I sort of like Paul Ryan, though he’s not a friend of mine. He’s the kind of guy you keep around to make you feel better about yourself. He pumps you up. Insists you can do things you don’t think you can. I can easily see him over my face at 6am imploring me to get up for a jog. Ryan is earnest. Which, as we know, is important. Earnest people are refreshing.
Now if one is having a surly day Ryan types tend to make one feel worse. Sometimes a dude with 8% body fat doesn’t comport with my not-so-secret impulse to sprawl out on the couch and indulge crap TV with a few unhealthy snacks and the remote near by. On these days choom gang friends are easier to have around.
This tension is an interesting dynamic. Romney and Ryan are going to demand something of us as the Fall campaign unfolds. It may be b.s., a cover so the rich can get richer…whatever. But the R and R campaign will still lead with “We can do it!” Oddly, the hope candidate of 2008 will lead with “Stop those people, they’ve come to loot your house!” Which is a bit funny since they’ve aided and abetted looting for 4 years. Nevertheless, Obama will sell the fear. And often fear works.
Obama’s selling fear but his slogan is the inane non sequitur ”Forward!” (which feels more like warning than a campaign slogan.) It’s clear ‘Hope and Change’ was meaningless but it met the moment. Forward doesn’t suit this moment at all. It implies the country has moved forward in the last 4 years and must continue. Not even die-hard Democrats believe this. If they did they’d be selling Obama’s accomplishments. They aren’t. They’re selling fear of RomneyRyan. This is because…
…Obama has no plan. In the Ryan budget R and R have one for all to see – and it’s a tough sell. It is even scary, but not in a horror movie way. It’s scary because we’re in a scary transition. New Deal assumptions are on the way out. No matter who one thinks should win - entitlement reform is here. Obama will do it. Romney will do it. W was supposed to do it in 2005. We weren’t ready then. We’re close to being ready now. The last generation with true New Deal assumptions is moving into retirement. Generation X assumes Social Security and Medicare as constituted now won’t be around to help them in retirement. Cynicism about those programs is very nearly in our DNA.
RomneyRyan are, at the very least, telling the truth about what’s coming. Obama isn’t and won’t – unless he wins. At which time Obama will “reform” in one way or another. If he wins he’ll probably lead from behind on this too. He’ll let others do the dirty work, sign off on it, then blame those who did the work. Perhaps he’ll suddenly insist his Simpson-Bowles commission had it right all along.
No matter how it plays out we’re in a sea change moment. One that occurs once every 70 to 90 years. American Revolution, Civil War, New Deal… and Now. Lincoln intuited this cycle with the phrase four score and seven years ago.
I’m not happy about harping on the end of the New Deal. Even my cynical Gen X heart knows I grew up in…well…a great society. But that party is over. I know this too.
Win or lose this time, Ryan and many like him represent the next wave. Ryan was picked because he can sell the shift. And Ryan’s almost earnest enough to make me want to get out of bed for a jog.
Related articles
- Why Paul Ryan? (douthat.blogs.nytimes.com)
2008 should have been a “sea change” election. 1932 and 1980 were sea changes where the political tide shifted direction. In 1932 it shifted left. In 1980 it shifted right. The nation was poised to shift left again but Obama ruined it.
He didn’t just fail as president, he ruined the Democratic brand and discredited liberalism.
Wow, one person did all that.
Not just Obama, myiq — plenty of morons helped to thrust him into the presidency & they’re still sitting around pretending (to steal a phrase from John) that he’s giving out hand jobs & chocolate bars while he makes habeas corpus disappear, uses drones to kill US citizens, cuts $700 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare, etc.
Funny, that. It’s kinda like it was his job to grab that leftward shift, redirect it, and then stomp it to death.
Well said, and exactly right, myiq. And, in the interest of giving credit where it’s due – The destruction and havoc brought to us by Barack, was sponsored and facilitated by Pelosi, Reid, Dean, Daschle, the now deceased Teddy K, and a host of other Dem officials who will forever be known for their stunningly sorry judgment. Also playing starring roles in the Mistake of 08 are the Main Stream Media, as well as Donna Brazille and her New Democratic Party. You know the New Dem Party – the one that no longer needs or wants the support of white voters, having replaced the white working class base with corpses and cartoon characters. They don’t donate as much, but they can vote as many times as they want to in any given election.
Everyone who shares in the responsibility for turning the party and this country over to the incompetent, corrupt, narcissistic Obama will long be remembered and ridiculed.
2008 was a sea change election for Democrats. Millions of citizens who defined themselves as Democrats joined the mindset millions of Republicans had demonstrated in following and defending Bush. Now, from what we read on this blog, this year there appear to be Democrats similarly supporting Romney.
What do these three groups have in common? They join a movement that a well reasoning mind can easily tell goes against their best interest. These are movements that attract lower income and middle class Americans who are being hurt by what these movements are achieving. Let’s see, what other times in history has this happened?
What do these three groups have in common? They join a movement that a well reasoning mind can easily tell goes against their best interest.
