FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Republican National Convention (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Republican National Convention
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriously. "You know what we need. Personal and fiscal responsibility. Now I'm going to lie to you a lot and castigate the President for things I either agree with him on or am actually responsible for."

This is why I left the party. You people have no honor and no sense of integrity or actual responsibility. You're the Fox News party.

How can good people (and I know there are plenty in the GOP, some of whom are here on Hatrack) stand this? It turned me from volunteering for the McCain campaign back for the 2000 elections to being extremely strongly against the GOP.

[ August 30, 2012, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:


You also forgot to mention that Ron Paul's delegates were shouted down, not allowed to speak, and their votes were actually not counted in some instances. Hasn't exactly been a harmonious first day of Mitt love.

Ron Paul's delegates were being extremely disruptive and disrespectful. I live in Nevada, and I was utterly livid when Ron Paul's people broke the rules and changed their vote to Ron Paul, instead of who the people of Nevada chose in their caucus. I was watching the RNC live on Youtube and yelled at my computer screen. [Smile] They hi-jacked the delegation, changed their vote, and disenfranchised thousands of us that spent a Saturday morning going to the caucus. They flooded the state convention and had 20 people chosen as delegates, but promised that they would cast votes for Romney because they were bound to, they simply wanted to go to promote Ron Paul. They lied.

A lot of the screaming during speeches and booing was also done by the same people. I respect that you have a different candidate in mind, but there is no reason to be so disruptive and disrespectful towards the speakers. I felt sorry for the lady from Puerto Rico that was trying to speak when they were screaming. She wasn't able to get a word in for the first few minutes on stage due to them.

As far as the speakers, I didn't really care of Ann Romney. Her tone was strange, at times it seemed she was very nasally. I don't know if MS can cause something like that and if so I am going to feel really bad for saying that.

Cristy is... well Cristy. I enjoyed listening to him, I just thought he lacked substance. Paul Ryan last night I think had the best speech so far. I think he did what he needed to do most, which is introduce himself to people that just didn't know him. He is an infinitely better VP pick than Sarah Palin was, though I think there would have been better choices. Condi's speech was also pretty good, and I really wouldn't be surprised if she eventually runs for a governorship in California.

My biggest surprise is the convention itself. I think a lot of people were expecting something huge and different than the norm, but the convention just seems like business as usual.

Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Seriously. "You know what we need. Personal and fiscal responsibility. Now I'm going to lie to you a lot and castigate the President for things I either agree with him on or are actually responsible for."

This is why I left the party. You people have no honor and no sense of integrity or actual responsibility. You're the Fox News party.

How can good people (and I know there are plenty in the GOP, some of whom are here on Hatrack) stand this? It turned me from volunteering for the McCain campaign back for the 2000 elections to being extremely strongly against the GOP.

I think that's fundamentally a problem of politics, though, not of party. I don't want to draw a false equivalence (because I know it's not the same thing), but Obama's posturing on war and foreign policy in the run-up to 2008 struck me as just as disingenuous. To me, it seemed like he'd found something he could hit that resonated with the populace, and despite his own understanding (reflected in his policies as President) that the issue was complicated and that national security sometimes necessitates things like surges, secret prisons, military tribunals and drone attacks, he used language and rhetoric (spin) that would appeal to a war-weary public.

I'm probably being overreactive to a spate of books on behavioral economics and psychology I've read recently (like "The Upside of Irrationality", "Thinking Fast and Slow", "The Righteous Mind", and "Nudge"), but I'm very bearish about the social utility of reasoned political appeals. I think we'd likely have a more functional political system if we weren't so dedicated on the myth of the rational voter as the building-block of American democracy.

Posts: 2923 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think we'd likely have a more functional political system if we weren't so dedicated on the myth of the rational voter as the building-block of American democracy.
Depends on who "we" is there. The majority of campaigning is definitely not dedicated to that myth. They are counting on uncritical, gut-response reception of their message and tune the message to get the best possible response of that type. I think this deliberate manipulation of the emotional response mechanism touted in books like Nudge is likely to negate its utility.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So, do you basically not care about things like honesty, personal integrity, personal responsibility, character, etc.

You're wrong about the equivalency, the GOP is much worse in this respect, but that's not all that relevant.

These things are important. The GOP claims to believe that they are important and then runs headlong into making a complete mockery out of them. Their media wing of Fox News leads to people to be more wrong than if they didn't watch the news at all.

How can you full heartedly support this and not feel a burning sense of shame and still have the nerve to think of yourself as a decent person. I don't get it. I can't imagine being like that.

