Feel free to comment on the RNC and Romney’s speech as he makes it.
I’ll start: The myth that Hispanics are forever Democratic is taking a frontal assault at the RNC right now. I’ve been saying for a while now that the “Emerging Democratic Majority” rests on a weak foundation because it misreads Hispanic voters and Latino culture – which is fundamentally conservative – in direct contradiction to the creative class, currently ascendant in the Democratic Party. Romney will not win a majority of Hispanics this year. But the shift in Hispanic votes is coming. Watch.
Okay – here’s something I never do as it seem redundant on this blog – open thread.
Another myth about Hispanics is that they are monolithic.
“Hispanic” includes Cubans, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, and several other groups.
Those groups do not necessarily like each other.
Genetically “Hispanics” range from Caucasian to Native American to African and various combinations thereof..
Yikes! An open thread! I bet everyone will be their reticent selves.
I reserve the right to state my impressions as an amoral political observor of Romney’s performance tonight. Please direct the moral outrage and historical assessments to the next row. Pass the popcorn.
Got a “poll” from a 202 area code last week. Asked if I were “White” “African American” “White Hispanic” “Hispanic” or “Other”
Guess “White Hispanic” is now a sub demographic, courtesy of George Zimmerman, and “Pacific Islander” is no longer needed. I always say “other” – just for kicks. The polls are pure fallacy. I am sure I am not the only one who fu*ks with them. Because they Fu*ck with us.
I often feel like a “White Martian”.
Those are the standard Census Bureau classifications. “Hispanic” does not count as a race, only an “ethnicity” which can spread across races.
BBL
I love it – Romney’s cheap and will rig up some DIY fix before buying a new product. That’s what I’m talking about in what we need for a President.
And, now – Dirty Harry!
Is Clint Eastwood drunk?
I thought he was funny, but it took a minute to “get” his schtick. It was the geriatric waver of his voice. But his mind is still sharp! Loved the “I can’t do that to myself, Mr. President” laugh line.
OMG, that Clint monologue was crazy genius. And in Romney’s buttoned-up convention too!
He gets the basic point about a democracy: we make fun of our leaders, not revere them.
I don’t know what to make of Clint Eastwood. He’s very old. “We own this country” may have saved the bit.
See a vid of it, JWS, and tell me if you think differently. It was actually funny and so irreverent. Remember, Clint is an icon–he can say “the Emperor has no clothes” and people will believe him. And, he’s Hollywood…who better to call a prop a prop.
History will treat this segment kindly; that’s my prediction.
PS: The obama-empty-chair Twitter account is already up and running.
Ooookay – I guess the elderly grandpa bit is supposed to be endearing, and it kinda was. But I couldn’t help thinking throughout – is this guy really still directing movies??!
Apparently on twitter, a ton of people thought Clint was doing an old Bob Newhart routine. Go figure.
Yes! That’s exactly what it was. (BTW, Ellen often channels Newhart better than actually was). Not sure Eastwood should be doing comedy.
Is Eastwood still doing his hot, young wife, is what I wonder.
Does Clint have Parkinson’s? He was really off.
He’s old mostly. Watching Rubio I am again having this sense that Ryan was a mistake…or not the best choice. Rubio is young and has gravitas. There must be skeletons…
Or maybe, Rubio’s just an obnoxious SOB.
The Dad/Son dynamic with Romney/Ryan is striking.
Agreed
Note New Yorker cover “Bromance” (sorry for endless URL), w/ possibly gay subtexts. I leave it those of you with better feelers than me to turn on these “playful” images. http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/The-New-Yorker-Cover-September-3-2012-Prints_i9083326_.htm?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=NewYorker&utm_content=TNYURAIL&AID=1247905545
Nice. Dems now throwing their supposed support of gays under the bus for the sake of what? Bad jokes?
Why didn’t they do the same cover with Obama and Reggie Love? or Larry Sinclair? Then maybe I wouldn’t find it so offensive.
I find that cover quite funny. And biting as well. Don’t tar and feather that puppy!
Rofl. The cover’s great satire. It’s also a backhanded compliment because it recognizes that there’s discernible chemistry between the two candidates.
I don’t know that it’s hypocritical. The NYer did an equally biting cover, during the ’08 elections, of BO and MO as Muslim terrorists in the Oval Office. I also don’t see it as homophobic — bromance is a pretty straight concept.
It’s all fun and games as long as they’re straight.
With respect to Ryan – I don’t agree. At least, I tend to think Romney is impressed not by surface but by substance. I’m not saying that Rubio is superficial, but he’s been spending a lot of his career vaulting up the political ladder through an amazing public persona, but hasn’t been seen to be a worker bee yet. Ryan has been nose to grindstone without a lot of public fanfare in his career and I bet Romney really warmed to that, and candidates also like to have someone they can see spending 4-8 years side by side with on the ticket. Only human.
true enough.
So far this is the best speech I’ve ever seen Romney give…he ain’t bill clinton…But he’s as big the room tonight.
Agreed. Rubio’s speech was stirring, and the perfect sentimental, overwrought foundation to make Romney’s practical nature shine.
After watching both Ryan and Rubio, I can see why Romney picked Ryan. Ryan’s got the meat and the potatoes, whereas Rubio is mostly gravy.
I agree that Rubio would have been a better choice but there were questions about his status as a naturalized citizen and the inappropriate use of a State credit card (he did repay the state).
I have always enjoyed Clint – saw almost all of his movies but tonight he just seemed off – a bit disappointing.
OMG – a rose every single day by her bedside! I want to be Mitt Romney’s mom.
That was a stunning moment. Women in the crowd where crying. I admit, I teared up.
“OMG – a rose every single day by her bedside! I want to be Mitt Romney’s mom.”