I would love to know how voting for Obama is in MY best interest? Exactly who has he helped? How has he made America a better place to live and work?
Do I think Romney is the answer? Normally I wouldn’t consider him, but based on the Obama-alternative, he’s the only real choice available.
And, if Romney sucks, well there is someone else in 2016. Keep voting them out and maybe they get the message is a strategy – probably the only real strategy available to the voting public today.
Voting for Obama would not be in your best interest.
That’s my point. Working/Middle Class Democrats who voted for Obama in ’08 voted against their best interest just as working/middle class Republicans who’d voted for Bush voted against theirs. Ditto Democrats who stump for Romney in 2012. If voting for Obama in ’08 went against our interest then voting for Obama in 2012 certainly goes against our best interest as well.
OK, ok. We hear you.
What do you propose as a viable solution (other than voting Third Party in protest)
Ryan’s vibe is less ‘selling a shift’ than telling us what’s going to happen whether we like it or not.
He’s our reality-slap-in-the-face.
I think this is true.
I don’t, however, sort of like Paul Ryan any more than I did Barack Obama. This whole “like” obsession in America, from Facebook and blog likes to Obama’s and now Ryan’s likableness, is American eagerness to be manipulated and conned. We exercised better judgment when likable was the schpiel we got from used car salesmen and we understood they were selling something that someone, who knew the thing better than we, decided they didn’t want any more.
People who are around to make us feel better are very well in a gym but do you really want your trainer restructuring government? Crunching abs is not the same as crunching numbers.
I see your point, Zal. But I won’t give away on a perfectly serviceable word because Facebook ruined it in the past few years. Ryan presents as a type I’ve known throughout my life and they are generally likable. I’ve ended up not liking some of them at all. And annoyance seems to be the kissing cousin of this kind of likability. But “like” is a fine word: simple, easy, and until recently not overused….”love” still ranks #1 for overuse.
Like is a great word and liking is a wonderful feeling; I’m not suggesting you stop using the word.
The reason I didn’t put like in quotes in the first sentence of that paragraph and put “like” in quotes the second sentence was to distinguish between authenticity and this fake feeling of liking that seduction draws in to manipulate. In the midst of the feeling, it can be impossible to distinguish between the two and that’s why it’s so useful to recognize it up front – one can dodge a lot of bullets by knowing the difference between a toy gun and a real one.
I don’t think the problem with “like” is that it’s currently overused; I think the problem is its current misuse.
got it! Makes sense. And one day we need an entire thread on perfectly good words that have been beaten to death or removed without cause. Sometimes I go to uppity just to appreciate for a moment that she may be saving the word “uppity”. I ain’t kidding. It’s a good word.
FWIW, re: Ryan:
“…he is nothing more than someone who Nate Silver documented as the most conservative VP nominee of the 20th and 21st centuries. He is nowhere near the mainstream, even (especially) on non-economic issues. This is a man who worships at the altar of Ayn Rand, gave a thousand dollars to Tom DeLay’s defense fund, and supports fetal personhood (a concept so fringe it was voted down by the people of Mississippi), which would ban certain types of birth control.
In short, Ryan holds the positions of a right-wing extremist who poses a threat to basic American values that have sustained the people of this country for the last 80 years (and the welfare of lower, working and middle class Americans, not to mention the basic rights of women), tucked neatly behind a pleasant looking facade. Don’t believe me? Okay, how about listening to Robert Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who, as reported by Jonathan Cohn in the New Republic, called Ryan’s budget:
“Robin Hood in reverse — on steroids. It would likely produce the largest redistribution of income from the bottom to the top in modern U.S. history and likely increase poverty and inequality more than any other budget in recent times (and possibly in the nation’s history).”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mitchell-bard/pick-of-ryan-for-vp-slot_b_1769932.html
Note the “…tucked neatly behind a pleasant looking facade.” Yes, he comes off as likeable until you know anything about him. I find him as scary as Cheney. I think an R/R admin would be another Bush/Cheney, except probably worse.
And yet the people of his district have elected him seven times.
Hmmmm.
He doesn’t come from some Bible belt stronghold. His district is squeezed in between Milwaukee and the border with Illinois.
Even though his district voted for Obama in 2008 they still gave Ryan 64% of the vote.
They voted for Bush, Obama and Paul Ryan.
Imagine my surprise.
everyone thinks obama is ‘likable’, too, but he poses a threat to “basic American values” like:
- writ of habeas corpus
- protection from illegal search & seizure
- right to fair trial
- due process
- separation of powers.
Last I heard, the VP is not also Minister of Culture or Chair of The Fed. The VP is a glorified lawn jockey.
John, you hit the nail on the head with the earnest meme. Ryan is like so many of the Irish Catholic schoolboys I grew up with, and my own father and first husband.
They are fun to be around, and can get a lot of things done quickly. But they also think they know what’s best for you,and everyone else, despite what you may think is best for you. Eventually, it is wearying, and a bit too controlling.