And let's not forget, besides the direct hazard of this GOP sponsored moral and intellectual decay, there are the indirect effects of basing policy on this and entrusting lying little weasels with power. The Bush presidency did enormous damage to the country in large part because of this. I don't think I'll ever get over having to go around to apologize to people for believing that my government wouldn't out and out lie to me to get us into an (ultimately pretty disastrous) war. Heck, you've got Mitt Romney running for President making one of his main points being against an approach to healthcare he knows is a good idea and is good for the country.

I actually agree with you about the populace in general being too immature (and maybe too stupid) to make appropriate political decisions. However, for me, that is a call to combat the causes of this, to encourage personal responsibility, character, and intellectual integrity, not to take advantage of it an encourage its growth.

The GOP is turning into a party of unquestioning support for our guy, unquestioning hatred for the other guy and using absurdly blatant dishonesty to do so. This is bad for the country, bad for the party, and bad for the very souls of the people in the party.

And for some reason, decent people are okay with this.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Seriously. "You know what we need. Personal and fiscal responsibility. Now I'm going to lie to you a lot and castigate the President for things I either agree with him on or am actually responsible for."

This is why I left the party. You people have no honor and no sense of integrity or actual responsibility. You're the Fox News party.

How can good people (and I know there are plenty in the GOP, some of whom are here on Hatrack) stand this? It turned me from volunteering for the McCain campaign back for the 2000 elections to being extremely strongly against the GOP.

I'll join your club. I was excited to vote for the first time in 2000, I would have volunteered for the McCain campaign if I wasn't living in Hong Kong. I became a missionary in 2001, and came back in 2003. I was a Republican when I first got back, but I was voting for Kerry by 2004. It wasn't even a choice for me when McCain and Obama were up against each other.

Now I feel like Romney, may actually be an intelligent moderate, but is basically hostage to a party with an extremist platform that does not allow for any flexibility or compromise.

I'm not even angry at the Republican party or the Democrats. I think we're reaping the whirlwind for having a system that entrenches two parties, and prevents any outside groups from gaining traction. If you had to pick one of two people for every single job in your business, how effective could you possibly be?

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And let me be clear, I'm not saying vote Democrat (I'm not and generally don't). I'm not saying don't vote Republican.

I'm saying oppose this blatant assault on moral and intellectual integrity. When people on your side do these things, call them on it; complain about it. Don't let blatant dishonesty stand. Stand up for personal responsibility as an actual principle, not as a buzz word used to blame poor people for their situation. Encourage people to find out the truth, to learn how things actually work, even if that plays against your preferred narrative. When you are wrong about something, admit it and apologize.

That's like the bare minimum it should take to be a decent person; a person of character.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not sure how anyone could believe in the myth of the rational voter after 2004.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm not even angry at the Republican party or the Democrats.
I think ultimately, if our country can be saved, it's going to come down to a moral and intellectual revival driven by responsible, decent people making hard stands. For me, one of the most pernicious things about the GOP's current course is that they have pretty much devalued and even replaced the meaning of those words so much so that there are a large number of people who believe their current moral and intellectual stuntedness is what it means to be honorable and responsible.

I mean, in a speech where he lauded adopting personal responsibility, Paul Ryan, the leading force in the GOP's obstruction of the debt ceiling, which was the undisputed cause of our credit downgrade, with no sense of shame, blamed President Obama for it.

Mass psychology is often a lot more dependent on individual voices than many people realize. Mobs can turning to violence and looting or astounding acts of altruism dependent on the example set by what the people who break the psychological surface tension do. I don't see much of that being done for the good right now (John McCain got beaten down in 2000 because he was, for a politician, basically a decent guy - beaten by a strategy of lying about him - and came back a whore who would say or do anything to get elected). Mostly, I see people going along with and contributing to the entrenched narrative that it is perfectly fine to tell completely false things and to take no responsibility for one's beliefs or actions.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:
I'm not even angry at the Republican party or the Democrats.
I think ultimately, if our country can be saved, it's going to come down to a moral and intellectual revival driven by responsible, decent people making hard stands. For me, one of the most pernicious things about the GOP's current course is that they have pretty much devalued and even replaced the meaning of those words so much so that there are a large number of people who believe their current moral and intellectual stuntedness is what it means to be honorable and responsible.

I mean, in a speech where he lauded adopting personal responsibility, Paul Ryan, the leading force in the GOP's obstruction of the debt ceiling, which was the undisputed cause of our credit downgrade, with no sense of shame, blamed President Obama for it.

