If you want clarity on how the real Mitt Romney supporters think, listen to Howie Carr. He admists that "no one cares about Mitt" it's just about hating Obama.
"He’s not Barack Obama. In the end, that’s what it comes down to with Mitt Romney. He’s running as the non-Barack Obama."
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?&articleid=1061157037&format=&page=2&listingType=col#articleFull
That is exactly what the Romney team has discovered does not work. It's a choice not a referendum. And even people like Larry Kudlow admit Romney hasn't made the sale.
The trouble with flat earthers like Carr is that they think everyone thinks like them. They don't get that there aren't enough of them to elect Romney by themselves.
"As much as the Democrats try to change the subject, this election will be about Barack Obama, period. Mitt’s speech last night hit all the right notes, but this fight is not about him. He’s just the vessel. Now the question is, does this guy at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. who thinks the private sector is doing fine get another four years?"
So that's the best Carr has? So did he vote against McCain in 2008 for declaring in the middle of the Lehman meltdown that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong?"
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/romney-will-solve-crisis-exact-same-gop-plan-2008-2006-2004
Of course not. So he's not voting against Obama because of that. Why is he? Virulent hatred. Indeed, the private sector of the Obama economy has actually created more jobs already than in 8 years of Bush. Does Carr know what? No. He doesn't know anything other than a few of the most trifling Right wing talking points.
"He didn’t pound it, but he did repeatedly mention the price of gasoline — “it’s doubled.”
Yeah, that's the market. The price of oil does respond to supply and demand. What would Carr prefer? Howie in his time was actually a Nixon man-true story. Nixon had an answer for high gas prices-price controls. Is that what Obama should have done Howie?
What's that? You don't like fact checkers?
Carr does make the same point I did in an earlier post about Mitt wishing the President had succeeded:
Mitt said, “I wish President Obama had succeeded, because I want America to succeed.” Message: I am not Rush Limbaugh.
That is correct. But what's obvious is that Howie doesn't much care about Mitt. It's just voting out Obama for him:
"It was Mitt’s night, but it’s all about Barack Obama. Today and every day until Nov. 6."
What Carr doesn't get or Rush-who was carping at Rove for playing down the Obama hate-is that the swing voters that Romney spends so much time trying to whisper into their ears, hate when the Tea Partiers attack the President in visceral terms. If they can be convinced to vote against the President they must feel they are voting for Romney.
Because they don't want to vote against the President, even if they did do it they'd want to feel like that's not what they're doing exactly.
This is hwy Romney was so bifurcated last night. He had to try to appeal to the swingers while pleasing people like Rush and Carr who do think the President is a bad man-unlike what Rubio said.
Tell you what. On November 7, after Obama is not voted out, Carr's radio show is one of the first things I'll be listening to. Of course he comes on in the afternoon, so I'll be listening to Rush first. What the heck, Hannity too.
Friday, August 31, 2012
Jeb Bush Also Goes Rouge
Michael Steele made an interesting observation about the speakers of the RNC convention:
"Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele expressed consternation Friday over self-centered speeches at the Republican National Convention, suggesting that they took attention away from what should be the main attraction: Mitt Romney."
“One of the distractions, quite frankly, in this whole narrative week was everyone talking about themselves and not Mitt Romney,” said Steele on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “The campaign signing off on this in speeches that had, the first 20 minutes in some cases, and Mitt Romney’s name is not mentioned.”
"The speeches were “about the individual who is speaking as opposed to coming on the stage and laying down the lead on this man, and why they are standing there fighting and supporting him,” Steele added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80520.html#ixzz259T1vLPN
Of course, there has been a lot of comments about Chris Christy-the flop. However, Axelrod really nails it here:
"Meanwhile, Obama chief political strategist David Axelrod made a similar point, disparaging the convention as “open-mic night for 2016 candidates,” rather than promoting Romney.
In a way, each speaker went rouge in their own way. You had Christy-2016. You had Ryan's whoppers. But Condi was probably either 2016 or the Governor of California or in some way hopes to begin some kind of political career.
Gingirch and his wife, Callista, were more a distraction than anything else with the game of you speak a sentence and then I speak a sentence.
We need say no more about Uncle Clint's 'conversation."
However, I haven't heard many talk about it but what about Jeb Bush's speech. It seems that nothing was less helpful for what the Romney campaign were trying to get at than his sudden sympathy tour for his brother-'Stop blaming my bother. Obama needs a spanking.'
He seems not to get that not many Republicans want to talk about W either, much less to sing his prayers.
How exactly does Jeb's project to get people to say nice things about his brother advance Romney's cause?
In a moment of even more levity, Jeb's guest on the stage actually leans Obama:
"He may have appeared onstage at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night, but teacher Sean Duffy of Austin, Texas, isn’t necessarily voting for GOP nominee Mitt Romney come November."
“I lean more toward Obama, but I think I’m going to vote for someone who’s going to be a strong supporter of education and education reform,” Duffy, 26, told POLITICO in an interview.
"Duffy teaches 11th grade English at Del Valle High School near the Texas capital. He’s also, as POLITICO reported yesterday, the co-star of a save-the-date video inspired by Wes Anderson’s “Rushmore” that went viral in 2010."
"On Thursday night, standing alongside former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Duffy highlighted the importance of technology in education."
“I went to speak about education, and I’m not really concerned about any of the political issues,” he said Friday.
"Duffy said he’s heard Obama talk some about education — he cited the president’s desire to make college more affordable, and that he hasn’t “necessarily heard the same” from Romney — but added that he’s still waiting to hear more on the subject from both candidates."
"He wasn’t, however, impressed with the education portion of Romney’s keynote.
“I heard him say school choice is important,” Duffy said. “Other than that, I haven’t really heard much.”
If Bush appeared on the ticket, Duffy said, the former governor would probably get his vote. But he doesn’t consider himself a member of either party.
“I don’t necessarily support Romney, I don’t consider myself a Republican,” Duffy said. “I’m pretty much an independent.”
"No one asked him about his political views when he was selected to address the convention, he said, adding that Bush’s office contacted him after he hosted a “digital learning day” Webinar at his school. About a week and a half before the convention, Duffy learned that he would be appearing onstage instead of in a video.
“I thought it was a good night,” he said. “I spoke to a lot of people afterward, delegates from different areas, who were really, really grateful for some focus on education on stage. I had people telling me afterwards, saying they were glad someone was talking about education in front of the GOP.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80531.html#ixzz259bsLVKd
Clearly what Romney means by education reform is vouchers-which amounts to taking money away from public schools.
So largely, Steele's point is right. Not many seemed interested in Romney's interests above all. It's almost like they all agree with Christy-that he's not going to win.
In addition, I also think see that Ben Stein sees him as a weak candidate and even Larry Kudlow says he missed the mark in last night's speech.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/08/ben-stein-romneys-a-losing-candidate-133987.html?hp=l7
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/31/romney-didnt-make-the-sale/
"Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele expressed consternation Friday over self-centered speeches at the Republican National Convention, suggesting that they took attention away from what should be the main attraction: Mitt Romney."
“One of the distractions, quite frankly, in this whole narrative week was everyone talking about themselves and not Mitt Romney,” said Steele on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “The campaign signing off on this in speeches that had, the first 20 minutes in some cases, and Mitt Romney’s name is not mentioned.”
"The speeches were “about the individual who is speaking as opposed to coming on the stage and laying down the lead on this man, and why they are standing there fighting and supporting him,” Steele added.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80520.html#ixzz259T1vLPN
Of course, there has been a lot of comments about Chris Christy-the flop. However, Axelrod really nails it here:
"Meanwhile, Obama chief political strategist David Axelrod made a similar point, disparaging the convention as “open-mic night for 2016 candidates,” rather than promoting Romney.
In a way, each speaker went rouge in their own way. You had Christy-2016. You had Ryan's whoppers. But Condi was probably either 2016 or the Governor of California or in some way hopes to begin some kind of political career.
Gingirch and his wife, Callista, were more a distraction than anything else with the game of you speak a sentence and then I speak a sentence.
We need say no more about Uncle Clint's 'conversation."
However, I haven't heard many talk about it but what about Jeb Bush's speech. It seems that nothing was less helpful for what the Romney campaign were trying to get at than his sudden sympathy tour for his brother-'Stop blaming my bother. Obama needs a spanking.'
He seems not to get that not many Republicans want to talk about W either, much less to sing his prayers.
How exactly does Jeb's project to get people to say nice things about his brother advance Romney's cause?
In a moment of even more levity, Jeb's guest on the stage actually leans Obama:
"He may have appeared onstage at the Republican National Convention on Thursday night, but teacher Sean Duffy of Austin, Texas, isn’t necessarily voting for GOP nominee Mitt Romney come November."