Not me. First of all, a single rose given everyday is meant as a romantic/passionate gesture. My older sis & I were given single roses by guys constantly when we were young and single. Weird to do that with your mom. Why didn’t he just give her a couple dozen roses or other nice flowers? Could it be that he’s cheap? Ann keeps harping on how she has always done her own housework and child rearing, although she is apparently not the strong and healthy type and had 5 boys, while her dear hubbie was stashing millions in Swiss and offshore accounts. (How patriotic!) There was an interesting timeline about Nitt on Mother Jones that also talked about how he insisted on driving his old station wagon while he told his less well off friends that he wish he had a car like theirs. Creepy to be that cheap.
I admit…I screamed with laughter.
Oh no, Mother Jones painted Mitt in an unfavorable light! Stop the Presses!!!
JHC socal – lighten up.
Weird to do that with your mom.
The story Mitt told was that his dad gave his mom a rose every morning by her bedside. The day he died she woke up with no rose there and that’s how she knew – she went out to look for him.
The speech is really good; I hope undecideds listen to it rather than get distorted versions from second-hand sources.
aw man, messed up the end tag
The speech was marginal at best. Maybe effectively manipulative if one is ripe for cheesy melodrama.
This element you commented on, for instance. What the devil does George Romney leaving a rose for his wife every day, and her finding out he’d died because there was no rose there, have to do with how Mitt Romney will address our economy, jobs, Wall Street, energy, foreign policy?
When we need “a chicken in every pot” substance, people swoon over “papa left a rose by mama’s bed.”
Save the rose and the schmaltz; Americans need jobs.
Yes, I see I got the rose thing wrong. As far as lightening up, run, better read your own furious little jabs, and then take your own advice. I was one of the few here last nite that was “light”, & it does make me sad to see so many of my once liberal and once fun & humorous blog friends here turn nasty becuz people like myself, long-tmers here, aren’t drooling over a pair of extreme right wingers and their dog and pony show Or as Uppity so succinctly put it, blow Romney & Ryan. This sappy adoration sounds exactly like how the obama lovers sounded 4 years ago. btw, run, I believe you’ve been around here long enough to remember that this blog used to be titled Liberal Rapture, so it shouldn’t be a shock to anyone that a few of us here still care about liberal values.
What socalannie said.
SoCal – I was saying lighten up about the rose bit. Jeez, your response to a lighthearted moment was so serious and such a downer. I don’t apologize for being fiercely worried about serious issues and commenting accordingly, but even I recognize when something can be treated with just humor and nothing else.
Okay the “job as a mom” bit is really working for me…
I will say – this is what I do like about a # of Republicans – particularly of the Romney ilk. They don’t go around talking about what women want and don’t want and fighting “wars” for them over their sex organs – they just hire them/vote for them/respect their contributions in whatever realm
Dear Gawd, I’m enjoying a GOP acceptance speech….my head is swimming in a soup of cognitive dissonance.
Vote, vote, vote! :p
Uh oh – abortion, marriage, religion – he went there.
I was so impressed that he hadn’t…. oh well.
Major mixed bag tonight. I think I understand why Romney thinks ‘corporations are people’. Because he’s kind of a corporation.
Believed his family stuff and he didn’t weaponize it. Nice.
OD’ing on the Americana material. I don’t think everyone WANTS to start a company. I also think they have a fatal flaw in their fiscal thinking. When the ultra wealthy sit on all the money, there is none for the middle class.
OOPS. He just went to the ‘protect life and the institution of marriage’. Well, he can fuck off on that one.
Oh – I like that! “Obama said he’d heal the planet and stop oceans rising.” “My promise is to help your family.” Nice.
Yes, my favorite part.
Okay – the “my promise is to help you and your family” is the most important moment so far in political terms.
snap
Exactly. Paraphrase: “I won’t over-promise. I will deliver.”
Jay- I think you have a serious misunderstanding of the behavior of the wealthy. “Sit on their money” What does that even mean? They don’t stash milions of $s in safes in their houses! Their $ is what fuels capital invesment – you know – what creates new companies and jobs. ALL wealthy people have their $ primarily at work in investments which is what makes the economy work. Of course middle and other class consumption plays a critical role, but this notion that weathy $ is worthless to anyone but them because they can’t “spend” it is the kind of really uninformed thinking that undergirds current failed Democratic policies.
Ok – now back to listening to someone who’s actually created jobs.
Oh, you’re right. Executive compensation is completely in order with executive contribution in this country and corps aren’t sitting on trillions of dollars and not hiring people. How silly I feel!
US corporations are sitting on $3 trillion in cash. When Bill Clinton played POTUS for a Day, he highlighted that as the big problem.
Also, the rich waste money on overpriced luxury/vanity items, whose sellers waste it on other luxury items, and round and round. In effect, large amounts of wealth are sequestered in a separate, elite economy. There is no trickle-down, much less real investment, of that wealth.
Romneyites can talk abstractly about trickle down but Jay’s concerns are proved with the reality of what’s happened since 2008. Financiers like Romney have made billions of dollars in the past four years while job creation hasn’t even come close to what lower income and middle class need.
The last people in the world who’ll put policies in place that’ll create jobs, or wealth for anybody but those who work in finance, are the Mitt Romneys of America. Mitt Romney is not a businessman, he’s a financier. Jobs are created by business, organizations that operate by selling goods and services. Financiers are concerned with moving assets; they get rich by exploiting tax loopholes and excelling at casino capitalism, not building businesses or creating jobs.
If you’re opposed to same sex marriage and equal opportunity for all women and other evolutions of social advancement, or if you work in finance, it makes perfect sense to make a case for a Romney/Ryan administration. Those people have a candidate who’ll be on their side. But arguing that a Romney/Ryan administration will benefit lower and middle class job creation or the social structure on which the American economy is built is either deceitful or dumb. The evidence is staring us in the face everyday.
Again – investment is not “trickle down.” And, companies may be “sitting” on money beause of the dramatic uncertainty in the economy – although even that $ is invested somewhere. PRobably in emerging markets. That will turn around if Obama’s butt is booted out in Nov.