Mass psychology is often a lot more dependent on individual voices than many people realize. Mobs can turning to violence and looting or astounding acts of altruism dependent on the example set by what the people who break the psychological surface tension do. I don't see much of that being done for the good right now (John McCain got beaten down in 2000 because he was, for a politician, basically a decent guy - beaten by a strategy of lying about him - and came back a whore who would say or do anything to get elected). Mostly, I see people going along with and contributing to the entrenched narrative that it is perfectly fine to tell completely false things and to take no responsibility for one's beliefs or actions.

*nods*

I definitely agree that we need to expect much more honesty from our representatives.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MrSquicky
Member
Member # 1802

 - posted      Profile for MrSquicky   Email MrSquicky         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's sort of it, but I have a different focus. It's more we need to expect more from ourselves and then expect more from other people. Dishonest politicians thrive because dishonesty works, in most cases a lot better than honesty.

In a way, it's not Rep Ryan's fault that he is a lying weasel. That's what Mitt Romney (no slouch in the outrageous lying category himself) was looking for, because that's what is going to help him. It's mostly the public's fault. This problem is a reflection of the moral and intellectual failings of the public.

I think it is a mistake to to leave it at "we need to expect more from our candidates". It draws the focus away from and in a way ignores/excuses that the ultimate responsibility for this state of affairs lies in the public and that the way to fix it is going to come from people accepting this and taking more personal responsibility for their actions and beliefs.

Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think so. The only way we can come to expect honesty in any meaningful way from our poliicians is to put a greater premium on honesty both from ourselves and others.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Phillyn
Member
Member # 12597

 - posted      Profile for Phillyn           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quote from Black Blade:

Now I feel like Romney, may actually be an intelligent moderate, but is basically hostage to a party with an extremist platform that does not allow for any flexibility or compromise.
------
As an outsider watching from New Zealand, this is how I feel too.

Posts: 40 | Registered: Jul 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MrSquicky:
That's sort of it, but I have a different focus. It's more we need to expect more from ourselves and then expect more from other people. Dishonest politicians thrive because dishonesty works, in most cases a lot better than honesty.

In a way, it's not Rep Ryan's fault that he is a lying weasel. That's what Mitt Romney (no slouch in the outrageous lying category himself) was looking for, because that's what is going to help him. It's mostly the public's fault. This problem is a reflection of the moral and intellectual failings of the public.

I think it is a mistake to to leave it at "we need to expect more from our candidates". It draws the focus away from and in a way ignores/excuses that the ultimate responsibility for this state of affairs lies in the public and that the way to fix it is going to come from people accepting this and taking more personal responsibility for their actions and beliefs.

Warning: I'm about to write a bunch of stuff that I only half-way believe, but I'm going to write it as pure polemic. Once I started I had a hard time stopping, and I really do half-believe most of it, so I'm still going to post it. But caveat lecteur.

I blame the electorate, too, but not for the same sins. I think the problem is that we, as the voting public, are discouraged from voting according to non-rational criteria (like 'I could have a beer with him' or 'He seems like a nice guy').

Instead, we're taught that we should rely solely on our ability to rationally weigh the balance of the policies and proposals of the candidates and vote for the one that optimizes some vaguely defined social welfare function. To me, that's what drives the spin machine; people just aren't very good at making those kinds of rational judgements, so when they're called upon to do so out of civic obligation it's easy to mislead them. I think we'd be better off recognizing that no one's (and I include myself in that) really that great at the sort of rational decision making that classic democratic theory teaches us to value, and trust the system to turn our various irrational impulses into a collectively good decision.

I see the greatest impediment to a functioning system as being the nattering class of political pundits who point their fingers down from the heights of their righteous indignation and condemn the unwashed public for not being smart enough to see the world in exactly the same way, with the same shadings and values, as they do. By shaming the average voter into trying to understand and vote according to policies and platforms rather than personalities and prejudices (negative connotations and all), they create an environment in which elections turn on sloppy rationales that can be made to sound good enough to fool the average voter. And when they're fooled, the shaming begins all over again, creating a cycle of degradation, humiliation, and dysfunction.

Posts: 2923 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
By shaming the average voter into trying to understand and vote according to policies and platforms rather than personalities and prejudices (negative connotations and all), they create an environment in which elections turn on sloppy rationales that can be made to sound good enough to fool the average voter.
As opposed to personalities and prejudices, which are better criteria?
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
By shaming the average voter into trying to understand and vote according to policies and platforms rather than personalities and prejudices (negative connotations and all), they create an environment in which elections turn on sloppy rationales that can be made to sound good enough to fool the average voter.
As opposed to personalities and prejudices, which are better criteria?
Yeah. Or no. Maybe.