If anything, Paul Ryan is probably exactly what Mitt Romney needs to get him off first base, it almost seems as if Romney knew that. Whether or not he is what the country needs, remains to be seen.
That is my fear, conner. And, if your description is correct, that kind of condescension and need to control will not appeal to a lot of voters who, otherwise, would have sucked up their distaste for hyper-conservatism and voted for Romney. Women, especially, will not respond well to that patriarchal vibe.
Who do you really want in the WH – a man who lies constantly and stabs you in the back repeatedly. A person who doesn’t care about the facts, has limited knowledge and needs a teleprompter to give a speech even to elementary school students. A person who doesn’t even like the United States of America, wants only to play leaving the work to others and needs constant adoration to support his narcissim.
That’s what I’d have thought a few years ago, or even a year ago. Now I wonder. There are supposedly Democratic woman supporting the Romney ticket despite Romney having given millions and millions to a church that openly and proudly subjugates women. And here comes Paul Ryan.
Can’t help being fascinated by this train reich.
The train wreck started in 2000. The train totally left the track in 2008. If Obama is elected in 2012, their will be a fiery crash, with untold fatalities, and this country will be burned beyond recognition. If R/R get elected, the train may not wreck, but we’ll probably be ready to hurl ourselves from the train, and into the nearest river (or just hurl, period).
Screw the Dems and the Pubs. Neither are worthy of election. Neither command respect. Neither have the combination of intelligence, sensitivity, and gumption required to lead this country where it needs to go. We need Hillary. We need help. We’re screwed.
Zal, thanks for adding that. Good comment, except that I’m not fascinated by it. More like terrified.
I planned to vote for Romney no matter who he picked as VP. I also find Ryan attractive – in the sense that he is bright, substantive, hard-working and just not scary no matter how hard people will paint him to be. I don’t agree with many of his personal beliefs any more than I do with many devout catholics (or really devout people of most religions), but I absolutely agree with his trying to work through the significantly hard choices we must make as a country.
I live in a potential swing state and I absolutely cannot consider the alternative – 4 more years of the joke we have currently as president. I want an adult to be in that position finally – first time since the 90′s. And, as an adult myself, I understand that I’m not going to agree with everything any president does. I didn’t with Clinton either and I worked for the guy. But, I want someone who will show up at work every day ready to work his/her ass off for what they think is best for the country; knows their stuff and is willing to speak to me – their employer – as the adult I am about the challenges and opportunities facing us.
Also, as a woman – and one who is personally liberal with respect to reproductive rights issues and still of child-bearing age – I am absolutely sick to death of people trying to scare me about some big bogeyman who is pro-life. I. DON’T. CARE. ABOUT. THAT. No President in this day and age is going to be able to roll-back reproductive rights; I don’t care who they appoint as judges. If 24 years of conservative control of the executve branch out of the last 32 couldn’t eliminate reproductive privacy rights, another 4-8 is not going to either. As a society, we are too far beyond that. And, certainly no VP is going to be able to affect these rights. So, cut the crap about how Ryan, is pro-life and going to take away my birth-control. You insult both of our intelligence with that argument.
run__dmc,
Am in total agreement with your thoughtful comment. We need adults in the government otherwise our country will be spiraling downward. We could have had an adult named Hillary but she was shafted big time by this current admin. and dem. party.
I am completely mindblown that so many libs, especially women, could bridge such an enormous gap and go from Hillary to Romney/Ryan.
THIS! Exactly, run_DMC. Using simple critical thinking, it doesn’t take much to realize that today most women are completely in charge of their own reproductive freedom and most do it without needing abortions in the first place. I’m glad abortion is legal, but I prefer it the way I do S&M games with my hubby: safe, legal, and RARE. (joke, ftr) Abortions didn’t help women get control of their biological destinies anyway. The market did that, with a plethora of available birth control options.
I, too, want an adult in charge, and Romney is like the conservative version of Clinton to my mind, too. I hate what Clinton did with welfare reform in the moment, but I had to admit later on that he was right. And that it worked. I also didn’t agree with NAFTA, though I still haven’t seen my way back to entirely regretting my disagreement over that. Maybe I will, if Romney and Ryan can create the kind of forward economy that we need since manufacturing has been reduced so much. I was never going to work in a factory anyway.
As someone who has believed for most of my adult life that SS/Medicare were likely not going to survive the boomer glut of elders anyway, I’m excited that someone is finally going to address that issue. I’ll retire in about 30 years, which might be just enough time to build a real retirement via Wall Street IF it is regulated more tightly. I am convinced that the only two ways to build wealth in this America is to start a business (which requires capital I don’t have) or via the stock market. And economic security is my number one concern, and I consider it a feminist concern, too. Screw abortion. I never needed one. I want some WEALTH.
Indeed, mindblown is the word, socal. I just keep shaking my head, not believing I’m seeing this happen with my own eyes.