“I lean more toward Obama, but I think I’m going to vote for someone who’s going to be a strong supporter of education and education reform,” Duffy, 26, told POLITICO in an interview.
"Duffy teaches 11th grade English at Del Valle High School near the Texas capital. He’s also, as POLITICO reported yesterday, the co-star of a save-the-date video inspired by Wes Anderson’s “Rushmore” that went viral in 2010."
"On Thursday night, standing alongside former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Duffy highlighted the importance of technology in education."
“I went to speak about education, and I’m not really concerned about any of the political issues,” he said Friday.
"Duffy said he’s heard Obama talk some about education — he cited the president’s desire to make college more affordable, and that he hasn’t “necessarily heard the same” from Romney — but added that he’s still waiting to hear more on the subject from both candidates."
"He wasn’t, however, impressed with the education portion of Romney’s keynote.
“I heard him say school choice is important,” Duffy said. “Other than that, I haven’t really heard much.”
If Bush appeared on the ticket, Duffy said, the former governor would probably get his vote. But he doesn’t consider himself a member of either party.
“I don’t necessarily support Romney, I don’t consider myself a Republican,” Duffy said. “I’m pretty much an independent.”
"No one asked him about his political views when he was selected to address the convention, he said, adding that Bush’s office contacted him after he hosted a “digital learning day” Webinar at his school. About a week and a half before the convention, Duffy learned that he would be appearing onstage instead of in a video.
“I thought it was a good night,” he said. “I spoke to a lot of people afterward, delegates from different areas, who were really, really grateful for some focus on education on stage. I had people telling me afterwards, saying they were glad someone was talking about education in front of the GOP.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80531.html#ixzz259bsLVKd
Clearly what Romney means by education reform is vouchers-which amounts to taking money away from public schools.
So largely, Steele's point is right. Not many seemed interested in Romney's interests above all. It's almost like they all agree with Christy-that he's not going to win.
In addition, I also think see that Ben Stein sees him as a weak candidate and even Larry Kudlow says he missed the mark in last night's speech.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/08/ben-stein-romneys-a-losing-candidate-133987.html?hp=l7
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/31/romney-didnt-make-the-sale/
Ohio Verdict Another Blow to GOP Attempts to Restrict Voting
They've suffered some big losses this week, in Texas, in Florida, and now South Carolina is worried about their voter id law.
Now, a federal judge as restored early voting on the last 3 days before the election.
"A federal judge in Ohio on Friday restored early voting rights in the three days before the election, ruling in favor of the Obama campaign."
"U.S. District judge Peter C. Economus ruled that "restoring in-person early voting to all Ohio voters through the Monday before Election Day does not deprive UOCAVA voters from early voting."
"Instead, and more importantly, it places all Ohio voters on equal standing," Economus ruled. He said the state "fails to articulate a precise, compelling interest in establishing the 6 p.m. Friday deadline as applied to non-UOCAVA voters and has failed to evidence any commitment to the 'exception' it rhetorically extended to UOCAVA voters."
"The Romney campaign had falsely accused Obama of trying to curtail military voting when the suit simply sought to force the state to make early voting available to all Ohio voters."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/federal-judge-restores-early-voting-in-ohio-after?ref=fpa
When you actually write down the Romney complaint in words it's hard to see how this even was considered a respectable law suit. How could letting others vote somehow restrict military voters? Anyway, though the GOP got a victory in Pennsylvania recently, they have lost a lot of important contests this week.
Now, a federal judge as restored early voting on the last 3 days before the election.
"A federal judge in Ohio on Friday restored early voting rights in the three days before the election, ruling in favor of the Obama campaign."
"U.S. District judge Peter C. Economus ruled that "restoring in-person early voting to all Ohio voters through the Monday before Election Day does not deprive UOCAVA voters from early voting."
"Instead, and more importantly, it places all Ohio voters on equal standing," Economus ruled. He said the state "fails to articulate a precise, compelling interest in establishing the 6 p.m. Friday deadline as applied to non-UOCAVA voters and has failed to evidence any commitment to the 'exception' it rhetorically extended to UOCAVA voters."
"The Romney campaign had falsely accused Obama of trying to curtail military voting when the suit simply sought to force the state to make early voting available to all Ohio voters."
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/federal-judge-restores-early-voting-in-ohio-after?ref=fpa
When you actually write down the Romney complaint in words it's hard to see how this even was considered a respectable law suit. How could letting others vote somehow restrict military voters? Anyway, though the GOP got a victory in Pennsylvania recently, they have lost a lot of important contests this week.
Romney's Referendum on the Economy Canard
This is what his whole speech was about-that the economy is disappointing so we should vote the President out of office.
Romney's attack was meant to be done with finesse-he didn't want to appeal to naked Obama hating but to attack him "more in sorrow than in anger" to use Karl Rove's concept as a nice guy who's in over his head.
Rubio to hit this theme in his speech that the problem with Obama is not that he's a bad man but a bad President.
While no one misses foaming at the mouth Obama hating-other than Rush Limbaugh
Romney "wishes Obama had succeeded" http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-i-wish-obama-had-succeeded.html
-this concept of it comes down to the economy and nothing but the economy and either you like where the economy is today or you have to vote against Obama is flawed. For one thing it gives Romney a pass into having to put up his own plan for the country. He can just run on not being Obama and throw in an infomercial about Bain and he wins.
Yet though Romney's team wishes otherwise, an election is never a pure referendum. People aren't going to vote for Romney just because he's not Obama and worked at Bain Capital.
What is his plan for the nation? He says he'll give us 4 million jobs in a first term and "energy independence by 2020." What he doesn't give us is any idea how he might get there.
And why should the President alone, take all the blame for the economy? Why does Romney's running mate-Paul Ryan-not take any of the blame for being a leader in the obstructionist GOP House which refused to even vote for the parts of the Obama Jobs Bill that they had previously said they liked and agreed with?
Was it because this might have hurt Mitch McConnell's wish that Obama be "a one term President."
Lying Paul Ryan-that rhymes and doesn't only rhyme-seems to never take responsibility for his own record while he levies some very misleading attacks on the President-even blaming him for a plant that closed in Wisconsin before the President even got in office.
Where has he been the last 3 and a half years? Why should we fire the President? Maybe we'd be better served to fire Paul Ryan and Todd Akin.
Romney claims he wishes the President "had succeeded." Certainly Mr. Ryan clearly never felt this way or we would not have seen the unprecedented obstructionism of Ryan's GOP House.
Romney's attack was meant to be done with finesse-he didn't want to appeal to naked Obama hating but to attack him "more in sorrow than in anger" to use Karl Rove's concept as a nice guy who's in over his head.
Rubio to hit this theme in his speech that the problem with Obama is not that he's a bad man but a bad President.
While no one misses foaming at the mouth Obama hating-other than Rush Limbaugh
Romney "wishes Obama had succeeded" http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-i-wish-obama-had-succeeded.html
-this concept of it comes down to the economy and nothing but the economy and either you like where the economy is today or you have to vote against Obama is flawed. For one thing it gives Romney a pass into having to put up his own plan for the country. He can just run on not being Obama and throw in an infomercial about Bain and he wins.
Yet though Romney's team wishes otherwise, an election is never a pure referendum. People aren't going to vote for Romney just because he's not Obama and worked at Bain Capital.
What is his plan for the nation? He says he'll give us 4 million jobs in a first term and "energy independence by 2020." What he doesn't give us is any idea how he might get there.
And why should the President alone, take all the blame for the economy? Why does Romney's running mate-Paul Ryan-not take any of the blame for being a leader in the obstructionist GOP House which refused to even vote for the parts of the Obama Jobs Bill that they had previously said they liked and agreed with?
Was it because this might have hurt Mitch McConnell's wish that Obama be "a one term President."
Lying Paul Ryan-that rhymes and doesn't only rhyme-seems to never take responsibility for his own record while he levies some very misleading attacks on the President-even blaming him for a plant that closed in Wisconsin before the President even got in office.
Where has he been the last 3 and a half years? Why should we fire the President? Maybe we'd be better served to fire Paul Ryan and Todd Akin.
Romney claims he wishes the President "had succeeded." Certainly Mr. Ryan clearly never felt this way or we would not have seen the unprecedented obstructionism of Ryan's GOP House.
Romney: I Wish Obama Had Succeeded
This idea is Karl Rove's advice more than anyone's. Romney used it last night. The idea is to attack Obama more in sorrow than in anger.
The other day Rush Limbaugh got testy about the lack of Obama bashing on Tuesday night. He called out Karl Rove by name.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80366.html
"Rush Limbaugh slammed Karl Rove on Wednesday and said he was “literally going insane” over GOP strategists’ advice that the party not attack President Barack Obama during their convention."
