more later

its happy hour

I know this isn’t what the pundits mean by “game-changer,” but there is one grain of truth in that view. For those undecideds, if they haven’t made up their minds yet, what are they waiting for? The facts are out there for all to see, maybe with a little searching. Anyway, for the undecideds, a ‘startling revelation’ of immorality or criminality or documented dishonesty might sway a large group of them, and in this close(?) election they can be decisive. That kind of thing can even cause previous ‘decideds’ to change their minds.

Of course, that wasn’t what any of the pundits expected during a debate. And why anybody needs more than Obama’s dissembling answers to questions about his associates to know that he isn’t being honest, I don’t know.

A true game-changer MIGHT be the situation in Ohio. Justice Stevens seems to have decided that cheating in Ohio is ok. Dishonest votes could swing the state for Obama. Changing the rules in the middle of the game certainly changes the game. But again that isn’t what the pundits are talking about.

I don’t even think a big jump in the DJA would help McCain, because he couldn’t claim credit for it. Another big drop would be blamed on him, though. Go figure. But that would only solidify Obama’s existing support.

We have to depend on the totality of the campaign and the true comparison of McCain vs Obama to bring us victory. You’ve made a good case many times that it will happen.

In all of the above cases, modern day liberalism’s vessel lost because it is anathema to the values and principles of 60%+ Americans and because liberal policies are proven failures, domestically and as weak on defense.

People may not realize what they loose, until it’s lost.

Wife: Who is winning?

GC: Well, the Gamecocks are behind.

We won’t know who was winning until after they win.

I’ve seen a lot of “game changing” moments in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarters that never seemed to change the final outcome. Just because a kickoff is run back for a TD doesn’t mean the game is over–and it means even less if the other team marches right down the field and scores.

Even where a moment changes the game, it is more a function of the better team taking advantage of an error on the other side and running with it–and then only if they keep the tempo up the rest of the game.

Game changing moments are never, ever, ever identified or known during the game–NEVER. Not until the game is over, from the coolness of the studio, far removed from the battle, in retrospect, is a moment annointed–sexy, flashy and “made-for-TV,” a mere highlight.

But it ain’t the whole story, not even close–there are five, ten, a dozen 3rd down conversions left out, any one fails and they might have lost. Long after the game, you can’t point to any one play and say, “That’s where the game was won.” You can’t because it means knowing something that never happened.

What changes a game, what wins: keeping on the attack, taking advantage of the other guy’s mistakes, always advancing.

And right now: You cannot say McCain is not attacking, not taking advantage nor advancing.

whoever Bets on Obama is a ‘Change Gamer’..