mox

I'm not sure how reading works of fiction would really help, but since we are recommending fictional works, may I also recommend Moby #######. It's a real classic Or Fahrenheit 451. Ohhhh! And *anything* by Kurt Vonnegut. I'd say Slaughterhouse 5 is his best work (and much easier and more interesting than Andrew's recommendation) but you can't go wrong with any of his works. The first couple Harry Potters is also good if you're looking for something more modern, but after that they tend to get repetitive and dull. And of course I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the Discworld novels by Terry Pratchett.
(seriously, I wish the best for you OP. There are some here who have some pretty good advice...listen to them. For the others, try not to let their attempts at furthering their own agendas hinder your progress.)

I don't mean to brag, but I filled up my tank with gas this morning. Paid outside with a credit card. Did not have to even interact with a live person. Also availed myself of their free mud-water to clean my windows.

A Firefly fan? Sorry, Firefly is way too exciting for this thread.

Just had an affair with my biographer, lost my job because of it, and now the whole country knows about it. FML.

I am having a good hair day!

I'm sure there's a "...you might be a redneck" joke in here somewhere. Maybe it starts out like, "If you're a medeocre stand-up whose fifteen minutes of fame peaked at least ten years ago..."
American Bible Challenge. Heh. Whaddya wanna bet the best players are gonna be atheists?

Akin's position may not be the "official" position, but neither was there all-out condemnation of his remarks. Some Republicans did come forward, and good on them. Most did not.
And it's entirely possible that by the end of next week, a complete ban on abortions, even in cases of rape, will be the official GOP platform. It's just a short hop from there to Akin's stand on the issue.

Repulsive as this may be, the answer to the post's title is no. Nothing can make Akins look good. Because somebody else is a creep doesn't make Akins any less reprehensible.

In my experience the vast majority of the religious right know very little about what is actually in that book they profess to live their life by! Which could help explain the odd pairing of right wing politics with a pretense of 'christianity'!

Repulsive as this may be, the answer to the post's title is no. Nothing can make Akins look good. Because somebody else is a creep doesn't make Akins any less reprehensible.

Repulsive as this may be, the answer to the post's title is no. Nothing can make Akins look good. Because somebody else is a creep doesn't make Akins any less reprehensible.

That last bit might be a little strong, but

Repulsive as this may be, the answer to the post's title is no. Nothing can make Akins look good. Because somebody else is a creep doesn't make Akins any less reprehensible.

I wouldn't put too much stock into this article. GM, like the rest of the economy, is struggling. Headed towards bankruptcy? Every company whose stock is down is "headed towards bankruptcy." Woodhill's been a huge critic of the bailout for a long time, so of course he's going to see what he wants to see. He picks one example with the Malibu, says the 2013 model isn't as good as the 2012 model, but can only support this because it doesn't beat a couple other cars in gas mileage, and its drivetrain isn't the latest and greatest. Consumer Reports (which gave the 2013 Malibu a favorable rating, although rightly dinged them on fuel economy) says this about the drive train:
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/03/just-in-2013-chevrolet-malibu-eco-video.htmlWould have been nice if Woodhill mentioned that. Woodhill is basically saying the Malibu sucks because it's not some other car he likes. And even if he's right about the Malibu, one car does not determine an entire company's fortunes, especially not one the size of GM.
GM does have an image problem, but then the whole US automobile segment has been struggling with an image problem for years. And they very well could wind up in bankruptcy again, but it won't because Woodhill wishes it. This is nothing more than a shot in the dark, so that if he happens to be right, he can point back to this article and call himself prescient.

I wouldn't put too much stock into this article. GM, like the rest of the economy, is struggling. Headed towards bankruptcy? Every company whose stock is down is "headed towards bankruptcy." Woodhill's been a huge critic of the bailout for a long time, so of course he's going to see what he wants to see. He picks one example with the Malibu, says the 2013 model isn't as good as the 2012 model, but can only support this because it doesn't beat a couple other cars in gas mileage, and its drivetrain isn't the latest and greatest. Consumer Reports (which gave the 2013 Malibu a favorable rating, although rightly dinged them on fuel economy) says this about the drive train:
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/03/just-in-2013-chevrolet-malibu-eco-video.htmlWould have been nice if Woodhill mentioned that. Woodhill is basically saying the Malibu sucks because it's not some other car he likes. And even if he's right about the Malibu, one car does not determine an entire company's fortunes, especially not one the size of GM.
GM does have an image problem, but then the whole US automobile segment has been struggling with an image problem for years. And they very well could wind up in bankruptcy again, but it won't because Woodhill wishes it. This is nothing more than a shot in the dark, so that if he happens to be right, he can point back to this article and call himself prescient.