I guess I'm suggesting that, counterintuitively, people would make better political decisions if they didn't pay (and feel it was their civic duty to pay) as much attention to politics. It's not that decisions should be made based on prejudices, or personality, or whatever; it's that the focus on 'a well-informed public' forces people to spend more time watching politicians and pundits, which creates more space for manipulation and deceit.

Furthermore, there's ample evidence (summarized in books like Cass Sunstein's Going to Extremes) that promoting the ideological debate results in greater polarization of policy, parties, and the electorate at large. We'd have a more pragmatic, more moderate, more functional government if people spent less time focused on political debate and more time watching sports.

<edit>And, of course, I'm completely hypocritical about this because I'm more focused on politics than perhaps anyone in my close circle of acquaintances. I do think of it as a moral failing, though, and when people tell me they're paying less attention to politics than they did previously, I feel moral regret that I don't have the self-control to do so myself.</edit>

Posts: 2923 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Furthermore, there's ample evidence (summarized in books like Cass Sunstein's Going to Extremes) that promoting the ideological debate results in greater polarization of policy, parties, and the electorate at large.
Yeah, belief polarization definitely occurs and it's a huge problem.

quote:
We'd have a more pragmatic, more moderate, more functional government if people spent less time focused on political debate and more time watching sports.
I don't think this follows, though. There's a certain well-documented negative effect of having lots of political debate and mixed evidence thrown up in front of people. But that doesn't tell us what the effects would be of not providing all that stuff.

Relatedly, the studies on belief polarization seem to point toward a way of combating it. The problem arises because people extensively scrutinize evidence that counts against their views (looking for holes) while giving evidence they agree with a free pass. It may be that if you keep this tendency of yours in mind, and focus yourself on trying to shoot holes in the reporting you're inclined to agree with, you can counteract the cognitive bias. I try really hard to do this myself, and sometimes it seems to work.

Not sure how one would promote a norm like that more broadly in political culture, though.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know a ton of guys who are great to play pool with or have a beer, but who I would dread seeing up for elected office at any level. Just because someone is likable doesn't mean they are honest, or intelligent, or organized.....


I'd rather debate issues than decide who is more likable. I had enough of popularity contests in K-12.

Posts: 15081 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Relatedly, the studies on belief polarization seem to point toward a way of combating it. The problem arises because people extensively scrutinize evidence that counts against their views (looking for holes) while giving evidence they agree with a free pass. It may be that if you keep this tendency of yours in mind, and focus yourself on trying to shoot holes in the reporting you're inclined to agree with, you can counteract the cognitive bias. I try really hard to do this myself, and sometimes it seems to work.

Not sure how one would promote a norm like that more broadly in political culture, though.

This is one of the big themes in "You are Not as Smart as You Think You Are" which was an interesting, if slightly overly cute, book. It's affected my thinking as well, which is why I now sometimes add caveats like "that might just be my partisan bias" when I'm talking about divisive subjects. I don't know that I've been very successful, though, in actualy combatting the bias; even when I recognize that it's probably affecting my analysis, it doesn't seem to lead me to "see things with new eyes" or anything.

I agree that it's not a given that de-emphasizing the rational debate would lead to increased moderation and decreased dysfunction; but I believe it would. I think there are other things we can do that would help with this, though, like encourage more social interaction, a la Robert Putnam. In his book "Faith and Politics", Jack Danforth (former US Senator and Episcopalian minister) talks about the moderating effect of the weekly 'prayer breakfasts' attended by Senators from both parties. I think similar activities at all levels would lead to an increase in tolerance and a decrease of polarization.

Finally, I think I went a bit astray with my alliteration when I said we should judge on personality and prejudice (or popularity, which I didn't say, but which would have fit). I should have said something more like, "rather than voting based on a reasoned analysis of the isues, we should vote based on which candidate we believe intuitively would make the better President." That's not quite the same as a popularity contest; it's relying on your 'fast thinking' or 'thin slicing' mind rather than your 'slow thinking' or 'thick slicing' mind.

Posts: 2923 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I agree that it's not a given that de-emphasizing the rational debate would lead to increased moderation and decreased dysfunction; but I believe it would.