“Do you want to talk about the overall tone of the convention?” Limbaugh facetiously asked his radio show audience. “Do you want me to say, ‘My gosh, what a bunch of wimps. Don’t even have the guts to mention Obama’s name. Christie didn’t have the guts to mention his name?’ Do you want me to tell you how this bunch seems to be afraid to be critical of a party that’s destroying the country? Or do you agree with the party, ‘No, we don’t need to mention that because everybody already knows it and we’re trying to attract swing voters, and they don’t want to hear that stuff?’
"The conservative talker signaled out Karl Rove, the Bush administration political guru who leads several outside spending groups, and Ed Rollins, who managed Rep. Michele Bachmann’s failed GOP primary bid this year, for criticism."
"Rollins said on Fox News that ignoring Obama’s record was “the perfect way to go” since most voters are already familiar with it. Rove agreed with Democratic strategist Joe Trippi when he made a similar statement."
“Where was the beef?” Limbaugh implored. “Where was the red meat? There wasn’t any. Everybody doesn’t know about Obama’s terrible record! I’m gonna tell you something. Mr. Rollins, if everybody knew Obama’s record, he’d be down 20 points.”
What it comes down is that Rove and Ed Rollins and similar Republican operatives understand that there's a virtue in going easy on the Obama bashing.
So Romney actually said he wished Obama had succeeded. After the speech I noticed that Chris Matthews praised that line-'if he really meant it.'
Mario Rubio-who had a very good speech-ran the Karl Rove play as well when he said that the issue is not with Obama personally, that everything we know tells us he's a decent family man just like Romney is-'He's not a bad person, just a bad President.'
This lacks the red meat that a Limbaugh wants but he doesn't know anything about what it takes to win an actual election.
In many ways this Rove Rule is actually the anti Rush Rule at the same time. Romney's line I wish he had succeeded is 180 degrees from when Limbaugh said two days after the election that 'I hope Obama fails.'
McConnell had said the same thing when he said the only thing that matters is making Obama a one term President.
I notice that the Wall Street Journal has even been invoking this theme the last few days. Yesterday, Rove wrote an op-ed imagining the thoughts of David Plouffe's mind if only Obama had done the right thing and was cruising now to victory.
Today again, I notice the editorial section made an illusion to "if America were in a better place, Mr. Obama would be cruising to a second term." Friday, August 31, 2012. Pg. A14 "The Romney Opportunity."
So even the WSJ claims to be sorrowful for Obama's alleged failure rather than reveling in it, rather than gloating.
This is because they are desperate to win over the swing voters, the undecideds, and some who voted for Obama last time but are not sure now.
These are not people who will be won over by Obama bashing or quips about birth certificates and school transcripts.
It's no surprise that Limbaugh hates the strategy-it's literally the anti-Limbaugh strategy.
However, if Chris Matthews likes the line then maybe it will win over some of the undecideds.
Note that Romney even went further than this last night. He gave Obama some credit for taking out Bin Laden, and even quoted past lines of his approvingly for effect. So part of what they hope will win over some Obama voters with "buyer's remorse" is if he selectively even channels Obama a little.
The other day Rush Limbaugh got testy about the lack of Obama bashing on Tuesday night. He called out Karl Rove by name.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80366.html
"Rush Limbaugh slammed Karl Rove on Wednesday and said he was “literally going insane” over GOP strategists’ advice that the party not attack President Barack Obama during their convention."
“Do you want to talk about the overall tone of the convention?” Limbaugh facetiously asked his radio show audience. “Do you want me to say, ‘My gosh, what a bunch of wimps. Don’t even have the guts to mention Obama’s name. Christie didn’t have the guts to mention his name?’ Do you want me to tell you how this bunch seems to be afraid to be critical of a party that’s destroying the country? Or do you agree with the party, ‘No, we don’t need to mention that because everybody already knows it and we’re trying to attract swing voters, and they don’t want to hear that stuff?’
"Rollins said on Fox News that ignoring Obama’s record was “the perfect way to go” since most voters are already familiar with it. Rove agreed with Democratic strategist Joe Trippi when he made a similar statement."
“Where was the beef?” Limbaugh implored. “Where was the red meat? There wasn’t any. Everybody doesn’t know about Obama’s terrible record! I’m gonna tell you something. Mr. Rollins, if everybody knew Obama’s record, he’d be down 20 points.”
What it comes down is that Rove and Ed Rollins and similar Republican operatives understand that there's a virtue in going easy on the Obama bashing.
So Romney actually said he wished Obama had succeeded. After the speech I noticed that Chris Matthews praised that line-'if he really meant it.'
Mario Rubio-who had a very good speech-ran the Karl Rove play as well when he said that the issue is not with Obama personally, that everything we know tells us he's a decent family man just like Romney is-'He's not a bad person, just a bad President.'
This lacks the red meat that a Limbaugh wants but he doesn't know anything about what it takes to win an actual election.
In many ways this Rove Rule is actually the anti Rush Rule at the same time. Romney's line I wish he had succeeded is 180 degrees from when Limbaugh said two days after the election that 'I hope Obama fails.'
McConnell had said the same thing when he said the only thing that matters is making Obama a one term President.
I notice that the Wall Street Journal has even been invoking this theme the last few days. Yesterday, Rove wrote an op-ed imagining the thoughts of David Plouffe's mind if only Obama had done the right thing and was cruising now to victory.
Today again, I notice the editorial section made an illusion to "if America were in a better place, Mr. Obama would be cruising to a second term." Friday, August 31, 2012. Pg. A14 "The Romney Opportunity."
So even the WSJ claims to be sorrowful for Obama's alleged failure rather than reveling in it, rather than gloating.
This is because they are desperate to win over the swing voters, the undecideds, and some who voted for Obama last time but are not sure now.
These are not people who will be won over by Obama bashing or quips about birth certificates and school transcripts.
It's no surprise that Limbaugh hates the strategy-it's literally the anti-Limbaugh strategy.
However, if Chris Matthews likes the line then maybe it will win over some of the undecideds.
Note that Romney even went further than this last night. He gave Obama some credit for taking out Bin Laden, and even quoted past lines of his approvingly for effect. So part of what they hope will win over some Obama voters with "buyer's remorse" is if he selectively even channels Obama a little.
Romney is Still Trying to Make this a Referendum
That's what you come away with both in his speech and what you get when you add up cumulatively, the entire week.
Last night his biggest lines were about buyer's remorse over Obama. In many ways this has been his whole campaign-focus relentlessly on undecideds who voted for Obama in 2008 but are now on the fence. So much of his campaign has been appealing to the 'Right and getting their trust.
He has taken a surprisingly long time to get to it, but he seems now based on last night's speech anyway, to be moving more to the Center.
Now the Right trusts him so much that he can get away with touting passing ObamaCare in Massachusetts. When he did that the first time, Ann Coulter demanded that his spokeswoman be fired.
Now he himself said the same thing on Sunday-while at the same time in the same breath promising to eliminate ObamaCare his first day in office-and there has been little blowback from the Right.
If you look at his speech and most of the night-other than Crazy Uncle Clint and Jeb Bush's whining about how nobody likes his brother-it was more of the same.
It's what Mitt has tried to run about from the start. Two things:
1) This election is a pure referendum on the President's handling of the economy. It's a simple up and down vote. Yes or no: do you like how the economy is performing today or not?
If you do then you have every right to vote for him and we can't tell you not to and can't reproach you. However, if it's no then you have to vote against him. Obviously if it's this simple then Obama would lose in a landslide-as who is really happy with where the economy is right now? At least if you don't compare it with Britain-where the Conservative government has a policy agenda very similar to what a Romney-Ryan Administration would look like: lots of austerity except for the rich who get huge tax cuts.
Heck if it were this simple I'd have to vote for Romney and hopefully you have an idea of how unlikely that is.
2) Mitt Romney is Mr. Fix It on the economy. Full stop. After all he worked at Bain Capital. Full Stop.
That's been the blueprint from the start and that's how he played it last night. He also made some very generic and big promises and no clue how we get there. We're going to have 4 million new jobs-250,000 a month; particularly impressive when you factor in how much he and Ryan plans to shrink the government and "energy Independence" for "North America."
He used North America whereas in the passed candidates have promised energy independence just for the United States; if he promised that today of course it wouldn't pass the laugh test-any more than Ryan's whopper about the factory closing in his hometown.
Recall that the Romney campaign has admitted that this campaign can't be about policy details if they are to win. This was certainly in evidence last night.
Yet it seems that this is not enough. What they have realized is that no election can be purely a referendum.