Still that’s not the same as the behavior of wealthy individuals – all of whom have their $ in investments which expand the economic pie – otherwise they’d be making nothing and they don’t do that.
Jay – whether compensation is fair based on performance is a completely different subject than whether the wealthy “sit on their $.” Which they clearly do not.
Oh – and the “rich waste money on luxury items?” Really? Because no other class of people “wastes” money on cigarettes or lottery tickets or sugary energy drinks or F-150s or Le Bron James nikes? I don’t judge how people spend their $ because it is all part of a vibrant economy. If the rich spend $ on yachts – who do you think builds them or manufactures the parts that go into them? The middle and working class. Who do you think crafts the pieces that go into jewelry or mines the ore or smelts the gold?
Clearly excess happens and not all wealth is deserved, but much of it is gained through seriously hard work. I actually believe you all know this – you know that wealth actually has its place in our economy. I guess it just makes you feel better to share an OWS sensibility.
On what evidence or theory do you base this assertion that, “That will turn around if Obama’s butt is booted out in Nov.”? Or is it just a feeling?
Their investments are expanding their own financial pie; the nation’s economy not so much. Or has the economy been expanding under Obama?
Um, Zal – on the evidence of many numbers of CEOs and heads of trade legs who have said exactly that. All you have to do is a quick search to find any number of business people saying that. And no, not going to do your homework for you.
And, mr ex-Goldman Sachs – as you should know, if the wealthy really “sat on their money” a la keeping it in a box in their basement or some such, we would have no economy to speak of at all, not even the sick one we have now. The reason we are not now Zimbabwe or the Weimar republic is because the wealthy haven’t – yet – literally horded dollars in safes or os gold.
And, seriously – what is it with you and feelings, which you always seem to feel the need to put is italics?? Did you not get held as a baby or something? It’s kinda weird, particularly since you throw it in as a complete non sequitur every other comment.
Trade orgs btw. Not trade legs
Romney didn’t create jobs, he destroyed them, you lyin’ sack.
Oh look! We have a little Obot to play with. Complete with kooky website.
Do tell us what else the EVIL ROMNEY did, little bot…did he eat dog and then boast about it?
Ok, Andy – I’ll bite, since you are making such a cogent, well-documented argument. How exactly am I lying?
Typical tard response I’d expect from a Romneydamadingdong. For the record, NESsie, I didn’t vote for Obama in 2008 and I don’t expect to this time, either. Neither one of these clowns is worth two spits and neither is anyone who cheerleads for either one of them.
Not one damn thing kooky about it, unless you think a collection of mostly liberal Jewish Democrats fed up with Democrati Underground’s hostility to Israel is inherently kooky. If that’s how you feel, seek help.
No, he took a long trip with a dog strapped to the roof of his station wagon and then made excuses for it, you. stinking. hypocrite..
You may not be an empty suit but you damn sure have an empty head.
So you were even too fucked up for DU? That explains your genteel introductory comment. Putz.
Run_dmc, Bain profits by ripping up other companies and laying off workforces. I thought that was common knowledge.
I’ve already done my homework, and it wasn’t looking up what other people think so I can follow them or feel validated. You’re mesmerized by echo and you think it’s your own thought. When I do my homework it’s studying original material, weighing the information myself, doing my own analysis and formulating my own conclusions.
Nobody has suggested they’re literally sitting on their money in the basement. The point is hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars controlled by these super wealthy Americans is not being infused into our economy where it would do the work a capitalist society needs capital to do.
It’s about truthiness, a major element of our society’s degeneration. Since you don’t get my references –which aren’t at all non sequiturs– you’re no doubt unfamiliar with Stephen Colbert’s coinage of this word, so for your convenience here’s Wiki’s definition: “Truthiness is a quality characterizing a “truth” that a person claims to know intuitively “from the gut” or because it “feels right” without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.“
“Jay – whether compensation is fair based on performance is a completely different subject than whether the wealthy “sit on their $.” Which they clearly do not.”
No, it’s one of the primary ways they get ALL OF THE MONEY on which they either sit or pass to others in their club in exchange for even more. There is certainly a correlation there.
Poor fucked up Anthony, projecting again.
Go bag some groceries, Anthony.
Awwww, Poor little Obot Andy got his feelings hurt. Should have thought of that before you busted in here shooting your fool mouth off like a total asshole.
Shorter Anthony: Nana nana na na.
“…so strong that no nation would dare to test it.”
I’m out.
It’s safe to say – and take this for what it’s worth – that is the best speech Mitt Romney has ever given in his life.
I think he did what he had to do tonight. I acknowledge I’m biased because I was going to vote for him anyway, but I think he got the job done.
I can’t think of any Presidential/Vice-Presidential debates I’ve been anticipating more
Me neither.
Stein v. Johnson. I’d buy tickets for that one.
Stein v Johnson? No one even knows who they are. Spending time on green/libertarian is the same kind of fairytalle wishful thinking that gave us Obama in the first place.
Hey Tamerlane + Run et al.: Looks like the 3P vote may hurt Mitt according to lefties: http://www.nationofchange.org/third-party-candidates-may-hurt-romney-key-states-1346427340
Oh yeah – ultimate reliable source there.
I love the fact that he is still obviously besotted with his lovely wife, and has such a beautiful family.. Also loved watching the grandchildren playing with the balloons. The speech was solid and at times, powerful.
I hope that as president, Romney increases funding to NASA. Cuz we’re gonna have to colonize new planets to find room for all the fruit of his loins.
LOL, tamerlane.
Speaking of nasa, it still really bugs me to this day that ob killed the bidget and stopped the humans in space section of nasa. I really don’t know where the logic was in that when america should be trying to excel at math and science over other countries in the world and this was one way we were excelling. So i do hope romney would bring nasa back from the vrink of death.
“Cuz we’re gonna have to colonize new planets to find room for all the fruit of his loins.”