You don't think it would just open up different, potentially even easier methods for powerful entities to exploit the system for their own benefit? That would be my main worry.

quote:
I think there are other things we can do that would help with this, though, like encourage more social interaction, a la Robert Putnam. In his book "Faith and Politics", Jack Danforth (former US Senator and Episcopalian minister) talks about the moderating effect of the weekly 'prayer breakfasts' attended by Senators from both parties. I think similar activities at all levels would lead to an increase in tolerance and a decrease of polarization.
That's a good thought. It's possible that part of what's underlying our present-day polarization is the diminished amount of shared culture between left- and right-wing folks. It's no longer as easy or pleasant for typical Republicans to hang out with typical Democrats, even in a setting where politics doesn't come up. I find this even with relatives and old friends, which make up most of the Republicans I spend much time with IRL.

But people aren't as polarized, ideologically, as they take themselves to be. Almost no one really believes there should be no social safety net, for example. But people will parrot statements that sound an awful lot like "There should be no safety net," as a part of identifying with Republican culture (this is also why so many people claim to be birthers).

Anyway, if we all hung out more I could see that opening people's eyes to some of the common ground that actually exists.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the other part, I guess I don't trust the fast-thinking mind any more than the slow-thinking mind. It will have "exploits" available too, and I feel like they'll probably be easier for the bad guys to home in on.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Destineer:
Anyway, if we all hung out more I could see that opening people's eyes to some of the common ground that actually exists.

Life these days has me working in finance in a company whose employees collectively make up one of Romney's top five (disclosed) donor groups. It should be easy to find a way to work out some common ground with them.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I never realized Clint Eastwood was that good a comedian. It was like a celebrity roast of Obama.

All the personal testimonials from common people who have been helped by Mitt Romney--some really emotional, impressive stuff--surely should give the Obama propagandists pause before they launch any more negative attack ads trying to depict Romney as uncaring about people. The testimonials about how Romney and Bain Capital saved their company and saved thousands of jobs, should make it suicide for the Obama campaign to try to demonize Bain Capital any more. It is beginning to look like Romney is one of the most truly good men who have ever run for president. But then, if the Obama campaign stops trying to characterize Romney as a "vampire capitalist," what else will they have to run on? They certainly can't run on Obama's record. But since the word is out about the truth of Romney's actual generosity and compassion, such tactics can only blow up in their faces.

Commentators on NBC and CBS as well as FNC could only complain that the Romney campaign had not put forward these testimonials earlier.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I never realized Clint Eastwood was that good a comedian. It was like a celebrity roast of Obama.

Not that I don't understand how an old man rambling awkwardly at an imaginary Obama resonates with you, but I have to do a double-take. I am not lacking in conservative exposure and you're pretty much the first person who hasn't described it as at least uncomfortable to watch.

quote:
But then, if the Obama campaign stops trying to characterize Romney as a "vampire capitalist," what else will they have to run on?
Assuming the Obama campaign for some reason decides to stop characterizing a vampire capitalist as a vampire capitalist, I could venture two guesses:

1. His tendency to switch positions at convenience to the point where he seems a total phony, and

2. His status as a complete and brazen liar.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I never realized Clint Eastwood was that good a comedian. It was like a celebrity roast of Obama.

All the personal testimonials from common people who have been helped by Mitt Romney--some really emotional, impressive stuff--surely should give the Obama propagandists pause before they launch any more negative attack ads trying to depict Romney as uncaring about people. The testimonials about how Romney and Bain Capital saved their company and saved thousands of jobs, should make it suicide for the Obama campaign to try to demonize Bain Capital any more. It is beginning to look like Romney is one of the most truly good men who have ever run for president. But then, if the Obama campaign stops trying to characterize Romney as a "vampire capitalist," what else will they have to run on? They certainly can't run on Obama's record. But since the word is out about the truth of Romney's actual generosity and compassion, such tactics can only blow up in their faces.
.

The word is out is it? Lol. Yes, in the sense that the words were said in public, notwithstanding how fundamentally deceptive they are, and how untrue so much of what Romney has said is, yes, "the word is out." You have a hole where something important is supposed to be, Ron.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tarrsk
Member
Member # 332

 - posted      Profile for Tarrsk           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I never realized Clint Eastwood was that good a comedian. It was like a celebrity roast of Obama.

I thought this was a pretty good joke, before I realized who wrote it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go find an empty chair to talk to in front of an audience. If there are even a dozen other Ron Lamberts out there, I'll make millions.

Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm surprised anybody enjoyed it. Romney's aides all seemes uniformly uncomfortable and antsy about Eastwood speaking improv.

Oh wells, Gran Torino was still an amazing flick.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:

Oh wells, Gran Torino was still an amazing flick.