Yet what did Romney do last night as this election is a choice not a referendum? Well, maybe the attempt at a more personal Mitt might be hoped to make people feel a little bit better about a choice for him rather than just a choice against Obama.
Maybe they hope to move the needle a little there though Obama still wins the Who you would rather have a beer with? poll hands down.
But the other leg of the stool will remain Birtherism. From Romney's birth certificate "joke" a last Friday, to this "need an American" gloss last night, they need Birtherism-first and foremost the fake welfare attacks to give them any chance of getting over the finish line.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-advisers-bad-economy-not-enough.html
Last night his biggest lines were about buyer's remorse over Obama. In many ways this has been his whole campaign-focus relentlessly on undecideds who voted for Obama in 2008 but are now on the fence. So much of his campaign has been appealing to the 'Right and getting their trust.
He has taken a surprisingly long time to get to it, but he seems now based on last night's speech anyway, to be moving more to the Center.
Now the Right trusts him so much that he can get away with touting passing ObamaCare in Massachusetts. When he did that the first time, Ann Coulter demanded that his spokeswoman be fired.
Now he himself said the same thing on Sunday-while at the same time in the same breath promising to eliminate ObamaCare his first day in office-and there has been little blowback from the Right.
If you look at his speech and most of the night-other than Crazy Uncle Clint and Jeb Bush's whining about how nobody likes his brother-it was more of the same.
It's what Mitt has tried to run about from the start. Two things:
1) This election is a pure referendum on the President's handling of the economy. It's a simple up and down vote. Yes or no: do you like how the economy is performing today or not?
If you do then you have every right to vote for him and we can't tell you not to and can't reproach you. However, if it's no then you have to vote against him. Obviously if it's this simple then Obama would lose in a landslide-as who is really happy with where the economy is right now? At least if you don't compare it with Britain-where the Conservative government has a policy agenda very similar to what a Romney-Ryan Administration would look like: lots of austerity except for the rich who get huge tax cuts.
Heck if it were this simple I'd have to vote for Romney and hopefully you have an idea of how unlikely that is.
2) Mitt Romney is Mr. Fix It on the economy. Full stop. After all he worked at Bain Capital. Full Stop.
That's been the blueprint from the start and that's how he played it last night. He also made some very generic and big promises and no clue how we get there. We're going to have 4 million new jobs-250,000 a month; particularly impressive when you factor in how much he and Ryan plans to shrink the government and "energy Independence" for "North America."
He used North America whereas in the passed candidates have promised energy independence just for the United States; if he promised that today of course it wouldn't pass the laugh test-any more than Ryan's whopper about the factory closing in his hometown.
Recall that the Romney campaign has admitted that this campaign can't be about policy details if they are to win. This was certainly in evidence last night.
Yet it seems that this is not enough. What they have realized is that no election can be purely a referendum.
Yet what did Romney do last night as this election is a choice not a referendum? Well, maybe the attempt at a more personal Mitt might be hoped to make people feel a little bit better about a choice for him rather than just a choice against Obama.
Maybe they hope to move the needle a little there though Obama still wins the Who you would rather have a beer with? poll hands down.
But the other leg of the stool will remain Birtherism. From Romney's birth certificate "joke" a last Friday, to this "need an American" gloss last night, they need Birtherism-first and foremost the fake welfare attacks to give them any chance of getting over the finish line.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-advisers-bad-economy-not-enough.html
So Who is Mitt Romney?
With all the music last night, no doubt that's Mitt's theme song: who are you? Who? Who? Who? Who?
Did he answer it? I don't think that he did.
Romney's speech was OK. It wasn't a total train wreck. Even Republican operatives basically said he did as well as he can be expected to.
What might benefit him are low expectations. This helped Bush back in 2000. While Gore beat him in the debates, he wasn't as bad as expected.
Romney didn't flop as Christy did, nor did he give us the level of whoopers that were in Ryan's speech that led to a new boom market in the fact checkers industry.
He was preceded by Clint Eastwood's "conversation" with "Obama."
Still on it's own terms Romney didn't give a terrible speech nor did he give us Ryan's level of whoppers.
What, though, of his mission-to give us an answer to the question Who is Mitt Romney? Did he answer this? No.
And the more you look at it, he actually further muddied the waters with his speech. There were some new wrinkles to Romney's biography. It was certainly both moving and very interesting to hear a little more about his mother.
You of course only usually hear about his dad. I didn't realize that she was such a feminist pioneer and a prochoice scion to boot. I certainly didn't know that she ran for the Senate.
It was also notable that he claimed that half his staff in Massachusetts were female and that he worked with many women at Bain.
While we'll have to wait for the hated fact checkers to know if this is true or not, all of this might make some feel that he's more sympathetic to women than what he's projected til now.
Having said this, I don't think we know anymore about who Mitt Romney really is today than we did before last night. Romney's trouble is that he saw his task too mechanically-just give us a few more biographical factoids of himself and he's done his job.
What he fails to understand is that the reason people want to know about his personal biography is to make more sense of how who he is as a man and in his experience at Bain and in Massachusetts-which again got short thrift-might bear on how a President Romney would run the country and what his real policy positions are.
This question has been so acute with Romney in part because we never really get the sense that he is anything more than the Etch a Sketch Man, a cipher, an anti Obama conduit. He seems to change positions like shedding off an onion. Whatever it takes to get elected
In judging his speech, consider what the Economist said about him in last week's addition:
"WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-economist-isnt-sold-on-romney-either.html
Do you feel like you are more clear on where he really stands on any of these issues now than before last night?
""Mr Romney may calculate that it is best to keep quiet: the faltering economy will drive voters towards him. It is more likely, however, that his evasiveness will erode his main competitive advantage. A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman. So does a businessman who tells you one thing at breakfast and the opposite at supper. Indeed, all this underlines the main doubt: nobody knows who this strange man really is. It is half a decade since he ran something. Why won’t he talk about his business career openly? Why has he been so reluctant to disclose his tax returns? How can a leader change tack so often? Where does he really want to take the world’s most powerful country?"
We still don't know where he's taking us. In many ways the allusion to his mother underscores the whole problem.
She was a pioneering feminist who ran for the Senate and supported abortion rights. Mitt Romney refuses to say that he supports the Lily Ledbetter Act and is now running further to the Right on abortion than anyone has in a Presidential race has in a hundred years.
How do we square the fact that in 1994 he ran to the Left of Ted Kennedy particularly on gay rights and now he is for "The Defense of Marriage?"
How has he gone from being a Planned Parenthood member along with his wife in 1994, to being moderately prochoice in 2002 to suddenly finding religion and going prolife in 2006 tonow promising to "shut down Planned Parenthood' on his first day in office?
Where does he really stand? I think we're even less confident today than we were yesterday.
We know that others are not etch a sketch men. Paul Ryan may not be conversant with the facts but he has a clear agenda to abolish Medicare for all age groups-not just under 55-and stands shoulder to shoulder with Todd Akin in being against abortion and birth control.
Grover Norquist says that the real ideas come from the GOP Congress not the White House. All Grover needs is a Republican with working digits to sign the bills the GOP House sends him. On this Mitt qualifies. And that he's a cipher with no ideological core is not a problem for them.
They don't need Mitt to have any ideas, just sign their ideas.
So we know who Mitt is. He is etch a sketch man. But we know his Administration would be the most Right Wing in over 100 years, will roll back women's rights and would end the New Deal. Full Stop.
Did he answer it? I don't think that he did.
Romney's speech was OK. It wasn't a total train wreck. Even Republican operatives basically said he did as well as he can be expected to.
What might benefit him are low expectations. This helped Bush back in 2000. While Gore beat him in the debates, he wasn't as bad as expected.
Romney didn't flop as Christy did, nor did he give us the level of whoopers that were in Ryan's speech that led to a new boom market in the fact checkers industry.
He was preceded by Clint Eastwood's "conversation" with "Obama."
Still on it's own terms Romney didn't give a terrible speech nor did he give us Ryan's level of whoppers.
What, though, of his mission-to give us an answer to the question Who is Mitt Romney? Did he answer this? No.
And the more you look at it, he actually further muddied the waters with his speech. There were some new wrinkles to Romney's biography. It was certainly both moving and very interesting to hear a little more about his mother.
You of course only usually hear about his dad. I didn't realize that she was such a feminist pioneer and a prochoice scion to boot. I certainly didn't know that she ran for the Senate.
It was also notable that he claimed that half his staff in Massachusetts were female and that he worked with many women at Bain.
While we'll have to wait for the hated fact checkers to know if this is true or not, all of this might make some feel that he's more sympathetic to women than what he's projected til now.
Having said this, I don't think we know anymore about who Mitt Romney really is today than we did before last night. Romney's trouble is that he saw his task too mechanically-just give us a few more biographical factoids of himself and he's done his job.