Fell outta my chair laughing at that one, Tamer!
Now, mind you, legend has it that every good and fruitful Mormon male gets his own planet after death. I’ll bet Mitt’s will be gold-plated — Planet Bain.
the thing I like about the Romney-Ryan ticket is that you get the sense that these two will get right down to work…no nonsense and it won’t be the constant “me, me, I, I” that you get with Obama…if anything, R & R are modest, unlike the endless Obama ego…
…also objectively speaking, seriously you cannot compare the breath of experience and accomplishment of Romney to Obama…Romney makes O look like he is an inexperienced, egotistical rookie…O looks like a ‘legend in his own mind’ with nothing to back it up
…finally, for me, one of Romney’s best lines was ” the time has come to turn the page”
ah, poetic justice…that is the line O used against the Clintons…
Yes! I thought of exactly THAT when he said “turn the page.” So satisfying. Remember Romney’s a Boomer (he said that right at the beginning), so he must’ve felt the same stab Hillary felt whenever O said it.
F*ck you, Obama, we’re turning the page on your fairytale presidency.
You people need a music break. This is perfect for this thread:
Big Boss Man would be apropos, too.
I don’t think either side should get cocky about any of the debates. Obama is not Carter. Romney is not Reagan. Obama’s not going to roll for Romney. And he’ll have the media on his side. If MR commits no gaffe, the media will create one. Romney was solid in the GOP debates but not perfect by a long shot. Conversely, Romney has gotten into Obama’s head in a way that McCain never did at all. IF MR can tweak BHO’s ego just right, he’ll become Carter in a flash.
Same goes for the VP debate. I gleaned what Biden’s in is with Ryan this week – talking down the young whippersnapper. Biden’s “gaffes” are sometimes real but often planned. The gay marriage “gaffe” is a myth. It was planned to force Obama out just before 3 huge fundraisers. no operative in their right mind would want a gay marriage “evolution” in august. It was in May to raise money and be forgotten. Also the “chains” gaffe was no gaffe at all. It was purposeful with good reason, Obama needs to run up numbers with his base. Like everyone else I’ve called Biden a moron – it’s fun. But he’s not ALWAYS a moron. And he is Obama’s pit bull.
I wonder if the debates this time are overstated a bit. Unless there’s a huge screw up by either man the camps are set. I’m feel a shit storm of money coming and thats gonna matter. Millions and millions will be spent to influence very few people.
The debates will probably be Obama-Hillary all over again:
Mrs. Cankles, who is the President of Russia? Please spell his complete name, in Cyrillic script. Oops, time’s up!
Senator Owonderful, what moment in this campaign has made you most proud of yourself? No, you don’t have to pick just one. Here, read a phonebook in your dreamy voice. *swoon*
Oh, the media will of course spin the debates to at least a tie, if not an O/B win. I’m looking forward to them for my own enjoyment. I got a great deal of enjoyment out of Biden/Palin – to my mind, Palin wiped the floor with Biden. Against Ryan, Biden won’t make a “gaffe” but Biden is just not very smart, and it will show.
O won’t make a “gaffe” either. What I’m hoping with R/O is that Romney gets under that thin skin of Obama and he does something which shows clearly what an a–hole he is. Something along the lines of “your likeable enough, Hilary.”
Pingback: Didn’t I Tell You? « peacocks and lilies
The Romneys are a lovely family and I’m sure that Mitt Romney is a decent and competent man.
If Ryan wasn’t on the ticket, I’d give Romney a long look.
I won’t vote for Obama, again, so, thank Godess, Jill Stein will appear on the ballot in Ohio.
Well put, Sweet Sue. Colbert had Jon Huntsman on last nite. He boldly disagreed with a lot of the republican agenda, & said that Super Pacs will be the death of democracy. All in all, an intelligent, reasonable, middle of the roader that is not afraid to call it like he sees it. If he had been the candidate, I might have given that a long look, but of course the crackpots can’t have anyone who is normal represent them.
During the primaries Huntsman is the one who caught my eye. Which, of course, meant that he’d never get the nom. Oh well.
You ARE voting for Obama.
I liked huntsman, maybe he will try ro run again in 4 years if ob does win, though i really wish ob won’t win again.
anyone but obama is my saying right now.
Votermom, Lol!
Michael Moore says “Clint Eastwood sounded crazy”. That’s the pot calling the kettle nuts
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/31/michael-moore-on-clint-eastwood-s-delusional-and-detached-from-reality-speech-at-the-republican-national-convention.html
All Eastwood had to do was point to it and say “I have Mr. Obama here with me” and then go on to speak about why he thinks Romney should be POTUS. Maintenance men could’ve unceremoniously dumped the chair into a trash cart and rolled it offstage afterward. Then Moore et al would have nothing to say.
IMO, it was the empty chair that really got under Obama’s skin, as is evident by their immediate tweet-pic of Obama sitting in his chair with a caption saying “This seat is taken”.
Michael Moore says “Clint Eastwood sounded crazy”. That’s the pot calling the kettle nuts
I am so stealing that for a tweet.
Be my guest, votermom.
…as did Roseanne Barr.
omg…… and she didn’t even spell it correctly
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2012/08/clint-eastwood-chair-rnc-hollywood-reacts-eastwooding/1#.UED9GkLFWcY
I prsonally love the empty chair metaphor because when does ob ever do his own job. For instance right now he is just campaigning. He really isn’t in that chair hardly ever. He is the absent president in my opinion.
Yep kanaughty, the absentee President, who phones it in (if that).
I’m thrilled Hollywood and the MSM are dissing Clint’s skit and/or finding it incomprehensible. It’s an indicator that it’ll probably sell in the heartland (swing-votes trove) and in the cowboy-swooning Southwest (another swing-votes trove).
Dems diss an elderly icon at their peril.