I wouldn't put too much stock into this article. GM, like the rest of the economy, is struggling. Headed towards bankruptcy? Every company whose stock is down is "headed towards bankruptcy." Woodhill's been a huge critic of the bailout for a long time, so of course he's going to see what he wants to see. He picks one example with the Malibu, says the 2013 model isn't as good as the 2012 model, but can only support this because it doesn't beat a couple other cars in gas mileage, and its drivetrain isn't the latest and greatest. Consumer Reports (which gave the 2013 Malibu a favorable rating, although rightly dinged them on fuel economy) says this about the drive train:
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/03/just-in-2013-chevrolet-malibu-eco-video.htmlWould have been nice if Woodhill mentioned that. Woodhill is basically saying the Malibu sucks because it's not some other car he likes. And even if he's right about the Malibu, one car does not determine an entire company's fortunes, especially not one the size of GM.
GM does have an image problem, but then the whole US automobile segment has been struggling with an image problem for years. And they very well could wind up in bankruptcy again, but it won't because Woodhill wishes it. This is nothing more than a shot in the dark, so that if he happens to be right, he can point back to this article and call himself prescient.

How droll to see people ache to hasten on the demise of the American automotive industry.

I wouldn't put too much stock into this article. GM, like the rest of the economy, is struggling. Headed towards bankruptcy? Every company whose stock is down is "headed towards bankruptcy." Woodhill's been a huge critic of the bailout for a long time, so of course he's going to see what he wants to see. He picks one example with the Malibu, says the 2013 model isn't as good as the 2012 model, but can only support this because it doesn't beat a couple other cars in gas mileage, and its drivetrain isn't the latest and greatest. Consumer Reports (which gave the 2013 Malibu a favorable rating, although rightly dinged them on fuel economy) says this about the drive train:
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/03/just-in-2013-chevrolet-malibu-eco-video.htmlWould have been nice if Woodhill mentioned that. Woodhill is basically saying the Malibu sucks because it's not some other car he likes. And even if he's right about the Malibu, one car does not determine an entire company's fortunes, especially not one the size of GM.
GM does have an image problem, but then the whole US automobile segment has been struggling with an image problem for years. And they very well could wind up in bankruptcy again, but it won't because Woodhill wishes it. This is nothing more than a shot in the dark, so that if he happens to be right, he can point back to this article and call himself prescient.

Not gonna happen. Biden may be prone to the occasional (okay...more than occasional) gaffe, but people like him. He is much more of an asset to the ticket than Hillary would be, and even if there was some reason Obama wanted him gone, or Biden wanted out, it's way too late in the campaign to pull a stunt that has tons of risk and almost no benefits. Even in the remote chance there's a plan in the works to oust Biden, it won't happen until after the election.

I'm completely confounded as to why Ryan gets credit for being some kind of budget guru. Radical slashing in discretionary spending, a Medicare overhaul that doesn't really in until 2050, and tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. Meanwhile, Romney has said he will actually increase the military's budget by $2.1 trillion.
I'm not a big fan of how Obama's managed the economy, but every economist worth their salt has agreed that the only way to fix the deficit is, in addition to cutting spending, increasing revenue. Ryan's plan doesn't do that, and Romney's going to more than offset any savings anyway by adding $2.1T to the military.

Nancy Pelosi isn't running for the White House. And I seriously doubt you'd give her a pass on it if she were.