What he fails to understand is that the reason people want to know about his personal biography is to make more sense of how who he is as a man and in his experience at Bain and in Massachusetts-which again got short thrift-might bear on how a President Romney would run the country and what his real policy positions are.
This question has been so acute with Romney in part because we never really get the sense that he is anything more than the Etch a Sketch Man, a cipher, an anti Obama conduit. He seems to change positions like shedding off an onion. Whatever it takes to get elected
In judging his speech, consider what the Economist said about him in last week's addition:
"WHEN Mitt Romney was governor of liberal Massachusetts, he supported abortion, gun control, tackling climate change and a requirement that everyone should buy health insurance, backed up with generous subsidies for those who could not afford it. Now, as he prepares to fly to Tampa to accept the Republican Party’s nomination for president on August 30th, he opposes all those things. A year ago he favoured keeping income taxes at their current levels; now he wants to slash them for everybody, with the rate falling from 35% to 28% for the richest Americans."
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-economist-isnt-sold-on-romney-either.html
Do you feel like you are more clear on where he really stands on any of these issues now than before last night?
""Mr Romney may calculate that it is best to keep quiet: the faltering economy will drive voters towards him. It is more likely, however, that his evasiveness will erode his main competitive advantage. A businessman without a credible plan to fix a problem stops being a credible businessman. So does a businessman who tells you one thing at breakfast and the opposite at supper. Indeed, all this underlines the main doubt: nobody knows who this strange man really is. It is half a decade since he ran something. Why won’t he talk about his business career openly? Why has he been so reluctant to disclose his tax returns? How can a leader change tack so often? Where does he really want to take the world’s most powerful country?"
We still don't know where he's taking us. In many ways the allusion to his mother underscores the whole problem.
She was a pioneering feminist who ran for the Senate and supported abortion rights. Mitt Romney refuses to say that he supports the Lily Ledbetter Act and is now running further to the Right on abortion than anyone has in a Presidential race has in a hundred years.
How do we square the fact that in 1994 he ran to the Left of Ted Kennedy particularly on gay rights and now he is for "The Defense of Marriage?"
How has he gone from being a Planned Parenthood member along with his wife in 1994, to being moderately prochoice in 2002 to suddenly finding religion and going prolife in 2006 tonow promising to "shut down Planned Parenthood' on his first day in office?
Where does he really stand? I think we're even less confident today than we were yesterday.
We know that others are not etch a sketch men. Paul Ryan may not be conversant with the facts but he has a clear agenda to abolish Medicare for all age groups-not just under 55-and stands shoulder to shoulder with Todd Akin in being against abortion and birth control.
Grover Norquist says that the real ideas come from the GOP Congress not the White House. All Grover needs is a Republican with working digits to sign the bills the GOP House sends him. On this Mitt qualifies. And that he's a cipher with no ideological core is not a problem for them.
They don't need Mitt to have any ideas, just sign their ideas.
So we know who Mitt is. He is etch a sketch man. But we know his Administration would be the most Right Wing in over 100 years, will roll back women's rights and would end the New Deal. Full Stop.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
John Nolte Melts Down As Media Calls Out Lying Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan has earned his stripes, he's now a made man in the pantheons of great Republican hacks and dissemblers.
John Nolte over at Breitbart has a meltdown. He can't believe that the cowed media is finally doing it's job. So he invents feverish conspiracy theories of some grand conspiracy between Obama and the entire media. Does he believe this all happened in one room?
It's a fascinating look inside the cartoon mind of Breitbart's yellow journalists. That's why they are so great at political fiction.
"For four long years, I've waited for these disgracefully partisan left-wing fact checkers to implode, and this morning and last night it finally happened. And it happened under the weight of their own lies and shameless Obama-shilling. "
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/30/Media-Fact-Checkers-Died-Today
Ok, that needs to be translated from yellow journalism to English. Ie, for four years the cowed media that worries about nothing more than being called liberal has continually not done it's job and actually done some fact checking. Indeed, that the media is so often AWOL is widely admitted:
"The political media has received its own share of criticism for a "he said, she said" approach to covering politics, giving Democrats and Republicans the chance to simply rebut one another -- sometimes anonymously -- without making a judgment about whether a statement is actually true or false."
This is the environment that we have lived in-it's Krugman's "opinion's differ" where if one side says six million Jews were gassed in the Holocaust and the other says none were, David Brooks will be out to tell us that we shouldn't insist on 6 but compromise and give the Holocaust deniers a fair hearing.
So the "meltdown" that Nolte feverishly screams about is the media finally is doing it's job, not just saying "Well Democrats say the GM plant was closed before Obama was in office but Republicans say it was after."
For once the media checked and found that, yeah, it was actually before. It's not an opinion, it's just a fact. Now I should be sensitive. I know how much the Nolte's of the world and the Romney campaign hate facts. Notle's piece is even called "The Era of Fact Checkers Intimidating Republicans is Over."
In other words, the Republicans plan to lie with impunity from now on. That's certainly Romney;s strategy and why not? It's his only hope of winning, as his own campaign now knows that no matter how bad the economy is, it probably can't get bad enough that people will actually elect him. No, they need to put their finger on the scale in some way.
So they make up lies about the President and welfare, and Romney tells "jokes" about his birth certificate.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-advisers-bad-economy-not-enough.html
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-test-driving-birtherism.html
If they lie they may still not win. If they don't they are assured defeat.
More from Notle who clearly learned a lot as Breitbart's apprentice.
"Last night, before the applause had even died after VP nominee Paul Ryan's masterful speech, CNN's Wolf Blitzer was calling Ryan a liar. Before the echoes of Ryan's last words had even faded, Blitzer was telling America the fact-checkers would take issue with the speech."
Talk about dealing in lies! Nolte seems to think that the idea that Ryan's speech was masterful is a fact rather than a quite questionable opinion. And listen to him beat up on poor Wolf Blitzer. The truth is that Wolfe is one of the most craven hacks around. He hates to criticize Republicans ever. Even here he was so timid. His whole life revolves around not having hacks like Nolte call him a liberal.
However, Ryan took such blatant liberties last night that he had no choice. Even here he hedged himself:
"Coming right off Ryan’s speech Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett seemed unable not to mention that Ryan’s speech had well … contained a lot of pretty huge fibs. So euphemisms to the rescue. The transcript …
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/great_moments_in_cnn_euphemisms.php
See, this is why the kind of craven cowardice of people like Blitzer is counterproductive. Putting your head down so you don't get called a liberal doesn't work. Does Bretibart's outfit care that he hasn't done his job in years? No. Does he get any credit? No. Are his plaintive euphemisms even noted, much less appreciated by Nolte? No. So why not just do your job, media?
Nolte then employs some of his own strange logic. He thinks that he's showing how silly the alleged Obama fifth column is, but instead he only implicates himself:
"Hilariously, even though Paul Ryan never blamed Obama for closing a GM plant in his hometown or said the closing occurred during the Obama administration, the fact-checkers said he did and that Ryan was a liar for saying so. What's even more hilarious is that the GM plant did close down months after Obama took office. Keep in mind here, I'm not talking about left-wing sites. I'm talking about CNN, PolitiFact, The Washington Post… "
So first he claims that Ryan never blamed Obama for the closed plant and that he never said it closed during Obama's term. Then he says it did close in the "months after Obama took office." So he's both claiming that Ryan didn't lie and claim the GM plant closed after Obama got in office. Then he says in fact it did close after Obama got in office.
Nolte uses feverish hyperbole about the day "the fact checkers died" but behind this quite false piece of braggadocio, is the truth. Today is the day the fact checkers finally woke up. People like Bertibard and Limbaugh have been intimidating the media for years. None have reacted to this more than CNN that's mostly scared shitless of being called liberal. They mostly have preferred not to do their jobs if it helps them avoid the hated l word.
However, the media finally has had enough. And this is what all Nolte's hyperbolic screeching is all about.
See, the docile MSM didn't do the job the folks at Bertibart expected it to do. They were supposed to all write cloying coronations to Ryan's imaginary "masterful wonkery." Instead they did their job. The Bretibarts of the world are besides themselves. They are apocalyptic.
Because the mainstream is writing any eulogies to Ryan's fake mastery. So only the Right wing hack outfits like Breitbart are writing them, taking away much of their effectiveness. After all, how are the swing voters going to be won over as they don't watch Fox News and read Breitbart?
What this means is that Romney's Ryan offensive last night, has fallen flat. He is not being coronated by those who are recognized as being the real press not yellow Right wing journalists.
John Nolte over at Breitbart has a meltdown. He can't believe that the cowed media is finally doing it's job. So he invents feverish conspiracy theories of some grand conspiracy between Obama and the entire media. Does he believe this all happened in one room?