Votermom…yes, i can see the media instead saying, ‘but Mr. Wonderful, you do have such a wonderful voice, please sing for us’ …just sing your plans for the next four years…or maybe just a little Motown…can you tell us, what are your favorite tunes, what IS on your playlist?
I liked Clint Eastwood’s set. I’ve talked to a few empty chairs over the years. Even found myself sitting in one once. And I’m so tired of faux-clever rapid fire shallow sound bites, he made my day as he searched for words to say something real. I like old people, I like hearing what they have to say, and think he did great.
Signed!
I did too – having now seen the video. I don’t see how M.Moore thought he sounded crazy. He sounded Republican; that’s not my favourite sound, but he also sounded real, sincere, honest, not pandering (well not much) which is a breath of fresh air – albeit Republican air.
As for the rest of ‘em – those running on both sides of the R/D divide – not for me, not now, not ever.
Romney and his God damned Mormon definition of the institution of marriage, however, can kiss my married gay ass.
Hmm – haven’t ever heard you say that about “Oh, just realized 2 secs ago now I need their money that gays should get married, but I still think it’s a states rights issue.” Obama
That’s because you don’t listen , run-dmc, to anything but echo.
I’ve ripped Obama’s ass seven ways to Sunday over his hypocrisy about same sex marriage, from his insincere support in the 90s as State Senator candidate to his 180 betrayal when running for POTUS in 2008 and purposefully ignoring the impact he could’ve had on Prop 8. I’ve said a thousand times, Obama is a psychopath who doesn’t give a damn about any of us, gay, straight, or in between.
It just happens I see Romney as clearly as I see Obama.
To be frank, I do roll my eyes at most of your posts and scroll past most of them. But, I still don’t believe you express the vehemence against Obama and his sociopathy than you do about someone like Romney who at least is consistent in his religious beliefs.
Nope Run, you’re mistaken on this point. As god is my witness, Zal has been calling out Obama as a sociopath, expressly and impliedly, ever since I’ve run into him here. Whatever one’s view of Zal, he’s definitely an equal-opportunity ______ [fill in the blank]. Pretty much everybody gets judged at one point or another by the same standard, but (to my delight) Obama’s ALWAYS in the dock.
I know some commenters have floated the notion that Zal’s an Obot troll. But, with all due respect to those who have (including AngieNC, whom I really like), it’s a cracked notion. It’s a large part of what makes me shake my head at the troll-hunts that occasionally break out her (which is ironic because Zal also hunts trolls).
Sorry, NES – I have to disagree. I know Zal tries to post things that make it seem like he’s evenhanded, but I find his commentss suspicious in the extreme. I don’t think he’s a troll in the traditional sense of the word. I think he knows that his rants about whomever the Republicans fielded as a candidate would have no credibility in this forum whatsoever if he didn’t throw in anti-Obama diatribes. But – and I admit – I scroll past many of his more sanctimonious comments – he saves much more of his vitriol for Republicans and now Romney.
I don’t particularly care. Let him pursue whatever strategy he wants. But, I’ve seen the same “pox on both their houses” commenters at other blogs where it’s also clear to me that the strategy is to try to gradually sow doubt among groups they consider may be leanding R in the presidential. And I’ll continue to call this out as I see it.
Regarding the subject of Obama and gay marriage – Ted Rall knocked it out of the park.
http://assets.amuniversal.com/0b256f20bf92012fdcfe001dd8b71c47
But, I’ve seen the same “pox on both their houses” commenters at other blogs where it’s also clear to me that the strategy is to try to gradually sow doubt among groups they consider may be leanding R in the presidential. And I’ll continue to call this out as I see it.
Why do you assume people have a strategy? People are here commenting, muddling our way through, trying to figure this thing out, expressing opinions. And you think people are operatives! You’re either really paranoid or you’re the operative. Actually, it’s quite possible–since it’s typical behavior for operatives to assign motives to other people that are really their own. I’ve seen it on a few of the other formerly-PUMA sites. The behavior is also strikingly similar to what I witnessed at DKos. I’m asking: Are you a sleeper winger?
A “pox on both their houses” is the most rational, logical and self-respecting approach to take with this election. Everything else is either emotional, vengeful, calculated, or delusional. Many people might disagree with my statement, but only a winger operative would get all authoritarian and angry AT someone for holding that opinion.
Is that your role–to keep score of how many insults each commenter made against each candidate? Never mind that we had a four year head start on Obama and have pretty much said everything that can be said. Like anyone owes you an accounting for their opinion.
SophieCT says:
August 31, 2012 at 9:27 pm
A “pox on both their houses” is the most rational, logical and self-respecting approach to take with this election
Indeed. Regardless of who gets in , lots more war and lots less safety net are in the cards…
NES is right. Zal has knocked Obama so much that once, a long time ago, I thought he was a conservative and asked him if he was a Log Cabin Republican! He is no obot and he calls bs whenever he sees it. Which in politics is often, lets face it.
I don’t assume everyone has a strategy, Sophie – I assume Zal does.
Uh oh. I took my mother a rose every visit when she was ill, and bought my father designer boxer shorts to cover his diapers while he was on Hospice – being the pervert-daughter that I must be.
Our corporate CPA was a son from a famous Mormon family. Not ONCE did the man ever treat any (openly) GAY-LESBIAN employee with any attitude but acceptance and respect or attempt to impose his “family and religious” views on any of us.
He was kind, had a wonderfully humble demeanor and was fiercely, conservatively protective of our company. He was well-respected by all of us and we all valued his opinions – as he was always available to share his time and expertise with anyone who sought his advice on personal financial matters.
“Mormons” do not frighten me – simply because, in my experience with the son of one of the most respected Mormon families in the world, he wasn’t the least bit “frightened” about ensuring the success of – nor was his Mormon Faith apparently threatened by – a company founded by GAYS AND LESBIANS – with A WOMAN at the top.
I dunno, but the Mormon Faith seems to largely grow its population by “attraction” to the character of its individual members, rather than by promotion of its religious ideology to the masses. If my observation is correct about that, hey, it works for me.
