt him in the general election.

As far as why Newt is "going there," this ad from him probably covers it best: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/01/09/pious_baloney.html

Then there is a Slate article by the late Christopher Hitchens discussing "Mitt Romney and the weird and sinister beliefs of Mormonism." The man who prided himself on smug satisfied atheism ("antitheism" as he called it) states his case against the scion of Mormon royalty.