Even aside from the perversity of a supposed Democrat saying this, Lola you aren’t going to get wealth with a Romney/Ryan administration any more than with Obama. They’re going to take more of what you have to give themselves more wealth. Romney’s history and Ryan’s budget plan have all but spelled it out. You’re not in their club any more than middle class Obamabots are in Obama’s club.
I’m inclined to agree that R/R will not try to alter or limit reproductive freedom.
However, both Romney and Ryan have said in no uncertain terms that they are both pro-life. That fact, alone, is very telling about their views regarding women’s rights in general, and if you don’t think it is, you’re fooling yourself. The issue isn’t just about abortion. The issue is about the right to control one’s body. There is not a more fundamental, personal freedom or right.
If men were the ones having babies, you can be damn sure abortions would be available on demand, at any and every clinic and medical facility. Hell, they’d probably be available at a back room in the local Kroger. Men do not get told WTF they may and may not do with regard to their bodies (well, except in the case of having sex with underage individuals).
That mindset of women being second class citizens is a significant concept in the teaching of conservative churches. The kinds of churches that R and R attend. This mindset should be of great concern to anyone who cares about gender equality.
I will never vote for Obama, but, damn, IMO if Mitt wants the votes of moderate, semi-liberal women, he needs to, at least, support equal rights. In selecting Ryan, he went even more conservative.
This is a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation.
Well said, freespirit.
And in all my years of voting,
<blockquote"This is a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation."
has never been so acutely true.
It’s time we get the hell off the Democratic/Republican caravan and stop being damned.
Whatever. Pro-life does not equate to anti-woman in my book. Hell, I’m pro-life AND pro-abortion rights. I didn’t abort my kid, after all, even though I could’ve, and even though everybody and her father suggested I should at the time. And I don’t regret my choice to keep her at all, not now, not ever, not once in her entire existence.
This what I mean by the self-policing ideology of Democrats. They aren’t real liberals. You don’t need to police anybody if you’re a liberal. You do if your a Democrat. I believe in women’s rights, gay marriage, Civil Rights, human rights, and the social contract but because I’m not bothered by a pro-life point of view, I’m not a real liberal? Get the fuck out. That’s not liberalism. That’s Democraticism. And I’m basically done with it because it’s a stupid, stultifying, ignorance point of view that lacks imagination because it is wholly born of accepting masters. Fuck that noise. I’m free. I’m LIBERAL.
WHAT RUN SAID!
That’s right, Lola.
Either you don’t understand what liberalism is or you’re so steeped in deception and narcissism you think you get to define liberalism any way that suits your personal agenda in any given minute.
A real liberal’s views come from the liberal foundation of liberty and equality. Liberty is each of us having control over our own actions; equality is everybody having the same status, the same access to opportunity and basic needs.
Nothing lives closer to the core of these principles than pro-choice. Being a liberal is not about Lola ever having an abortion, it’s a principled ideology that fights for every human being having the ability to make choices for themselves, and if that doesn’t include the insides of our own bodies it includes nothing.
“Nothing lives closer to the core of these principles than pro-choice.”
Okay, so let me see if I understand this. Pre the legalizing of abortion in 1973, no one could be a real liberal because pro-choice did not exist, correct? My social and economic concerns about equality were something else had I been born before that time, and had the ability to define myself politically. So there were no FDR real Liberal Democrats. And presumably then there were no real liberals until the Democratic Party adopted abortion rights into its national party platform. Some state Dems became real Liberal upon the time they wrote their charters to include abortion rights.
This is a dangerous thought process and gets us nowhere. This is the same type of thinking that Obamacrats used to pillory us with we are not real Liberals because we don’t support Obama.
No you do not understand, fembot.
Liberalism existed long before pro-choice was an issue, long before FDR, long before the United States was established.
Liberalism existing before FDR does not mean it’d have been “dangerous” to say in FDR’s time that opposing Social Security is not a liberal position.
The point I’m making is that it is ridiculous to launch remarks at people that they aren’t REAL Liberals because they don’t share all of your views. Prochoice is NOT a central component of Liberalism. The Dem Party didn’t even contend this until way after 1973. So of course, you could be a Liberal pre-1973. The meaning just changed because one added a new facet of liberalism to it. People are not consistent with their beliefs, but that doesn’t make them a faux liberal — that’s the point. What is dangerous is when a single person or oligarchy gets to define me, a Liberal, based on their new version of liberalism.
That’s true and I didn’t do that.
I said people aren’t real liberals if they don’t support the ideology that the definition of liberalism characterizes. Not my definition, the definition you’ll find in the OED or any standard text that defines political philosophies and ideology.
You’re not a liberal because you say you’re a liberal any more than you’re a hiker because you say you’re a hiker; you’re a liberal because the principles you support and defend comport with those of the definition of liberalism, and to be a hiker you have to actually walk more than a few steps.
In a discussion about pro-choice versus “pro-life,” the liberal position is solidly and without question pro-choice.
