Oct. 20, 2014 By Jack Jodell (in association with Fair and Unbalanced.com – see my Blogroll at lower right)
Happy start of the week to you, readers! Today, we’ll begin this week with a new doubleheader from our podcaster extraordinaire, Mr. Burr Deming of the phenomenal blog Faur and Unbalanced.com. Burr will treat us to podcasts entitled “Joni Ernst and Smoke of Mass Destruction” and “Three Candidates and a Scandal Make an Interesting Campaign”.
In the first podcast, Burr gives us some background on Iowa’s wacky far-right Republican Senate hopeful, Joni Ernst.In my mind, this hopelessly deluded candidate has either been smoking too much from DICK Cheney’s neocon pipe of war, or has been watching way too much Fox “News.” Regardless, she is showing a startling lack of critical thinking. Consequently, Burr tells us, “As buildings smoldered and the dead were counted, policy makers knew who was behind it. The idea that a comic book villain in a cave on the other side of the world could have directed such destruction was hopelessly naive. Osama bin Laden could wait. They had to go after the one who sponsored him, who had to have sponsored him. Saddam Hussein had to pay.
What they possessed in confidence, they lacked in evidence. They knew what they knew, but they couldn’t prove it. America had yo attack Iraq’s dictatorship, but America had to be convinced. The convincing was done with manufactured evidence. They lied because they would not be able to convince us of what they knew was the truth.
It never crossed their minds that they were wrong. Now a candidate for the United Stats Senate has revealed evidence thjat the deception was not a deception at all.
Joni Ernst (R-IA), has revealed new intelligence, unknown to ordinary citizens.
You have simply got to hear it.” Podcast link: http://fairandunbalanced.podomatic.com/entry/2014-10-17T17_13_36-07_00.
In this second podcast, Burr tells us of a Democrat who can’t win; a reactionary, Tea Party-infested Republican who shouldn’t win; and a retired, scandalized moderate Republican who just might win a Senate race. He states, “Most general elections are zero-sum affairs. Winning does not depend on a candidate being liked. Winning depends on a candidate being liked more than the opponent. Sometimes that just means being disliked less.
Negative campaigns produce two negatives. Voters dislike the candidate running negative ads. Voters come pretty close to hating the opponent who is the target of negative ads, All things being equal, the candidate voters dislike wins over the candidate voters hate. A lot of voters hold their noses and vote for the nasty guy who ran the ad they didn’t like yo see.
That can be true of any campaign with two credible candidates. None of the above is not a real option. One of the candidates will win.
In South Dakota, a third choice might just kick over the chessboard.”