I'm not so sure VJ is the gold standard for "I win" political punditry, but ok...
Clearly anecdotal evidence (either mine or yours or anyone elses) is just that, and not really anything to hang your hat on. It's times like this I wish I'd bookmark more of the political articles and polls I've seen, because I should have added that a lot of what I've read suggests a lukewarm acceptance for Romney, primarily because of his Mormonism. And that's pretty important because if you look back to 2004, it was the evangelical vote that barely squeaked Bush Jr. back into office. There was a tremendous amount of enthusiasm from evangelicals that year, and it was just barely enough. They are nowhere near as enthusiastic--for whatever reasons--this year, and that's not good at all for the Romney campaign. It's fortunate for Romney that enthusiasm among Democrats is also lower than it was in 2008, but while enthusiasm seems to be building with Democrats, it's not getting any better for Romney.
The Christian demographic I'm talking about here, btw, are people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs and man co-existed together (even rode on the ark together), and that the fossil record is either a test from God, or a trick from Satan. People who believe (this is another goodie I heard at Easter breakfast) that every single thing you see under a microscope is nothing but an optical distortion by Satan. People who believe in an actual, physical lake of fire that sinners will be thrown into until the end of time. And people that attend churches that seat 10,000. Is it really that far-fetched to think that many of them will sit this one out because voting for a cultist would imperil their soul? I think you give them too much credit.
The ding against JFK's Catholicism wasn't that people thought of Catholicism in the same terms as Mormonism at all. The fear was that JFK would be doing the Pope's bidding from the White House. The only parallel I can see, is that it was the first time a non-protestant candidate won the White House. Don't get me wrong, there was (and still is in places) real animosity between Catholics and Protestants in this country, but Catholicism was never seen as a cult by any Christian segment.
That's true in general, but what happens in politics is that voter turnout within a demographic is lower when a candidate doesn't appeal broadly to that demographic. So even if my Easter breakfast anecdote was an isolated incident, he has so far not generated the kind of excitement for the religious right that Bush Jr. did in 2004, or the kind of excitement Obama brought to liberals in 2008. And in a country that's almost evenly split down the middle, not being able to generate excitement means not getting that tiny fraction you need to get over the hump. Ask John Kerry about that. (another candidate seen as out of touch with normal Americans btw)
Possibly. The problem I see (and I have nothing to back this up, so it's just opinion) is that both candidates have established themselves as polar opposites in a pretty unprecedented way. There will certainly be the "I am angry and out of work, so I'm going to take it out on Obama" vote, but I expect it won't even register as a real demographic. I just don't see people crossing party lines like they did back in the Clinton or Bush era. If anything, I see Republicans who feel disenfranchised by the Tea Party sitting it out.
Obama's got a lot more cards than that. Among women voters, Romney's unfavorables continue to go up because the Obama PACs have done a good job of convincing them (with merit, I believe) that Romney is bad for access to reproductive health. Among Latinos, it's immigration reform. Education is a hot ticket item among minorities, but blacks especially. The list goes on. But I do agree that the discussion will turn on the economy.
In any case, I'll keep banging this drum: the electoral college is all that matters. The main electoral vote counter I've been following for the last three elections is http://electoral-vote.com/, an independent site, and the guy has nailed every single election over the last three cycles within a few electoral votes. As it stands right now, Obama wins handily. That's why the Ryan pick unimpressed me so much. Romney needed to take a risk, throw a long pass, and instead he just lateraled. The base liked it, but the base is already going to vote for Romney.

Fair enough, either position is subjective enough there's no exact right or wrong yet on this position.
On Easter Sunday, I was guilted into attending an Easter breakfast with my aunt, a very fundamentalist Christian, and breakfast was served in a very fundamentalist church. We're talking Focus on the Family type stuff. The conversation I heard going on around me went like this: They don't like Obama, not one little tiny bit. However, Romney is a member of a cult. (that word, "cult," was used pervasively.) Not only would it be wrong to vote for Romney, it would be a sin. And not just a sin, but a sin of such magnitude that it would imperil their soul. I kid you not, this was the discussion. And we're not talking about tea with a few crazies. This was a breakfast attended by several hundred fundamentalists, and I heard variations of that discussion over and over.
You're thinking of this in terms of sitting out allowing Obama back in, but that is not the way fundamentalists are seeing this. Not all of them are seeing it this way of course, but many of them see a vote for Romney as a mortal sin.
As for Republicans sitting it out...maybe I should have said "un-energized." If John Kerry had been able to pull voters in 2004 like Obama did in 2008, he'd have won the election by a pretty decent margin. Bush Jr. pulled in a lot of votes on charisma alone. He was the candidate you wanted to have a beer with. Mitt Romney has none of Kerry's charisma. I don't care if you're Democrat or Republican, Romney simply does not have the personality to make up what he's trailing.
But as I've said all along, the only thing that matters is the electoral college. And right now, Romney has to run the table on just about every swing state (plus win two of Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio) to win. That's gonna take a miracle, and I don't believe Paul Ryan can do that.

I seriously doubt they were unprepared. They were prepared for any pick in the top 5, and Ryan was at least top 2.
The more I think about this, the more I think it was the worst possible choice. Romney is too far behind in the electoral race to play it safe, but that's what he did. This choice all but conceded Ohio, and did nothing either way for his chances in two other must-wins, Pennsylvania and Florida. It did nothing to address the few swing voters left, and only appeals to people who would have voted for Romney anyway. Worst of all, it does nothing to energize the segment of the religious right and hardcore Republicans who are inclined to sit this one out rather than vote for a Mormon.
If you're an Obama supporter, today was a good day.

So stupid of him. Zakaria's better than that. One of the few journalists out there that can speak intelligently on the issues, he certainly didn't have to put anyone else's words in his own mouth. So lazy, very disappointing.