Also I’ll add again that it’s very odd that women who supported Hillary in 2008, and presumably would support her if she runs again in 2016, are now shrugging off pro-choice as inconsequential.
Again, I never said it was. You’re twisting my words to suit your argument but I never suggested that from the beginning of liberalism liberals argued in support of pro-choice. That would be idiotic. There’s a big difference between your interpretation that, “Prochoice is NOT a central component of Liberalism” and what I wrote: “Nothing lives closer to the core of these principles than pro-choice.” In context it’s very clear I’m talking about pro-choice as it relates to liberal principles, not an issue specific argument liberals have made the past four hundred years:
“A real liberal’s views come from the liberal foundation of liberty and equality. Liberty is each of us having control over our own actions; equality is everybody having the same status, the same access to opportunity and basic needs.
“Nothing lives closer to the core of these principles than pro-choice.”
Politician should stay out of ‘women’s issues’, except as laws apply to safety and confidentiality. Planned Parenthood used to actually Be for birth control planning, it was a great organization. Now they are a source for taxpayer funded abortions ..There is a limit to how much we can burden the populace beyond the scope of conventional medicine.
If Obama wins, basic, conventional medical treatment will be as rare as the insurance co’s can make it.
He needs to be defeated at all costs, just for Obama Care, even if he wasn’t a crook. That sounded silly, if he wasn’t a crook, we would be stuck with Obamacare in the first place, would
we ?
Sophie could you please tell me what you’re talking about?
You’ve said you were a front line feminist back in the day. How did you go from there to criticizing Planned Parenthood for providing access to abortions for women who otherwise wouldn’t have the means — or as you termed it “taxpayer funded abortions.” How else are women without the resources for an abortion supposed to get them? Do you happen to recall what that means?
How did a liberal feminist come to dismiss the responsibility and the opportunity a society has to assist our vulnerable citizens at critical junctures in their lives?
“Now they are a source for taxpayer funded abortions .”
Can you tell us what percentage of abortions in the US are done by PP? What percentage of PP’s budget goes to abortions?
anyway, wouldn’t that be a good thing? I mean, it’s a lot cheaper to pay for the abortion, than for all the CPS, Head Start, WIC, TANF, etc. later on.
Get some hard figures, go visit a PP. Then get back to us.
uh oh we would not be stuck etc
FYI, John: CBS restored the Solyndra section of the interview after a suspicious PR Firm visited my blog. Details in the update: http://peacocksandlilies.com/2012/08/13/60-minutes-cuts-parts-of-romney-ryan-interview/
I think that all the Ryan pick does is really just solidify the notion that Romney’s campaign will make the economy the critical and driving issue of this election.
I think Romney is hoping that Ryan can get him Wisconsin, and it allows both the Presidential candidate and VP candidate to relentlessly hammer economic issues and the economic failures of Barry’s administration while on the stump.
Having said that though, I’m not sure it really matters.. the Austerity train has left the station and that will more than likely become our new way of life… I guess what it comes down to is are going to people want to tighten their belts knowing that the guy in office is at least trying to give the perception that he knows what he’s doing and will try and fix it… or the guy that says “fuck this… I’m going to go golfing and smoke some choom”
Romney/Ryan are going to sell the BS “American comeback” just as Barry sold the “hope and change”, and they at least look like theyre going to pretend they mean it… they look bizarrely like actors cast to play the president and/or VP on bad tv/movies.. but they look presidential.
Obama looks like he’s going through the motions… he comes off as either cold,detached and academmic,almost professorial (the teachable moment/beer summit of the Professor Gates debacle) or he comes across as arrogant and condescending (you didnt’ build that)… but other than scripted, very controlled and very produced speeches (aka. Obama is going to give the speech of his life tonight about (insert BS cultural issue here)) I just don’t really see Barry as getting worked up emotionally over anything.
Obama is the tragic completion of the thought that began with “Bush seems like the kind of guy I could sit down and have a beer with.” It’s become a cult of personality. I don’t want a President that I can share a beer with, smoke a joint with, talk about 50 Shades of Grey with… he/she doesn’t need to be approachable/likeable.. just competent.
It’s not about personality…it’s about doing the job.
I think Romney/Ryan will sell the idea that they can do the job.
They’ll BS voters into thinking that job is to to shepherd America into a new phase of economic recovery “like how things were in the good old days”… but the job is really to continue to run interference for the banking cartels and corporations that control the two party system.
AMEN on not wanting a President I can sit down and party with- as I commented elsewhere I want a PRESIDENT! If I want to chug a few, I will invite my favorite bloggers over for a bonfire,
Seriously…and if the past is any indication Barry would probably just drink all my beer and intercept all the choom as its getting passed around.
The only other thing he might do is get really stoned/drunk and write some lame ass tone-poem about the experience.
Mom, can I please be invited?
NES- lol- you have an open ended invite! Any time you are here in bitter clinger country stop on by!
John, I hope you don’t mind, but I’m bringing one of my comments from last thread to here in case anyone missed it. Thank you for this site and your insights.