I just like it because it was filmed in my home town.

As is the upcoming Red Dawn remake!

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I may keep some of my left-over Vicodin on hand as I watch the Democratic National Convention, in case I need something to calm me and ease the painful angst. I will try to keep reminding myself of something I have especially learned in this forum--it is a great, truly great honor to be called dishonest and a liar and be outrageously misrepresented by some people.

I genuinely expect to be entertained by Biden. I hope the TV cameras pick up some of the winces on the faces of various party dignitaries as Biden gaffiates.

I wonder what Obama will say about his record. Will he even mention it? And what party dignitaries will want to be so closely associated with Obama that they speak at the convention praising him? It seems to me that for the past several years, Democratic candidates have been studiously distancing themselves from the loser at the top of their ticket.

I think--and the parallels probably are not lost on many Democrat politicos--that Obama may well go down to even worse defeat than Jimmy Carter did to Ronald Reagan. Coming out of the conventions in 1980, Reagan was down in the polls by double digits--but wound up defeating Carter by a large margin. Going into the convention, Romney was even with or slightly ahead of Obama in the polls. The question is, will Romney do as well as Reagan did in the debates? And into how many pieces will Ryan chew up Biden in their debate(s)?

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, are you even reading this thread or are you just mostly stopping by and copypasting crap you wrote for multiple venues? You're certainly not participating in anything resembling "dialogue," you're just stopping in, hitting ctrl+v with disconnected stuff you've written, and moving on.
Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think--and the parallels probably are not lost on many Democrat politicos--that Obama may well go down to even worse defeat than Jimmy Carter did to Ronald Reagan.
I just want to put this out there, so someone who cares can eventually add this one to the running total.
Posts: 37419 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Let's see which of us has the best apprehension of the real world. I predict that Obama will continue to waffle until non-response becomes his response, and he will wind up withdrawing U.S. forces from Afghanistan. No matter what pretty face he tries to put on it, the harsh reality will be that Al Qaeda and the Taliban will return to positions of power. When that happens, even many Democrats will denounce Obama as a traitor, and enough will join with Republicans to impeach him and remove him from office.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
I will tell you plainly that I suspect Sarah Palin could very well prove to be the next Margaret Thatcher. And my answer to every carping cavil of you sniveling liberals, is watch and see.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
By 2012, Palin may well be the de facto head of the Republican Party. No one will be able to claim she is not politically savy then.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
[QB] If Palin is the person I think she is--smart, decisive, willing to go against corruption even in her own party to clean things up, a natural competitor, and increasingly politically savvy, then this will become undeniably apparent as we approach 2012. YOU. WILL. SEE.

Just like you will see what the dire consequences to the nation will be for voting for a socialist fascist leftwing extremist for president. Many of us saw through the propaganda, and knew better. We feel more and more vindicated every day.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Sen. Barack Obama is attracting a lot of young independent voters, but he is too extreme a liberal to win in the general election. America always shuns extremes.

quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Isn't this the way the "Hitler Youth" began? Sounded idealistic to begin with.

I have compared Obama to Hitler, and I still believe the parallels I have drawn are valid. But the troubles and open racial warfare that I predict will not come so much from Obama as from his zealot, hardcore worshippers, who will become wildly enraged at anyone who criticizes their messianic hero--especially when so many things about his administration go frustratingly wrong, and they want to find a scapegoat.


Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ohh! 'member when Ron told me I should die (and my sakes that was such a Christian thing to say!)? Hey, Ron, when you pop that bottle cap don't, you know, mistake them for jolly ranchers or anything and just enjoy the heaven out of them.

Because that would be unfortunate.

Anyway, first Romney was the most qualified in history to run for President (because, umm, Olympics-certainly not his governorship. Now he's the kindest person to run. What next? Best looking? Shall we hear about how Kennedy's liberalism made him physically ugly or something?

It sounds weird, I know, but aside from being a spineless liar you are of course also crazy, so who can say? Anyway, Tom already quoted it, but is there going to be any sort of consequence in terms of your own smug confidence in your prophesying ability if you're wrong? I realize paying attention to predictions when they're WRONG isn't really your thing, though...