It's a fascinating look inside the cartoon mind of Breitbart's yellow journalists. That's why they are so great at political fiction.
"For four long years, I've waited for these disgracefully partisan left-wing fact checkers to implode, and this morning and last night it finally happened. And it happened under the weight of their own lies and shameless Obama-shilling. "
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/30/Media-Fact-Checkers-Died-Today
Ok, that needs to be translated from yellow journalism to English. Ie, for four years the cowed media that worries about nothing more than being called liberal has continually not done it's job and actually done some fact checking. Indeed, that the media is so often AWOL is widely admitted:
"The political media has received its own share of criticism for a "he said, she said" approach to covering politics, giving Democrats and Republicans the chance to simply rebut one another -- sometimes anonymously -- without making a judgment about whether a statement is actually true or false."
This is the environment that we have lived in-it's Krugman's "opinion's differ" where if one side says six million Jews were gassed in the Holocaust and the other says none were, David Brooks will be out to tell us that we shouldn't insist on 6 but compromise and give the Holocaust deniers a fair hearing.
So the "meltdown" that Nolte feverishly screams about is the media finally is doing it's job, not just saying "Well Democrats say the GM plant was closed before Obama was in office but Republicans say it was after."
For once the media checked and found that, yeah, it was actually before. It's not an opinion, it's just a fact. Now I should be sensitive. I know how much the Nolte's of the world and the Romney campaign hate facts. Notle's piece is even called "The Era of Fact Checkers Intimidating Republicans is Over."
In other words, the Republicans plan to lie with impunity from now on. That's certainly Romney;s strategy and why not? It's his only hope of winning, as his own campaign now knows that no matter how bad the economy is, it probably can't get bad enough that people will actually elect him. No, they need to put their finger on the scale in some way.
So they make up lies about the President and welfare, and Romney tells "jokes" about his birth certificate.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-advisers-bad-economy-not-enough.html
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/romney-test-driving-birtherism.html
If they lie they may still not win. If they don't they are assured defeat.
More from Notle who clearly learned a lot as Breitbart's apprentice.
"Last night, before the applause had even died after VP nominee Paul Ryan's masterful speech, CNN's Wolf Blitzer was calling Ryan a liar. Before the echoes of Ryan's last words had even faded, Blitzer was telling America the fact-checkers would take issue with the speech."
Talk about dealing in lies! Nolte seems to think that the idea that Ryan's speech was masterful is a fact rather than a quite questionable opinion. And listen to him beat up on poor Wolf Blitzer. The truth is that Wolfe is one of the most craven hacks around. He hates to criticize Republicans ever. Even here he was so timid. His whole life revolves around not having hacks like Nolte call him a liberal.
However, Ryan took such blatant liberties last night that he had no choice. Even here he hedged himself:
"Coming right off Ryan’s speech Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett seemed unable not to mention that Ryan’s speech had well … contained a lot of pretty huge fibs. So euphemisms to the rescue. The transcript …
Blitzer: So there he is, the republican vice presidential nominee and his beautiful family there. His mom is up there. This is exactly what this crowd of republicans here certainly republicans all across the country were hoping for. He delivered a powerful speech. Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked at least seven or eight points I’m sure the fact checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward, I’m sure they will. As far as mitt romney’s campaign is concerned, paul ryan on this night delivered. Burnett: That’s right. Certainly so. We were jotting down points. There will be issues with some of the facts. But it motivated people. He’s a man who says I care deeply about every single word. I want to do a good job. And he delivered on that. Precise, clear, and passionate.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/great_moments_in_cnn_euphemisms.php
See, this is why the kind of craven cowardice of people like Blitzer is counterproductive. Putting your head down so you don't get called a liberal doesn't work. Does Bretibart's outfit care that he hasn't done his job in years? No. Does he get any credit? No. Are his plaintive euphemisms even noted, much less appreciated by Nolte? No. So why not just do your job, media?
Nolte then employs some of his own strange logic. He thinks that he's showing how silly the alleged Obama fifth column is, but instead he only implicates himself:
"Hilariously, even though Paul Ryan never blamed Obama for closing a GM plant in his hometown or said the closing occurred during the Obama administration, the fact-checkers said he did and that Ryan was a liar for saying so. What's even more hilarious is that the GM plant did close down months after Obama took office. Keep in mind here, I'm not talking about left-wing sites. I'm talking about CNN, PolitiFact, The Washington Post… "
So first he claims that Ryan never blamed Obama for the closed plant and that he never said it closed during Obama's term. Then he says it did close in the "months after Obama took office." So he's both claiming that Ryan didn't lie and claim the GM plant closed after Obama got in office. Then he says in fact it did close after Obama got in office.
Nolte uses feverish hyperbole about the day "the fact checkers died" but behind this quite false piece of braggadocio, is the truth. Today is the day the fact checkers finally woke up. People like Bertibard and Limbaugh have been intimidating the media for years. None have reacted to this more than CNN that's mostly scared shitless of being called liberal. They mostly have preferred not to do their jobs if it helps them avoid the hated l word.
However, the media finally has had enough. And this is what all Nolte's hyperbolic screeching is all about.
See, the docile MSM didn't do the job the folks at Bertibart expected it to do. They were supposed to all write cloying coronations to Ryan's imaginary "masterful wonkery." Instead they did their job. The Bretibarts of the world are besides themselves. They are apocalyptic.
Because the mainstream is writing any eulogies to Ryan's fake mastery. So only the Right wing hack outfits like Breitbart are writing them, taking away much of their effectiveness. After all, how are the swing voters going to be won over as they don't watch Fox News and read Breitbart?
What this means is that Romney's Ryan offensive last night, has fallen flat. He is not being coronated by those who are recognized as being the real press not yellow Right wing journalists.
Lying Paul Ryan's Unflinching Dishonesty
Ryan has surpassed Romney again, in rank dishonesty. It's quickly become the consensus that with all the Republican hacks trying to make this speech something unprecedented, indeed it was, in it's shocking disdain for the facts.
We know what Mitt Romney and his friends think about facts: they don't matter. If the only way they can win is by making things up and blowing the racial dog whistle, Mitt Romney has no problem with this. And why should it? His entire time in politics since 1994 shows an unprecedented level of rank dishonesty and lack of integrity.
Many politicians flip flop but Romney contradicts himself within the same sentence. He hit a new high water mark on Fox News when he both told women to vote for him because he passed ObamaCare while also in the same breath vowing to repeal ObamCare his very first day in office.
Ryan has fit right in with this mendacious, intellectually bankrupt environment.
" Before Rep. Paul Ryan left the stage Wednesday night at the Tampa Bay Times Forum, journalists took to Twitter for some real-time fact-checking."
"Soon after, several media outlets, including The Huffington Post, called attention to misleading statements from Ryan's speech. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn asked if it was the most dishonest convention speech" ever. New York's Dan Amira described it shortly before midnight as "appallingly disingenuous and shamelessly hypocritical," with his colleague Jonathan Chait -- who claims to have "the equivalent of a master’s degree in Ryan lie-ology" -- later calling out the Republican candidate for "brazen dishonesty."
At around 12:15 a.m., the Associated Press hit the wire with a piece detailing "factual shortcuts" on issues like Medicare, economic stimulus, and the closing of a GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wis."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/paul-ryan-fact-checking-media_n_1844085.html
Lying Paul Ryan. It rhymes. It doesn't only rhyme. However, there is at least one promise Mitt Romney keeps-the promise to not let himself worry about fact-checkers:
"Yesterday, at an ABC News panel, Mitt Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” Wednesday’s speech from Paul Ryan certainly took that disdain for truth to heart, as his address was filled with falsehoods from start to finish."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/paul-ryans-dishonest-speech/2012/08/30/16bb62d8-f24f-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html
John Notle over at Breitabrt's site-the capital of yellow journalism-serves us a warning about the kind of campaign Romney intends to run when he declares that "Era of Media Fact Checkers Intimidating Republicans is Over"
From now on the Republicans have no choice but to lie blatantly and hope for public ignorance. What they never can afford is an honest look at the facts.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/30/Media-Fact-Checkers-Died-Today
We know what Mitt Romney and his friends think about facts: they don't matter. If the only way they can win is by making things up and blowing the racial dog whistle, Mitt Romney has no problem with this. And why should it? His entire time in politics since 1994 shows an unprecedented level of rank dishonesty and lack of integrity.
Many politicians flip flop but Romney contradicts himself within the same sentence. He hit a new high water mark on Fox News when he both told women to vote for him because he passed ObamaCare while also in the same breath vowing to repeal ObamCare his very first day in office.