Previous post:
Thanks Tamerlane. Good catch.
Lola-at-large, unless we, the people, truly decide to get rid of the vermin in D.C. and start working together to unseat these jackasses, nothing will change. We have to start somewhere. This is the election to make that stand. There are a lot of people not happy with the status quo. You’re working very hard for Romney, why? What has he ever done for women? What is he going to do for us? What will he do for the country to make it better?
I love your passion, and you are very articulate, it would be nice if you would actually stand by your beliefs and support the woman. You may think Stein was a nutcase in the Trayvon Martin Case, but she’s no Phyllis Schlafly, whom you say you would support and vote for.
Romney is simply the same as what’s in office now. If we want to actually change the system, we need to do so – starting now. Use your passion and voice to help Stein get elected.
And everyone who is truly tired of this horrific situation we’re in, make a stand. And no, I’m not a paid Stein supporter. I just hate both choices the same party with different names is offering us.
First, thanks for the compliment. To begin to answer your question, it’s on this premise that we begin to disagree. I don’t think both parties are filled with monster who want to fiscally rape us.
I think there has been a problem with corruption in Washington for a very long time, but you know who I see actually see addressing that problem? The GOP. The elections of 201o swept a good bunch of the old guard out. It brought in many, many women for the first time, increasing GOP woman numbers for the first time in a while. This makes wave elections much less likely to sweep out a lot of women, and this year, 2012, the Hill stands to increase women from 17% to 20%, mostly on the GOP side. That’s impressive. As hard as they tried, the Dems haven’t increased the actual statistic of women in Congress since the 90s.
Why am I supporting Romney? For the reason I mentioned above. Wealth. I want it, and if we can get this economy to boom again, I can create it. Women in this world, in 2012 right now, only hold 10% of all global wealth. That’s the most pressing issue on the feminist agenda as far as I’m concerned, because the greatest power comes with the accumulation of wealth. If I can attain it, I can change the world with it.
I used to be like many here, knee-jerk in my reaction to wealth, and suspicious of those who had it. As someone who was born dirt poor, I subscribed wholly to Democratic ideology on wealth. I bought their gospel. Now I’m 41, and as I look back, I see clearly that my subscription to those ideas, voluntary as it was, actually helped keep me down. I never saw before how wealth equaled choice, and how much I was always looking to other people to fix problems for me. This recession has taught me something. I CAN do a lot on my own, I DO have it within me to build something remarkable, to be a leader, and to make money with my mind.
I want to create wealth for myself so I can help other women with it. As a young adult, I used to dream that one day I’d be a lawyer or something like that, and that I’d create some sort of housing unit for young single moms so they could go to college without accumulating debt, safe in the knowledge their children would be cared for well. Then I bought into the partisan wars, I bought into so much of the liberal lifestyle, and with my struggles, out went my dreams. They’re now back, with a vengeance. I still want to do that.
I see that that is what Romney does. What do you think he did with his inheritance? he set up a scholarship fund at his alma mater that is means tested. You have to be poor to qualify. He gave poor people a million dollars to educate themselves with. I admire that. I want to DO that, or something like it. I don’t see any opportunity to do that with the Democratic party right now, and I sure as sh!t don’t see it with Jill Stein. I don’t have time to build something new with a third party. I have to go with what I’ve got, and luckily, Romney and Ryan offer me fresh new ideas with an adult perspective, and quite frankly, that’s refreshing to me.
I would have voted for Phyllis Schafly, if I could have voted when I was 8. I would vote for Jill Stein today if she had any shot at winning and offered anything like what I see on the horizon with Romney and Ryan. I don’t, and that’s why I will not get on board with Jill Stein. I do thank you and appreciate your heartfelt attempt to persuade me. I hope I’ve answer your questions to your satisfaction, which is different than to your approval, ftr.
Apologies for the length of this comment, but it was necessary. I wanted to give Senneth the full answer, since he or she was so polite in his or her appeal. That’s kind of rare around here at times.
I don’t mind one bit, Senneth. Many around here are in a process of deciding how to vote. I voted Green last time myself. I’m glad someone is here is making a case for Stein. Lola makes her’s for Romney. I sense an Obama leaner every so often – an open Obama voter would be welcome (though warned! They will get grief I’ve no doubt.) My vote will be entirely tactical this time. And without any passion at all. Since CA is not in question and probably won’t be I’ll vote to “keep a minor party on the CA ballot” which I think means they have to get 2% or something. I want more than 2 choices on the ballot in every election. In the unlikely event that CA gets close – very close – I might think about MR. Then again if CA got close it would indicate a MR landslide in the nation and again, I’d see no reason to vote inside the 2 party headlock. But I’m in CA. My vote doesn’t count unless I make it count. The rules here don’t apply to swing states by and large. A vote for one of the major party candidates really will matter in Ohio and Florida etc.