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh: I'm OK with people believing somebody is lying and saying so. Don't accuse people of being insane. I was very put out (and I'm sorry to be saying this as BB not JB) when Ron said that to you. I was hoping we could tack away from that territory.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, that kind of prediction record would depress the hell out of me. Of course with our luck, it probably just reinforces a Christian persecution complex or something. ("I'm so persecuted, even 'reality' is against me")
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I note that Ron has not tacked away from that territory, nor is he likely to. But while I appreciate your saying so, I don't feel like I had an apology coming from you on saying or not saying anything on it. That sort of remark was entirely expected from Ron, wishing someone dead and doing it in a way that implies moral authority. I have little doubt he feels that way about quite a few people here, and would view all sorts of terrible misfortunes to be visited on us as signs of a just God, so that's why it didn't bother me except as something to laugh at.

I did mean what I said when I said he was crazy, not because of his religious beliefs which I obviously disagree with, or his politics about which he lies as a matter of course, but specifically because of his own confidence in his predictions. Multiple times on Hatrack over the years, his (give him credit) specific predictions have been shown to be wrong with no corresponding loss of confidence.

Obviously I can't say he's clinically insane, but that is simply to my mind nutty thinking: the specific, proud insistence on being right even when being specifically, factually shown to be wrong. It's fundamentally unhinged from reality. If he decided whether to cross a busy street on that style of thinking, he too would've gone to heaven years ago.

Having explained that, it it's really out of bounds to call someone nuts when by most normal standards they clearly are, I won't do so.

----

Now, as to the issue of 'don't call someone insane' and the issue of not (publicly) saying 'don't tell someone to die'...well. I can't know what was or wasn't said to Ron in private, but THAT apparent (to me, anyway) contradiction in chastisement is...frustrating. If it was addressed in private, I withdraw the that observation to you with apologies.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Olivet 2.0
Member
Member # 12719

 - posted      Profile for Olivet 2.0           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Phillyn:
Quote from Black Blade:

Now I feel like Romney, may actually be an intelligent moderate, but is basically hostage to a party with an extremist platform that does not allow for any flexibility or compromise.
------
As an outsider watching from New Zealand, this is how I feel too.

I don't get that from Mitt at all. That is how I felt about McCain, but I believe Mitt has freely and willfully altered his programming without compunction. McCain was twitchy and uncomfortable every time he opened his mouth and something he didn't mean came out (during the 2008 election). Mitt opens his mouth and opinions that are the exact opposite of what he said when running for governor come out with the same tone and expression. If saying, "Murble-murble glorp" 185 times would win him votes, he would do it with the same conviction/expression on his face and never miss a beat.

He absolutely terrifies me. At this point it would take him conducting his side of debates from inside an FMRI machine with images if his brain on a 40ft flatscreen before I would believe a) anything he says or b)that he is not some variety of sociopath.

Posts: 79 | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Olivet 2.0:
quote:
Originally posted by Phillyn:
Quote from Black Blade:

Now I feel like Romney, may actually be an intelligent moderate, but is basically hostage to a party with an extremist platform that does not allow for any flexibility or compromise.
------
As an outsider watching from New Zealand, this is how I feel too.

I don't get that from Mitt at all. That is how I felt about McCain, but I believe Mitt has freely and willfully altered his programming without compunction. McCain was twitchy and uncomfortable every time he opened his mouth and something he didn't mean came out (during the 2008 election). Mitt opens his mouth and opinions that are the exact opposite of what he said when running for governor come out with the same tone and expression. If saying, "Murble-murble glorp" 185 times would win him votes, he would do it with the same conviction/expression on his face and never miss a beat.

He absolutely terrifies me. At this point it would take him conducting his side of debates from inside an FMRI machine with images if his brain on a 40ft flatscreen before I would believe a) anything he says or b)that he is not some variety of sociopath.

You should work in television.

I think you have the next hit reality show on your hands.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jon Boy
Member
Member # 4284

 - posted      Profile for Jon Boy           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Olivet: That essentially captures my feelings on both McCain and Romney pretty well. I think McCain is (or was) a moderate who had to pander; I think Romney is a man who doesn't really have any principles and just panders and lies by default.
Posts: 9944 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My sense is that if left to his own devices, he probably would hew far more moderate than he's being pushed to be.

But as was joked about during the primaries, Romney is a perfectly lubricated weathervane. There's just no way of knowing who he'll listen to if he makes it to office.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The funny thing is, so much that is deeply troubling about Romney (kind of as though he were a distilled ambitious politician) can be summed up with two facts: elected governor of Massachusetts as a Republican, and successfully navigated a 21st century Republican presidential primary.

Those two facts, occurring in such proximity to one a other, just don't match up to a person whose beliefs have been well considered and committed to. Right there on the top of his political resume you've got a politician able to appear like a good choice to two radically different groups of people.

