“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


Debate take, in tweets

 

20121016-225518.jpg

20121016-225546.jpg

20121016-230224.jpg

 



23 Responses to “Debate take, in tweets”

  1. Philippe says:

    One question: if Romney did such a great job for Massachusetts as he CONSTANTLY reminds us, why the hell are the State’s people turned against him? He’s trailing by a whopping margin and won’t hold the State. Obama needs to hammer his failures as Governor home and expose him. Romney would have us believe he did a great job – more good’ol Republican bullshit.

  2. nic coivert says:

    O BAM A

  3. Sean says:

    Obama definitely won. Romney’s big mistake was trying to repeat with the same strategy. He got way too aggressive with the moderator. That worked well in the first debate because he seemed in charge. Largely b/c the moderator let him get away with too much. Hats off to Crowley, she wouldn’t take any of it from either side. Didn’t know she had it in her. Frankly, Crowley buried Romney tonight, but he deserved it. Obama was on his “A” game. He seemed calm, cool, aggressive in short moments when he needed to be. Loved the moment when Romney tried to deflect the Bush legacy… Obama laughing / talking… “I don’t think so Candy” Romney seemed embarrassed, afraid, defeated. He knew this was his last chance and he blew it. Can’t wait ’till E-Day. I’m crossing the border just to be at a Dem. Victory Party.

  4. Frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib... says:

    Perhaps Obama’s first debate was a rope-a-dope(no pun intended) and in this second debate, the true Obama came to the fore?….
    At any rate, its good news that Obama won this one….

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/16/full-transcript-of-the-second-presidential-debate/

  5. nic coivert says:

    Epstein is the 1 percent, the one percent Mitt looks to help.

  6. WDM says:

    My own amateur analysis: Probably a draw for the first hour with a slight edge to Obama, however, the edge widens when compared to the last debate, which matters. People were reminded of why Obama was such an attractive candidate last time around. Thought the last half hour was all Obama, Romney struggled through most of the questions in the last part of the debate which made the overall debate a clear win for Obama, and again, given the last debate it made the win even bigger.

  7. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Warren,

    I agree. Tea Party be damned. My sense of it is that those who have already been beaten down seem to be willing to give their President another shot. They see him out there fighting for them. They also seem to see light ahead in the tunnel. If I had to call it now, I would say Obama wins but I expect it to be close. What people say they will do in a secret ballot is not necessarily what they actually do with their pencil.

  8. Greg from Calgary says:

    Well, glad to see Obama didn’t get hammered like in the first debate.

  9. dave says:

    I understand that both candidate’s camps ahd to sign an agreement that they take part on only the debates put on by the official debate control group, that seems to be a branch of the Repubs and Demos.
    Next week are debates including Stein(Green), Anderson (Justice), a candidate for the Libertarians, and, possibly a 4th candidate for prez. Obama and Romney will not be inon those debates because they signed the agreement to take part only in the offical debates.
    I notice Stein and her running mate were arrested when they tried to join the audience for last evening’s debate.

    I dunno…we sure lose a lot when we exclude so many ideas and approaches to our collective problems and plans.

  10. J.W. (WB) says:

    In both debates, Romney has acted the patrician, the aristocrat, the English nobleman who looks with disdain and contempt at the peasants below, in this case both of the moderators, and even Obama the POTUS.
    He acted like he thought they should just move out of his way and not impede him. He assumed he had the right to run roughshod over the instructions of the moderators and order them out of his way as you would an obedient servant. He’s been surrounded by nothing but sycophants his whole life and it showed.
    This could be a very dangerous President.

  11. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    J.W. (WB),

    No doubt that Romney does have a patrician streak. However, even disasters make adequate presidents. Ford, Carter, the Bushes. Brilliant presidents rarely live up to expectations. Muddling through is an American truism. Some of the most unprepared turned out to be very good to excellent presidents — Truman, Reagan and Clinton so you never can tell. In the final analysis, the United States is great at surviving its presidents and I doubt Romney would be an exception to the rule.

  12. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    Joe,

    What was it that Eleanor Roosevelt said? About being the most hated woman in America. However, it apparently had very little to do with wealth.

  13. Frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib... says:

    FDR and JFK, even though they were to the manor born, were concerned about the plight of the less fortunate…..perhaps you’ve heard the term “noblesse oblige”?….as well, FDR’s disability gave him more empathy for the common man than he probably would have had…..JFK’s forebears had been discriminated against……”No Irish allowed”…..Also, anyone who knows of Bobby Kennedy(who would have been President) knows he cared deeply about those living in poverty, esp Blacks and Hispanics…..
    Romney strikes me as someone who simply doesnt give a shit…..especially since his “47 percent” comment…..
    I dont want George Bush redux in the Whitehouse…..havent ordinary Americans suffered enough with Presidents that favour “the haves, and the have mores”?….

  14. Sean says:

    The moderator plays a huge role in these debates. Romney appeared tough and in charge in the previous debate, largely because of his interactions with a weak moderator. In this situation, the moderator does have the power to make either candidate look tough or look stupid. She made him look stupid, because she stuck to her guns even when he wanted special treatment. Just like a good sports official, the moderator is not competing, but is definitely part of the game. Just like a good sports official, they deserve to be saluted for a job well done.

  15. Sean says:

    Romney was cut off because he knew he’d blown it in his allotted time and was trying to cheat. What did Romney’s aide, Eric Fehrnstrom think about that?

    “I don’t complain about the refs – I think Candy was dandy.”

    …sounds like a pretty mature response to me.

  16. VH says:

    Joe,

    One of the main reasons why right wingers get little traction in some quarters is that you need to lie all the time about easily disproved facts in order to create a b.s. fantasy world where up is down and black is white.

    Last night I heard Romney say something demonstrably false: “it took the president 14 days before he called the acts in Benghazi an act of terror”. Then I heard Obama say “read the transcriipt”.

    And I did go and read the transcript and lo and behold, it says what Obama says it said.

    Lying to everyone when all the information is publicly available may get the votes of lazy people but that’s not this audience here.

    Your sauce is weak.

Leave a Reply

*