To Zal above, I was always a feminist, still am, but am also a grownup. As posted here before, liberation means different things to different people. Women have been freed up in countless ways, including unashamedly pursuing whatever path they choose to take regarding birth control. Being one’s own worst enemy, is not liberty, in my view.. With the country circling the drain,prevention is a far superior alternative.
The morning after pill has really changed the landscape as well. As opposed to so many who see this issue only in the abstract, until I retired, I knew how much all this cost, your jaw would drop if you saw the numbers.. Putting that money into education, and community resources so our kids don’t feel so alienated and unloved, would be a far more positive use of public funds.
Being a Catholic and a feminist is not a contradiction in terms in my view. One is personal, the other is political. My skepticism about taxpayer funded abortion is political,and not even remotely personal.
Lola,
I’ve read your last couple of posts and just wanted you to unpack a couple of things for me if you don’t mind… I get it that you’re a Romney supporter and I respect that, but a few things you said just kind of didn’t make sense to me in the overall tone of what your thoughts normally are, so I’m hoping you won’t mind giving it another go:
“If Romney and Ryan can create the kind of forward economy that we need since manufacturing has been reduced so much. I was never going to work in a factory anyway.”
I don’t understand what you’re saying here… are you saying that since you were never going to work in a factory that it’s not a relevant concern to you? I consider manufacturing a pretty significant part of GDP and I would hope that Romney’s economic plan addresses that. From what I saw so far one goal is to retrain american workers for the 21st century as well as granting permanent visas to eligible people with advanced degrees in math, science and engineering.
What about creating incentives for American citizens to obtain advanced degrees in math, science and engineering? Are we going to have to import that knowledge now too?
Judging by the statistics that Romney is showing under the “labor” section, he seems to be anti-labor union too, but he’s still for protecting American workers…just making it the worker’s choice as to whether or not he/she should join a Union…which we just went through with Wisconsin.
So is Mitt Romney’s plan to re-train unemployed workers for employment in technology jobs in America? And if that’s the case are companies going to be penalized/tariffs for sending their technology work overseas to places like India, South America and the Pacific Rim? Because that’s where a huge chunk of these jobs are being sent now, and it’ not because of untrained American workers.
“I am convinced that the only two ways to build wealth in this America is to start a business (which requires capital I don’t have) or via the stock market.”
Can you talk a little bit more about that? It seems kind of limiting…but would Romney’s economic plan allow for people to start small businesses to get wealthy and kick start the economy? Most free market conservatives always seem to say the best way to get America running again is to start a small business…and honestly that always struck me as a bit pithy. Because if one is a free market capitalist then you really can’t interfere with the markets.. so if I want to open up a TV store and can’t compete with Best Buy and Target then I have to just suck it? So I never understood the rationale that small businesses are the way to get the economy going again, but like I said, if you have read somewhere what Romney’s plan to grow American small business can you please let me know? (I’m not being facetious, I can’t find any info… the only things I see so far are cutting taxes, getting rid of labor unions and getting rid of Obamacare as a means to help small businesses).
I’m currently in the process of starting up a small business so I feel your pain on the lackof captial.
In terms of wealth via the stock market, conventional wisdom still says the best thing to do is buy into a 401k with a stable/risk averse growth plan and just sit on it. What are the other Wall Street options?
“economic security is my number one concern, and I consider it a feminist concern, too. Screw abortion. I never needed one. I want some WEALTH.”
Again, like never wanting to work in a factory… does the fact that you never needed an abortion mean that the issue isn’t really relevant to you? Or relevant at all? I just want to make sure I’m hearing what you’re saying. I’m obviously not a woman so I hesitate to put my 2 cents in there… but I don’t think that Roe v Wade will ever be overturned… “pro-life” is more of a religious belief in my opinion. But, saying screw abortion I want WEALTH is a bit harsh no?
Seriously, I just would like to hear a little more of your thoughts on this.
Lola-at-large, thank you for your well-thought out response. Appreciate it. Looks like we’re on a different page. I don’t believe Romney/Ryan will create wealth. Unless we bring back American jobs, i.e. the manufacturing base, there will be no jobs. We have hit peak resources and we’re over populated as a planet. A planet that is finite and has finite resources. With the droughts in our Midwest and around the world, food prices will be going up soon, and lots of other problems await us because of the different weather patterns.
Unless we all think outside the box – which means less consumption and actually talking about the problems facing us – we’re all in trouble. Those problems consist not only of unemployment, but of water scarcity in our Southwest and other parts of this country. Food being raised not having nutritional value because of being genetically modified, and a whole range of other problems neither party addresses.
I can see nothing I say will change the stalwarts among us on this blog to change their minds and many will continue to vote for the status quo. I appreciate Zal and Tamerlane for actually being willing to think outside the box, and pointing me in the right direction.
Thanks for your great blog, John.
Good point Sennneth… A big problem as it pertains to food is that a lot of fertilizer and pesticide is made using petroleum and petroleum byproducts… once we can no longer be a net food importer and grow cheap corn internally, we’ve got another huge problem on our hands.