I think if you took away the one-term Obama presidency lust in the GOP, there's not a chance in hell it would've been Romney giving an acceptance speech this week, and if memory serves (but I could be misremembering), it took an enormous pile of money by primary standards to get him past a field of largely laughingstocks when it came to a general election.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah...but the GOP actually has far more electable candidates in the chute.

Huntsman would have crushed Obama. People like Christie and Rubio would have been far more dynamic, trustworthy candidates. Clearly beating Obama wasn't the most important thing, they had to beat him with their messiahs ideologically intact. It wasn't just money that got Romney ahead, though I agree that he never would have made it this far if not for a boatload of cash.

What's interesting going forward is that Obama's fundraising advantage is about to evaporate. Romney has been sitting on a mountain of cash he was unable to spend before the RNC. Now he'll unleash the flood gates on Obama, who has been burning through cash since June.

Obama's campaign made a bet that they could set the tone of the campaign early enough to seal that impression in people's minds. Polls seem to have that up, indicating that people's impressions of the candidates are pretty firmly entrenched, so maybe it was the right strategy. I think Romney will spend half a billion dollars on ads in September trying to change the narrative. Obama will be outspent, but he'll count on the debates as free advertising to shift the conversation again.

Either way, the dynamic should change after next week, even if only to get nastier.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some people, of course, are not worthy of being engaged with in serious conversation.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One network news commentator likened the present situation to the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan vs. Jimmy Carter running for his second term, after making almost as bad a mess of the economy as Obama has presently. Reagan came out of the 1980 Republican National Convention down in the polls by double digits. But this changed dramatically, and in the general election Reagan defeated Carter (and his "misery index") by a large margin. Reagan's performance in the debates is credited by some with making the difference. (I think it was more the contrast of seeing the two together, that led many Americans to perceive Reagan as the one who was more presidential. His catchphrase helped too, where he replied to some silly Carter claim, "Now, there you go again....")

This year, coming out of the Republican National Convention, Romney is even with or in some polls ahead of Obama. Considering all the unanswerable ammunition Romney has against Obama and the great dissatisfaction many who voted for him in 2008 now have with his performance, and Romney's vastly superior intelligence and experience, he is likely to do as well in his debates with Obama as Reagan did against Carter. Obama will not be able to rely on his teleprompter in a live debate. Romney may actually win this election in a landslide.

Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 2872

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Tea Party pretty much won the elections nationwide in 2010, and still is a growing force in the Republican Party--which is one of the reasons why Romney picked Paul Ryan to be his VP running mate. And Sarah Palin remains one of the brightest stars, most popular and most influential, of the Tea Party. Even the super-biased-to-the-left mainstream media cannot hide their fascination with her. They are still scared of her. I expect her to have an important post in the Romney administration. Or even if not so important, making her the Press Secretary would be a delicious irony for the liberal media to have to face her.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sure that's why she had such a prominent role in the convention... oh no wait she didn't.

That's the ticket! You hire a press secretary who shows open mocking hatred of the press, and whom members of the press despise and distrust! Actually, I agree, that's the kind of move I might expect from Romney as president. Ill considered and deeply stupid.

Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ron Lambert:
Some people, of course, are not worthy of being engaged with in serious conversation.

The people who raise multiple fundamental objections to your claims which you repeatedly fail to answer, and the people who call you on your routine lies and nonsensical statements being not worth 'serious conversation'.

Yes, Ron, we know. You like to lie and then ignore calls to substantiate. You don't need to point it out-your reputation for spineless dishonesty is famous around here.

You're right about Palin, though. Man, she is a political juggernaut. Seeing Russia from her window and not reading magazines and killing McCain's bid for president.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, driving a losing campaign into the ground while aggrandizing herself to a base that she didn't need to consolidate anyway.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, once you sift through all the weaseling lies, Ron does serve a useful purpose: a look inside the bizarre mind of someone for whom a Republican primary election serves as a glimpse at 'America'. Someone sufficiently closed minded enough to think America is 'me and people like me' (and definitely not dark skinned people with funny names), and smug enough to be impervious to all factual challenges to how stupid that worldview is.

Now that Romney doesn't have to pretend to admire the Tea Party, now that in fact it would be harmful for him to do so (since out in the rest of America, it is incredibly disliked)...well somehow that adds up to MORE Palin. Even though he wouldn't cozy up with her in the primaries. Yeah.

Anyone who points out how irrational that is isn't worthy of serious conversation.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I find that, so long as there are political threads for Ron to spew hilariously ridiculous unmitigated crap in, I barely miss having cable.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2