Why Not, I admitted I got the rose story wrong upthread. Sorry if my snark disturbed you. I know many mormon families myself and liked them very much. They were in the same homeschool group as us (secular group – non-religious) and were hardworking and congenial. btw, I took care of my own dad for 5 long years when his alzheimers got bad and his horrible wife ditched him. I didn’t just change his diapers, I had to shower him for two years and sponge bathe him for the last 8 weeks of his life. He died in my home a year and a half ago. My comment was not about not liking grown children looking after their parents, it was directed at the ridiculous “schmaltz” (as zal put it) that these conventions put out with their fake bios about the candidates. Remember all the bs at the dem convention about bark and michelle? Well, I didn’t buy that bs either. You have a snappy sense of humor. Go watch the Daily Show from last nite. It was hilarious.
Should add that while I like all the mormons I know personally, the Mormon church did spends millions on battling gay marriage here in California. Also, when I was in charge of Shakespeare productions for our homeschool group, I did have a Mormon fam pull their children out of the program cuz the director I hired was gay. Just sayin’.
Oh goody. We’re back to how likable a candidate is as if that has any bearing at all on how good a President he’d be.
Well why not? It worked out so well with Likable Obama.
You can just walk into any Catholic church in the world, dab some magic water on your way in if you like, sit in the front pew, take communion, and nobody will mind.
Try getting inside a Mormon temple.
I don’t trust people who feel the need to hide what they’re doing & saying.
This question is often asked on this blog: how can former Hillary supporters possibly vote for Romney? As I recall, it’s rarely answered.
Here’s one answer: Hillary can’t win in 2016 if Obama wins in 2012. It’s one of my two, independently standing, reasons (the other is I don’t believe in rewarding failed presidents with re-election).
Here’s another:
I supported Hillary because she earned my respect as my state senator, not because she was a Democrat. Her own party threw her under the bus, and did her (and women, by extension) far more harm than I ever thought they could.
Romney earned my respect (and my vote) with his accomplishments both as the Republican governor of a deep blue state as well as his success in the private sector, which would certainly be helpful experience in managing our economy. The fact that most Republicans have a problem with his moderate stance only encourages me.
In both cases, it is both the record and quality of the person that has earned my support, not their party affiliation.
I don’t know if I could share in that answer, Anthony. How does one really know these politicians sufficiently to judge their characters? All you see is the image and the hopes you project on to them. Also, their policy positions are so different — eg, Hillary’s no fiscal conservative, while Romney promises to be one; Hillary believes in reproductive freedom for women, while Romney professes to be pro-life. Is hard work and competence enough regardless of where it leads? There has to be more to your choices than just an emotionless technocratic appreciation for competence and hard work, nay?
Fact is I share only 25%, or so, of Hillary’s political views. (She’s too lefty for me.) but, I want a woman prez–like yesterday. She was incredibly qualified for and deserving of that position and her timing was perfect — she would’ve gotten it but for the empty suit who ran against her. I want payback. I’m not shy about admitting that. Politics is tribal, even for those who pretend it isn’t.
That said, even if Hillary hadn’t run in 2008, I wouldn’t support O because I’m of the view that second terms have to be earned, not inherited. No one’s convinced me that O’s presidency hasn’t been a failure, or that he knows what the eff he’s doing on the economy (everything he understand about economics and markets could be etched on a grain of rice).
Their character can be reflected in the way they legislated while in office and also by the way they accomplished their record of success in the private sector. I’m not an acquaintance of either Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney, but their record of conduct speaks volumes about their character, as with any public figure.
To be clear, I’m certainly not trying to get you to agree with me – I’m secure enough not to have to do that. I’m simply offering another answer in addition to your own.
It was a pretty surreal couple of days for me listening and dissecting Republican spees for the first time in well…ever… I was driving fthroygh the Midwest because my gfmissed her flight, so she let me control the radio… And I remember thinking “am I seriously asking to sit and listen to the REPUBLICANS?
Wierd.
Clint Eastwood was relatively innocuous, on the radio we coyldbt see what he was doing, but for an 80+ years old guy he got his point across… I was worried it was going to be like Sinatra at the Grammies before he died. And as someone said, as an actor he could be a goofball and not pull punches.
I thought Rubio gave a good speech, to the point where I said to myself “why did Romney pick Ryan again?” At least Rubio sounds like his testicles descended. I still dont get “the whole Ryan thing”. Isn’t the motto of the nation “E Pluribus Unum”? At least Rubio didn’t say “yes we can” :/
I think Romney gave the best possible speech he could give at the best possible time to give it. If I was undecided, I’d be leaning strongly to Romney right now. I didn’t expect that kind of speech from Romney, I didn’t think he had it in him, so like I said, if he can take undecideds away from Barry with that speech, I think its looking like he can win, but I still think its going to be very very close.
Is the plan for Ryan to get some of the disaffected Obama young vote? Maybe?
,blockquote>Is the plan for Ryan to get some of the disaffected Obama young vote?
Sounded that way to me, especially at the end when he mentioned two generations working together, etc. He had a great takeaway line, though:
“When it began, the Obama Presidency felt to many like a breath of fresh air. Now, its adrift, like a ship trying to sail on yesterday’s wind”.
Personally, I see him more like a dybbuk box, visiting misery on all who dare to look within.
“Is the plan for Ryan to get some of the disaffected Obama young vote? Maybe?”
Yep, Dan that is definitely their plan. In fact, minutes after Ryan finished speaking I got an email from the campaign advertizing “Ryan Gen X” tees, sweats and muscle shirts. I kid you not — a big old “X” dominates the items of clothing. I think both men pitched their speeches mainly to the TV-watching audience — Romney more so, but Ryan did it too.
I’m glad you said what you did about ol’ Clint. The MSM, as usual, missed the point. (Frankly, I’m glad the MSM missed the point — probably indicates that the average American will ‘get’ it.)
Dan: I liked Rubio less than I thought I would. His speech had waaaaay too much “Almighty God” in it, to the point where it offended my atheist soul. (And, my tripwire is set pretty high.)
On Ryan, I’m puzzled that you don’t get him, Dan. (Jay didn’t care for his speech either, and I respect his and your insights, which makes me question my view of him.) It appears to me that he’s a new type of politician — he doesn’t sound jaded or trite, for the most part. It’s like he’s a new software program or model (think Matrix and Terminator, respectively) — Romney, Rubio, and the other speakers I heard on the radio or saw on TV seemed like old, clunky models by comparison. And, it’s not Ryan’s youth or freshness either — Rubio’s young too, but sounds like an old-style politician.
Anyway, love him or hate him, we’re going to have to put up with him: whether or not Romney wins, Ryan is going to be the new face of the GOP for the next 15-20 years.
(Disclaimer (in anticipation of Zal’s ‘incoming’): This evaluation of Ryan is objective and does not indicate I’ve swooned for him, or anything. Frankly, I don’t do that ‘love’ thing with politicians (including HIllary) — my attitude to all politicians is jaded and distrustful…they’re ‘necessary evils’ to be tolerated on good days and turfed out at regular intervals. I see Ryan as a useful tool to eject Obama, which is why I’m interested in him.)
NES, et. al.,
I’ve been typing from a phone for 2 days, so my thoughts probably haven’t come across as cleans I’d like…I’m all thumbs, literally. But now I’ve got a full keypad again.
As John said yesterday, I’ve just been watching the rnc speeches objectively and reacting just based on performances, because to me that’s what they are… performances. Ive got no dog in the race.
I “get” how Ryan’s persona and performance is being packaged and crafted, I just think hes a sanctimonious douche and I don’t see the attraction, either political attraction or the “Paul Ryan has a nice ass and I’d have sex with him” attraction… His persona will be the nice, white, God fearing, gym going, deer hunting guy that people can project their values on while the Republican party takes their income, their opportunities, their rights and their liberties away and still feel good about it. His nasally squeak drives me up the wall… He’s like the guy that comes around at 5pm on a Friday and tells you you’ve got to work all weekend and It’s going to be awesome and oh by the way he’s available by cell phone if you need him…let’s get this done! So just so I’m absolutely clear, Paul Ryan can go fuck himself. He’s a tool, and a Republican tool of the most stereotypical kind. Strategically, I get the play in making him VP…I get the play of rebranding the Republican party in his image, as stupid as a play it is, i get it…Obama decimated the left, Ryan will bring about the quiet earnest demise of conservative middle class…
My goal in watching objectively was to see if Romney had what it takes to sell the latest regurgitation of Reagan Republicanism to once again screw over the lower classes, I didn’t think he had the stuff…turns out he might.
Regardless, both parties are so far deep in it that to Tamerlanes point I think the only sane solution for me is to vote 3rd party and hopefully let that vote count and build momentum until a third party is perceived as serious and viable option.
I can’t wait to see what BS the dems bring out next, but at this point for me it’s just morbid curiosity.
About that empty chair – this is hilarious! Another blogger emailed it to me and I howled
http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/nL7mTHBrLNPVBlZ0dkscjg–/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7cT04NTt3PTYwMA–/http://l.yimg.com/os/152/2012/08/31/A1ouvhMCcAAKHSD-jpg_213231.jpg
OMG, that is HILARIOUS!
Thin-skinned O must be livid at the can of comedy Clint has opened. The guy’s essentially been reduced to a laughing stock. A chair is no longer a chair….
In case there was any doubt, “the guy” I refer to in my comment above is Obama, aka, the empty chair.
Hahahaha that’s awesome
The only way to salvage Clint’s reputation is for Mrs. Eastwood to announce that her husband has entered rehab.
Nonsense. The guy has burnished his reputation — he did what someone should’ve done ages ago — called out the emperor as having no clothes.
Sabato like the polling analyst guy? I always thought he was a Dem, oh well… Bit, in any event, I do believe what I said. I could be wrong, of course (wouldn’t be the first time), but I don’t think so. Sure, the MSM (maybe even Fox types) will deplore it, but they’re an echo chamber with little in common with ordinary Americans. In the headland, Clint will play well.
“…in the HEARTLAND, Clint will play well.”
NES, if you believe that, you are delusional, friend.
Larry Sabbato, who’s supposed to be neutral but leans very Repug, said it was the wierdest thing he’d seen in nineteen conventions. That was not a compliment.
Sabato like the polling analyst guy? I always thought he was a Dem, oh well… Bit, in any event, I do believe what I said. I could be wrong, of course (wouldn’t be the first time), but I don’t think so. Sure, the MSM (maybe even Fox types) will deplore it, but they’re an echo chamber with little in common with ordinary Americans. In the heartland, Clint will play well.
I don’t think a lot of the “intellectuals” in the Dem party got that Eastwood was doing an old Bob Newhart routine – something that a LOT of senior voters would get. Actually – when you feel you may have senior voters straying because of the Medicare argument, what better than to give free rein and show respect to a senior and respected member of the arts community – legitimately so no matter how kooky he seemed. What I don’t get is why so many Dems just can’t stop themselves from insulting someone who is pretty respected as “senile” no less when they are actually trying to scare seniors into voting Dem through the Medicare arguments. If there is anything that seniors are more scared of/ disgusted by than someone trying to reform Medicare is snarky younger people treating all of them – or a respected member of that generation and all of them by extension – as a senile old fool. I think it’s a really stupid gambit, but again – they can’t help themselves. They really are that mean.
Once again, perception is that hey – maybe the Republicans are nicer than the Dems if the Dems think it’s funny to laugh at an octogenarian, who actually made some good points.
This!!