Ryan has fit right in with this mendacious, intellectually bankrupt environment.
" Before Rep. Paul Ryan left the stage Wednesday night at the Tampa Bay Times Forum, journalists took to Twitter for some real-time fact-checking."
"Soon after, several media outlets, including The Huffington Post, called attention to misleading statements from Ryan's speech. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn asked if it was the most dishonest convention speech" ever. New York's Dan Amira described it shortly before midnight as "appallingly disingenuous and shamelessly hypocritical," with his colleague Jonathan Chait -- who claims to have "the equivalent of a master’s degree in Ryan lie-ology" -- later calling out the Republican candidate for "brazen dishonesty."
At around 12:15 a.m., the Associated Press hit the wire with a piece detailing "factual shortcuts" on issues like Medicare, economic stimulus, and the closing of a GM plant in his hometown of Janesville, Wis."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/paul-ryan-fact-checking-media_n_1844085.html
Lying Paul Ryan. It rhymes. It doesn't only rhyme. However, there is at least one promise Mitt Romney keeps-the promise to not let himself worry about fact-checkers:
"Yesterday, at an ABC News panel, Mitt Romney pollster Neil Newhouse said, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” Wednesday’s speech from Paul Ryan certainly took that disdain for truth to heart, as his address was filled with falsehoods from start to finish."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/paul-ryans-dishonest-speech/2012/08/30/16bb62d8-f24f-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html
John Notle over at Breitabrt's site-the capital of yellow journalism-serves us a warning about the kind of campaign Romney intends to run when he declares that "Era of Media Fact Checkers Intimidating Republicans is Over"
From now on the Republicans have no choice but to lie blatantly and hope for public ignorance. What they never can afford is an honest look at the facts.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/08/30/Media-Fact-Checkers-Died-Today
Michael Moore and How Smart Are the Republicans
Moore is not an optimist. He thinks we should get used to saying "President Romney."
"Filmmaker Michael Moore joined HuffPost Live Thursday and predicted that the influence of money in politics would lift Mitt Romney to victory over President Barack Obama in November."
"Mitt Romney is going to raise more money than Barack Obama. That should guarantee his victory," Moore told host Josh Zepps. "I think people should start to practice the words 'President Romney.' To assume that the other side are just a bunch of ignoramuses who are supported by people who believe that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago is to completely misjudge the opposition."
Moore said he believes that if the election were conducted "American Idol"-style, and Americans were able to vote from their couches, Obama "would win hands down."
"That's not what's gonna happen," he told Zepps. "This election's going to be decided on who gets out the most people that day. Who's up at four in the morning, making sure that dozens, hundreds, thousands of people in their communities are getting out to vote. And the Republican machine that is set up and the money behind it to guarantee [what] is really the only important thing -- turnout on that day -- that's what looks pretty scary here."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/michael-moore-mitt-romney_n_1843824.html
Thank you Mr. Optimist. He also makes a comment that the Democrats are counting on our fear of a return of the Bush years but that this is not enough.
I can't understand that. Speaking for myself, nothing sounds more scary than "President Romney." And by the way, the Republicans are finally-very gingerly-trying to say it's time to stop beating up on George W. Bush. it's time for his spin cycle.
For me, the fear of the end of the New Deal which a Romney election means is more than enough. I don't get people who sit around still arguing about what the President did or didn't do in 2009.
Ok. As far as much of what Moore says here, the quoted part, certainly, he's exactly right. The Republicans are not stupid. They are very smart.
Moore's right-if this were an American Idol style vote Obama would win hands down. And we have the numbers to prove it-the polls show him leading by a 2 to 1 margin for unlikely voters! Oy! But think about the American idol, just click a bottom on your phone to text your choice-Romney or Obama.
Obviously Obama would win that. And so we see how smart the Repugs are in fighting making voting easier and more accessible. They won't hear of Internet voting. The now have a new poll tax going this year-AKA voter ids, though happily, they went down in Texas today, are having problems in Florida and now South Carolina worries they may lose theirs as well.
But the GOP is smart. Think about it. They are in the minority, yes. But we should not assume that they can't keep themselves going a long time with that. Ok. I'm much more of an optimist than Moore.
It looks to me like the GOP will soon really start to suffer from the demographic and social shifts we've seen. The RNC convention platform this year-that even goes after pornography, shows how much more conservative they are socially than the rest of the country. This is why they call a foul when the Dems even bring up social issues.
Still, if the GOP is the minority view, it has been for a long time. Really, since FDR, since the New Deal, the Republican party has been in the minority of public opinion in thhis country and what's more they know themselves to be.
Yet they've survived. And, starting with Buckley in the early 50s they've been in attack mode. Finally, in 1968 it started to show electorally.
I've heard Rush Limbaugh complain that Social Security is a scheme to get Democrats elected. He's largely right at least with respect of it's effect. The GOP that had been the dominant party since the Civil War went to being the minority party that was only strong in certain regions after FDR.
Since 1968, with the maturation of the Southern Strategy, though they've fought the Democrats to a rough parity.
Roughly what we've seen after years of Democratic dominance, is after 1968 for every two elections-at all levels of government-Federal, State, and Local-the GOP has won one.
Prior to 1968 the Dems were wining more like 2 of every 3 or even more. So the GOP is smart. They could never have won so many elections if they weren't.
And the Medicare fight since Paul Ryan has joined is a perfect example of this. The Republican strategy explicitly started from an admission that they have the disadvantage on this issue. However, their strategy has maximized it for them.
They know they can't win the debate outright but they don';t need to. They merely need to "fight to a draw" as they explicitly put it. True, liberals .like mysefl made a lot of this when the story delveoped on Politico. They admitted that if this discussion gets to deep in the weeds of tangible policy, they lose.
They admitted this. Yet, here we are, three weeks into the Ryan era and at least until now, we have actually only gotten a draw on Medicare.
The Repugs have managed to muddy the water enough with their counter charge about Obama being "the only President to every cut Medicare to the tune of $717 billion dollars-and the Dems have not been ready to thrust back.
Hopefully they will. It does seem that Ryan is getting called out quite widely by his highly dishonest speech last night that was simply a work of political and economic fiction. That's a good thing.
We'll see if the Dems do a better job on Medicare going forward. This should be a weapon that we can mercilessly use against the GOP again and again. The polls shouldn't show Obama and Romney as even.
In some state races we see Dems like Heidi Heitkamp successfully using it, forcing the RSCC to redirect funds to a race they expected to win easily. Hopefully the national Dems, including the Obama team are watching.
"Filmmaker Michael Moore joined HuffPost Live Thursday and predicted that the influence of money in politics would lift Mitt Romney to victory over President Barack Obama in November."
"Mitt Romney is going to raise more money than Barack Obama. That should guarantee his victory," Moore told host Josh Zepps. "I think people should start to practice the words 'President Romney.' To assume that the other side are just a bunch of ignoramuses who are supported by people who believe that Adam and Eve rode on dinosaurs 6,000 years ago is to completely misjudge the opposition."
Moore said he believes that if the election were conducted "American Idol"-style, and Americans were able to vote from their couches, Obama "would win hands down."
"That's not what's gonna happen," he told Zepps. "This election's going to be decided on who gets out the most people that day. Who's up at four in the morning, making sure that dozens, hundreds, thousands of people in their communities are getting out to vote. And the Republican machine that is set up and the money behind it to guarantee [what] is really the only important thing -- turnout on that day -- that's what looks pretty scary here."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/michael-moore-mitt-romney_n_1843824.html
Thank you Mr. Optimist. He also makes a comment that the Democrats are counting on our fear of a return of the Bush years but that this is not enough.
I can't understand that. Speaking for myself, nothing sounds more scary than "President Romney." And by the way, the Republicans are finally-very gingerly-trying to say it's time to stop beating up on George W. Bush. it's time for his spin cycle.
For me, the fear of the end of the New Deal which a Romney election means is more than enough. I don't get people who sit around still arguing about what the President did or didn't do in 2009.
Ok. As far as much of what Moore says here, the quoted part, certainly, he's exactly right. The Republicans are not stupid. They are very smart.
Moore's right-if this were an American Idol style vote Obama would win hands down. And we have the numbers to prove it-the polls show him leading by a 2 to 1 margin for unlikely voters! Oy! But think about the American idol, just click a bottom on your phone to text your choice-Romney or Obama.
Obviously Obama would win that. And so we see how smart the Repugs are in fighting making voting easier and more accessible. They won't hear of Internet voting. The now have a new poll tax going this year-AKA voter ids, though happily, they went down in Texas today, are having problems in Florida and now South Carolina worries they may lose theirs as well.