Anyone who suggests continued infinite growth as the solution to our economic problems is insane. Which makes all of the Uni-Party politicians insane.
For how long do they expect that growth can continue? The world is finite, space is limited — so what’s the deadline? 2050, 2075? Are there plans to colonize other planets?
In truth, we are already overpopulated in this country, and are using up finite resources. The global warming shit is hitting the fan, yet people still stick their heads in the sand.
Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson are the only two presidential candidates who are not insane, because they recognize that infinity is not a solution. While Oroma & Robamny talk of tweaks & fiddles, Stein & Anderson propose big solutions to big problems.
John, here’s a heartening poll for the anti-O crowd:
Much as OFluffer politico.com tries to put the best gloss on the numbers, they seem to spell doom for O. (Mind you, this poll of likely voters was taken before the Ryan pick, so things may change….)
Yikes! Here’s the link that goes with my comment immediately above:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79645.html
If Lola wants to turn Republican, more power to her, I say. It happens as one gets older. And, frankly, the Repubs need more free-thinking, libertarian-ish women. Go for it, Lola. This is not the Republican party of your grandma — it’s the party of Dana Loesch.
I’ll note that Hillary was a Goldwater Girl as a frosh (perhaps even a soph.) at Wellesley, who prominently displayed a copy of “Conscience of a Conservative” in her bookcase.
social, I reject the notion that a Hillary-ite can’t make the transition to Romney-Ryan. (Bill Clinton will… lol.)
FTR, I’ve become more socialist as I age.
Of course anyone can switch philosophies, but that means ** they’ve switched philosophies.**
Saying MR is less of an evil than BO is one thing; saying MR is not actually an evil at all, is a whole other story. To then claim that MR has lots for a liberal to love, is plain horseshit.
Also FTR, libertarian does not equal liberal.
The best thing that could happen to the GOP is for it to fucking drop dead. Start a replacement party on the right — there’s no hope saving that corrupt party of Mammon.
HAHAHA that’s the awesomest response on so many levels.
“FTR, I’ve become more socialist as I age.”
Of course you’d do it backward Tamer!
—————–
“Also FTR, libertarian does not equal liberal.”
Couldn’t agree more. I used “libertarian,” deliberately. It seemed to me that Lola’s cri de coeur was positively Dagny Taggart.
NES, its obviously true that Hillaryites can make the jump, becuz so many have. Whats curious about it, to me, is the reason. If its fury at barkalounger, thats easy to understand, I get wanting revenge. I can see wanting bark out, and an R in, as a strategy to make it easier for a Hillary comeback in 16. What I don’t get is this embracing of the values and platforms of these extreme right wingers. I know people make changes over their life but jeez, its a huge leap to go from being a Hillaryite to a Romney/Ryan fan in 4 short years.
I actually find common cause with the libertarians on defending the Constitution & the rule of law, and in opposing the imperial tyrants bush & obama. The whole Randian worldview is sheer lunacy, though.
The GOP is just as keen on big, omnipotent govt as are the Dems: only surface differences exist on their common desire to oppress & exploit us.
I saw in the Pew typology test that c. 10% of registered Repubs are libertarian in outlook. They should leave the GOP & join the 125,000 registered Libertarians.
Seriously, is there a single person here who believes that Bill and Hillary will vote for Obama? Won’t happen.
You’re missing a vital link here, NES.
As Tam put it so well: Of course anyone can switch philosophies, but that means ** they’ve switched philosophies.**
Being a Hillaryite and refusing to vote for Obama, even voting for Romney in protest or revenge or believing he’s the lesser of two evils is understandable, but claiming to be a liberal and shrugging off pro-choice with, “I’m not bothered by a pro-life point of view” is a whole different story. Hillary Clinton has fought her whole life and worldwide for women to have access to basic choice that enables control of one’s own body and future; to so cavalierly shrug off pro-choice as an inconsequential element of liberalism and women’s equality is a leap that defies any ideological or philosophical position, and makes a mockery of Hillary’s life work. If Lola has changed her philosophy and no longer supports liberty and equality for all, then it makes sense and she has every right to do that, but that’s not what she’s saying. Hillary might not vote for Obama, maybe she’ll even vote for Romney, but she wouldn’t defend an anti-choice, or “pro-life,” position as being liberal or, to her, acceptable.
I’m not pretending I don’t see what Lola’s about; I’m just watching as it gets revealed through her tangled web.
“The elections of 201o swept a good bunch of the old guard out. It brought in many, many women for the first time, increasing GOP woman numbers for the first time in a while. ”
Fantasy.
In 2010, 86% of House incumbents were reelected (77% of Dems, 99% of Gops). In the Senate incumbents batted 23 for 25.
Women candidates comprised only 11% of the GOP field, compared to 22% for the Dems. Although the GOP numbers for women did inch up a point or two, it still sucked twice as bad as the Dems. Female representation in Congress actually went down for the first time in 30 years.
http://trueliberalnexus.wordpress.com/2010/11/10/legends-of-the-mid-terms/