My senior mother (who is not a political junkie — last night was the first time she’s really paid attention to the presidential race this year) called me this morning raving about how great Clint Eastwood was, so it played well to exactly the audience he was targeting.
And Clint Eastwood is much more than a respected member of the arts community — besides his numerous Oscars and various other industry awards, he’s a *true* movie ICON of the kind that just doesn’t exist among the younger crop of Hollywood celebs today — he actually defines the western loner/vigilante archetypes in cinema. Plus, he’s Clint MOF’ing Eastwood — even his name = bad*ss. The Dems can bash him all they want, but they bash him at their own peril.
Even Chuck Norris is afraid of Clint Eastwood.
maybe the Republicans are nicer than the Dems
lol neither of them is nice. Both will put many octogenarians out with the trash come next year, regardless who is installed…er… I mean, wins
And what Angie said!
agree, the Clint Eastwood bit was theatre…initially it was confusing and by that time, the east coast was getting tired…long night…but when you see it again, you can see how clever and crafty Clint is…
…and re: the seniors…he is a beloved icon to them…they got it…and what do you get from Dems…reactionary ridicule and attacks that he is senile…not a good thing to do…
I am not a fan of Bill Maher, but i saw a clip of his reaction and he ‘got’ it from a comedian’s POV
Eastwood was prepared and brilliant. Eastwood the actor, took great direction from Eastwood the director, who used a very clever concept which was thought up by, Eastwood the producer. Clint delivered the most brilliant piece of political theater ever performed on live TV. It was so nuanced and subtle , as he danced so mesmerizing on a tightrope which was suspended between and strung from the Seattle Needle to the Empire State Building. Eastwood, the screen legend and national treasure placed one foot before the other as he stepped from Clint,the white American male, to brilliant actor and back again, making the performance so personal, yet, so committed to his craft. This elegant showcasing of Eastwood’s far reaching talents were illustrated by his reworking and redirecting Jimmy Stewart’s magical character from the stage play and film “Harvey,” was nothing less the pure genius! For Roger Ebert to miss this, is unforgivable, and places him in the “complete hack” category and clearly shows him as a creative racist. Along with the rest of the creative arts world who chose to laugh and mock Eastwood, as delivered a masterpiece in plain sight. It was spectacular theater. He rocked the world! Leave it to Clint! The liberals again, have no idea what went down or what is going on, this is clearly apparent, all they can do is attack and ridicule. They are totally lost. Unfortunately, that is when they are at their worst.
Qube, you’re most def on to something. I watched the video again today (3rd time since performance) and am convinced it’s pure genius. There’re so many subtle messages in it. Eg, one of my favorites is toward the end, when he gives permission for people not to be “mental masochists” and feel like they have to vote for someone “they really don’t want” just because he’s supposed to be a nice [black] guy (and maybe not such a nice guy after all given the recent ads). He’s was inviting people — giving them permission — to break out of the PC prison of Obamanation.
It’s the Gran Torino strategy … I’m just a crazy old coot, go ahead and attack me – BAM! right in front of witnesses live.
Loving these comments on Eastwood. I land somewhere in the middle on this one so the remarks are interesting. The reaction to it is too. The chattering class is apoplectic which is always a sign that something was right about the “stunt”….even if I didn’t “get” all of it. The chattering class thinks the target is Eastwood while I suspect much of the country is hearing “hollywood attacks”.
John, if you havent already, I urge you to see the vid again. Get past the cringe factor and focus on his words. Apart from the opening fumble about Gitmo, his message and purpose is unmistakable. He actually did something quite revolutionary: in the age of Obama, he spoke the truth to 30 million people on TV.
…had not seen Qubrick’s comments about Clint and the ones that followed before I posted…so glad to see alot of people are seeing past the MSM usual brainwashing…just getting the hang of how to reply here…
I agree…Clint is brilliant…still got that glint in his eye and he knew just what he was doing…his making people feel uncomfortable just added to it…
Ronald Reagan was unavailable…so enters Clint, a fine director and actor, dealing with an easy target : the uptil now completely unvetted Obama. It’s like swinging at a pinata the size of the Queen Mary without a blindfold …the results are not surprising .
“Ronald Reagan was unavailable…so enters Clint, ….”
ROFL, paper! You nailed it.
oops socalannie – I got the rose story wrong, myself. I had my father in my home also through the end. So, the rose story touched me – speaking person-to-person humanity.
I completely forgot about the Mormon Church being so vocal in opposition – investing millions – against Marriage Equality in CA. You have a valid point in remaining highly skeptical, given your experiences. Gave me pause with a “Well, hell, it’s anybody’s guess on how it influences his push for policies, at this point.”
I like Romney’s assets and attributes – in framing a moderate. If he can hold such a position to get things moving in a better direction – unlike “Mr. WTF?!” – at least some headway could be possible.
Clint Eastwood:
Clint Eastwood did what he does best: He made everyone sweat before, during and after he emptied both barrels, seemingly without aiming, and hit his victim(s) who are now dying from refusing to believe that they’ve not only been shot at, but hit. Charmingly, unpredictably, quite stealth, I’d say.
My take-away from the GOP convention was, it should have been run as a Workaholics Anonymous meeting instead.
Their formula for fixing the economy — 1) to stop giving govt handouts to lazy people, and; 2) for the rest of us to take a second job or start a dog grooming parlor on the side — is a certain recipe for failure, widespread suffering, and the completion of the conversion of the middle class into a peasantry.
No – R’s formula for fixing the economy is that we all have to take the blinders off our eyes and finally pay the piper for the last 20-30 years of partying. It’s not fair, since not all of us partook in the partying. I know. Life isn’t fair. But, either we do it now or our kids do it in spades later and I don’t even have kids nor will I, so I’m paying for other people’s kids not to have to sacrifice even more. I don’t quite understand how some people think we are going to escape this. If you think we can escape the middle class paying for the last 2 decades of fun, let me know. But the math doesn’t add up, even if you confiscate all the $ of the 1-5-10%