But the GOP is smart. Think about it. They are in the minority, yes. But we should not assume that they can't keep themselves going a long time with that. Ok. I'm much more of an optimist than Moore.
It looks to me like the GOP will soon really start to suffer from the demographic and social shifts we've seen. The RNC convention platform this year-that even goes after pornography, shows how much more conservative they are socially than the rest of the country. This is why they call a foul when the Dems even bring up social issues.
Still, if the GOP is the minority view, it has been for a long time. Really, since FDR, since the New Deal, the Republican party has been in the minority of public opinion in thhis country and what's more they know themselves to be.
Yet they've survived. And, starting with Buckley in the early 50s they've been in attack mode. Finally, in 1968 it started to show electorally.
I've heard Rush Limbaugh complain that Social Security is a scheme to get Democrats elected. He's largely right at least with respect of it's effect. The GOP that had been the dominant party since the Civil War went to being the minority party that was only strong in certain regions after FDR.
Since 1968, with the maturation of the Southern Strategy, though they've fought the Democrats to a rough parity.
Roughly what we've seen after years of Democratic dominance, is after 1968 for every two elections-at all levels of government-Federal, State, and Local-the GOP has won one.
Prior to 1968 the Dems were wining more like 2 of every 3 or even more. So the GOP is smart. They could never have won so many elections if they weren't.
And the Medicare fight since Paul Ryan has joined is a perfect example of this. The Republican strategy explicitly started from an admission that they have the disadvantage on this issue. However, their strategy has maximized it for them.
They know they can't win the debate outright but they don';t need to. They merely need to "fight to a draw" as they explicitly put it. True, liberals .like mysefl made a lot of this when the story delveoped on Politico. They admitted that if this discussion gets to deep in the weeds of tangible policy, they lose.
They admitted this. Yet, here we are, three weeks into the Ryan era and at least until now, we have actually only gotten a draw on Medicare.
The Repugs have managed to muddy the water enough with their counter charge about Obama being "the only President to every cut Medicare to the tune of $717 billion dollars-and the Dems have not been ready to thrust back.
Hopefully they will. It does seem that Ryan is getting called out quite widely by his highly dishonest speech last night that was simply a work of political and economic fiction. That's a good thing.
We'll see if the Dems do a better job on Medicare going forward. This should be a weapon that we can mercilessly use against the GOP again and again. The polls shouldn't show Obama and Romney as even.
In some state races we see Dems like Heidi Heitkamp successfully using it, forcing the RSCC to redirect funds to a race they expected to win easily. Hopefully the national Dems, including the Obama team are watching.
Jeb Bush's Mixed Message
He often gets lauded for his wiser talk than many of the GOP extremists for arguing they need to reach out to Latinos and that Mitt Romney must connect emotionally at tonight's convention speech.
But in the last few days he seems to be on something of a crusade for the honor of his brother, George W. Bush. Condoleeza Rice also has been riding that train.
Condi Rice trying to bring back Bush? http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-is-condoleeza-rices-game.html
Then he's trying to push back at the criticism of Ryan's factually challenged speech last night. So it's kind of hard to figure out just where Jeb is coming from.
There are some who think he's running for 2016. Is the country really going to consider electing anyone with the last name of Bush anytime soon? I admit, I'd love to live forever, but as won't can't the next President Bush wait until may time is passed?
Then Jeb is going so far as demanding that Obama "stop blaming my brother" and that the President of the United States "needs a spanking." Could such unbelievable language be possible if this President were white?
Now the independent Jeb is turning into a rank party apologist for the lies of Paul Ryan. Somehow, it's wrong to "even suggest" Ryan may not be telling the truth:
"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has largely sat this election cycle out. From the sidelines, he chides his party for not reaching out more to Latinos — thereby earning him a reputation as savvy and independent and provoking whispers that he’s prepping for a 2016 presidential run".
"But on Thursday morning, Bush was every bit the team player when he defended the fibs in Paul Ryan’s speech Wednesday night."
"First, Bush defended Ryan’s assertion that President Obama is to blame for a GM plant that closed in 2008 under President George W. Bush. “Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: ‘I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years,’” Ryan said in his speech. “That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day.” But Jeb Bush claimed that this was not “misleading.”
“No not at all,” Bush said. “That’s exactly — those were the words Barack Obama used. It was a campaign promise and it is yet another campaign promise unfulfilled.”
"Bush also defended Ryan’s attack on Obama for not following the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson debt commission even though Ryan himself voted against those recommendations. According to
Bush, Ryan put forward his own budget and is therefore beyond reproach on budget issues."
“He voted against it because it did not have any aspect of it that included entitlement reform, which is the most pressing budget issue that our country faces,” Bush said. “And the Ryan budget does deal with that over the long haul.”
"Bush said the charges that Paul was dishonest in his speech are misguided: “To suggest that Paul Ryan is not completely truthful when he’s the only guy in Washington, D.C. that’s actually put out a comprehensive plan with a budget attached to it, I think is wrong.”
"Bush’s use of entitlement reform as a defense, however, ignores the fact that the debt commission did consider Medicare reform, but Ryan did not back it."
"Bush will address the convention in Tampa Thursday evening."
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/jeb-bush-ryan-rnc-speech.php
How can Obama be faulted for a closing that happened prior to his term? You have to use Republican logic. It's like Stalin used to have his Proletarian science. What Republican logic means that Obama has superagency and responsibility for everything that's ever happened in the world, anywhere, anytime. Typical Obama Derangment Syndrome (OBDS).
Ryan on the other hand gets a pass for not supporting Simpson-Bowles while chiding the President for nto supporting it. Ryan did more than just not support it, too. He actively urged other Republicans not to support it.
What should you expect from a campaign where just this last Sunday, Mitt Romney was telling women they should vote for him as he passed ObamaCare and in the same sentence promising to repeal ObamaCare his first day in office?
So how does Jeb argue for Mitt to connect emotionally with voters while telling them what a great guy George W. Bush is-their least favorite guy in the world. Isn't that a contradiction? Shouldn't any emotional appeal, avoid any reference to George W. Bush much less a campaign to somehow resuscitate his reputation?
But in the last few days he seems to be on something of a crusade for the honor of his brother, George W. Bush. Condoleeza Rice also has been riding that train.
Condi Rice trying to bring back Bush? http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/what-is-condoleeza-rices-game.html
Then he's trying to push back at the criticism of Ryan's factually challenged speech last night. So it's kind of hard to figure out just where Jeb is coming from.
There are some who think he's running for 2016. Is the country really going to consider electing anyone with the last name of Bush anytime soon? I admit, I'd love to live forever, but as won't can't the next President Bush wait until may time is passed?
Then Jeb is going so far as demanding that Obama "stop blaming my brother" and that the President of the United States "needs a spanking." Could such unbelievable language be possible if this President were white?
Now the independent Jeb is turning into a rank party apologist for the lies of Paul Ryan. Somehow, it's wrong to "even suggest" Ryan may not be telling the truth:
"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has largely sat this election cycle out. From the sidelines, he chides his party for not reaching out more to Latinos — thereby earning him a reputation as savvy and independent and provoking whispers that he’s prepping for a 2016 presidential run".
"But on Thursday morning, Bush was every bit the team player when he defended the fibs in Paul Ryan’s speech Wednesday night."
"First, Bush defended Ryan’s assertion that President Obama is to blame for a GM plant that closed in 2008 under President George W. Bush. “Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: ‘I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years,’” Ryan said in his speech. “That’s what he said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day.” But Jeb Bush claimed that this was not “misleading.”
“No not at all,” Bush said. “That’s exactly — those were the words Barack Obama used. It was a campaign promise and it is yet another campaign promise unfulfilled.”
"Bush also defended Ryan’s attack on Obama for not following the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson debt commission even though Ryan himself voted against those recommendations. According to
Bush, Ryan put forward his own budget and is therefore beyond reproach on budget issues."
“He voted against it because it did not have any aspect of it that included entitlement reform, which is the most pressing budget issue that our country faces,” Bush said. “And the Ryan budget does deal with that over the long haul.”
"Bush said the charges that Paul was dishonest in his speech are misguided: “To suggest that Paul Ryan is not completely truthful when he’s the only guy in Washington, D.C. that’s actually put out a comprehensive plan with a budget attached to it, I think is wrong.”
"Bush’s use of entitlement reform as a defense, however, ignores the fact that the debt commission did consider Medicare reform, but Ryan did not back it."
"Bush will address the convention in Tampa Thursday evening."
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/jeb-bush-ryan-rnc-speech.php
How can Obama be faulted for a closing that happened prior to his term? You have to use Republican logic. It's like Stalin used to have his Proletarian science. What Republican logic means that Obama has superagency and responsibility for everything that's ever happened in the world, anywhere, anytime. