GOP Nominee 2012 - Pt. 5

[deep]

Jenna Jameson Endorses Mitt Romney for President - The Hollywood Reporter

[yolland]

Sometimes it's nice to know that even people who follow American electoral politics for a living ( ) blow a gasket on occasion.

(This piece is about the election in general; nothing specific to the GOP.)


The American Conservative, August 6 (Michael Brendan Dougherty)

I look back longingly on the verbal calamities of four years ago. It felt like they might mean something. When Sarah Palin said the one could see Russia from Alaska, I thought: “This woman makes crap up when she has no idea what to say.” When Obama asked what a “ball-hitch” was or said that Hillary’s voters were “clinging to their guns and religion,” I thought: “This man belongs to a distinct social class." But this campaign season has been so much worse. These “gaffes” are useless.

I was in the Nashua, New Hampshire ballroom when Mitt Romney said “I like being able to fire people.” I was kneeling between the tables about 10 yards from him. It was rather clear he was making a commonplace observation about the free market. The Chamber of Commerce audience loved it. Not a single person gasped or gave a screwy look to one another when he said it. I thought Romney had accomplished much that morning. But in the back of the room, where most of the media was, the remark was tweeted quickly and instantly declared a gaffe.

More recently, Barack Obama was making an entirely banal point about society and government, that no entrepreneur can claim to have built his business all by his lonesome. “You didn’t get there on your own,” he said. I don’t have to recount that.

There is this weird assumption on the part of the media that if a candidate can be hurt if their comments are misconstrued, then it is the solemn duty of the media to misconstrue those remarks. This news coverage is justified in passive constructions. “The Obama campaign opened itself up to attack,” or “The Romney remark could reinforce a negative image.”

Then the defensive partisans charge in: “Let’s put the remarks in context.”

The charging partisans of the other side: “Let’s put them in some other broader context, like our nation’s unemployment problem, or its history of racism, or in contrast to an obscure Federalist paper quote I can recall.”

For once, I’d like a pool report to tell the truth: “Candidate X got off the bus and addressed an enthusiastic crowd with the exact same platitudinous crap he said four hours earlier to another equally enthusiastic crowd. There was no sense to it whatsoever, but man, these people really ate it up. And his enemies will twist his words into slightly offensive shapes and make a big dumb boring hullaballoo about it until the nation finally stirs itself to end this thing with their votes.”

And even in wishing this, I’m playing another predictable role in the charade. I can do no other.

[Salome]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

I think most, if not everyone who has posted on this forum agrees that the Boston mayor was out of line.

a mayor of any major city, much like a CEO of a big company, should be a moral compass
I think an arguement can definetly be made for a mayor to refuse certain business, because he/she feels it goes against what the city "stands for"
not taking care of part of your citizens because of economic reasons might lead to a (mid/) long term disconnect in society

what I read from the Boston situation, it sounded more like a populist reaction to headline news, without any further thought put into it
which might somehow connect this post to the topic of GOP Nominee 2012

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

There seems to be much less of an ability for the kind of self-criticism found in the John Stewart video recently posted and among many of the "left-leaning" posters in here and the right. If it happens, I guess I don't see it. Granted it's hard to be self-critical when you are in the minority, but I don't find it happening in the world outside this forum either.

Sadly, such self-criticism from left-leaning posters as I've seen on here of late is often fraudulent, fatuous and self-serving. Also it's striking, absolutely striking, that from an objective view in spite of holding overwhelming numerical advantage, hardly ever does one see a left leaning poster called out by fellow lefties for trolling or offensive comments.

Try South Park for an example of a right libertarian show that is mocking towards many conservative shiboleths, from over-religosity to the war on terror.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Sadly, such self-criticism from left-leaning posters as I've seen on here of late is often fraudulent, fatuous and self-serving.

Eh? How do you figure?

[MrsSpringsteen]

[BVS]

Originally Posted by financeguy

Sadly, such self-criticism from left-leaning posters as I've seen on here of late is often fraudulent, fatuous and self-serving. Also it's striking, absolutely striking, that from an objective view in spite of holding overwhelming numerical advantage, hardly ever does one see a left leaning poster called out by fellow lefties for trolling or offensive comments.

[financeguy]

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

Eh? How do you figure?

I exempt you from that comment. I think your posts display a humility and willingness to challenge and be challenged that is mostly lacking in the contributions from the other left wing posters on here. Age may not necessarily bring wisdom!

[financeguy]

Hello, Ry. Where are you?

I'm in my house in Santa Monica. (1)

Have you been watching the Olympics? I'm in London where we've all been going crazy for the Games.

We see them late at night here, so we watch 'em a little.

Are you a sports fan?

Not really.

Did you see the opening ceremony? This will lead somewhere, this question, I hope ...

Oh, sure. Absolutely.

And what did you make of it?

Well, the whole thing with the beds and the National Health was interesting from over here, as you might well imagine.

Well, that's what I want to ask you about because we read here that there was some criticism of that segment of the ceremony in the US.

Well, I didn't know there was any criticism of it at all. I hadn't heard that. First of all, you can't believe the media. You know that. I know it and you know it. So the propaganda against that concept ... I would take it on the same level as I would take the gun lobby on any notion that following some slaughter like out in Colorado that anybody who says assault rifles should be banned is going to be roundly criticised and called a bad American. So naturally, in this particular year, we can look and see that the leading edge of Republican interference with our way of life is what they call Obamacare. And this is their flag that they hoist. So anyone that comes along with another idea, let alone anything as explicit as this piece in the opening ceremony, the first thing they have to do in the US media, which is pretty much controlled by the corporations, is to discredit it as fast and as hard as they possibly can. And any time you see anybody saying: "Oh, the American people didn't like this, they resented it, etc" ... they're lying.

It's not for your benefit, it's for our benefit. So our population here learns, once again, that anything that's done for the people is wrong.

Ry Cooder: 'Mitt Romney is a dangerous man, a cruel man' | Music | The Guardian

[deep]

Romney announces VP in the morning

NBC says it will be Congressman Paul Ryan. I think that would be a neutral pick. Perhaps a small net negative.

[Irvine511]

It is Ryan.

Mitt telling the GOP: "You say 'jump,' I say, 'how high?'"

[BVS]

A fairly dangerous pick...

[martha]

My uninformed mind thought that as well.

edit: I mean I'm not paying as much attention as others and even I thought it was a weird choice.

[PhilsFan]

I have one question: is he one of those fun seeking GOP members who thinks the deficit is the number one issue?

EDIT: The more I read up on him, the more I think he might be my nightmare candidate. He wants to cut health care for the poor and elderly, increase tax cuts on the rich, and increase defense spending, all while making up bullshit lies about everything (accounting for $4.6 trillion in decreased revenue purely by closing tax loopholes???).

What the fuck, Mitt?

[namkcuR]

Ryan is known best for his budget, which is insane. He is a tea party pick. Hopefully whatever moderate Republicans are left will be scared into voting for the President and Vice-President.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I have one question: is he one of those fun seeking GOP members who thinks the deficit is the number one issue?

EDIT: The more I read up on him, the more I think he might be my nightmare candidate. He wants to cut health care for the poor and elderly, increase tax cuts on the rich, and increase defense spending, all while making up bullshit lies about everything (accounting for $4.6 trillion in decreased revenue purely by closing tax loopholes???).

What the fuck, Mitt?

Like I said, his budget is insane.

[martha]

Are the Republicans trying to lose so the donations will keep rolling in?

[Irvine511]

it does seem like they want to lose Florida.

i think they've all seen Romney dropping in the polls and Obama gaining -- a Fox News poll had O up by 9 this week -- and that this is intended to be a bit of a "game change" pick as well as something to get the base fired up.

it's a better pick than Palin, at least because Ryan's appeal to the dark side of America is economic, as opposed to Palin, who's appeal was more, erm, "cultural."

[martha]

But wouldn't the base vote for him no matter what? Will this pick do anything to convince moderate voters that Romney's the guy?

edit: But the base does vote more than the moderates, maybe.

[corianderstem]

Hey, look - it's the other awful politician from my home state!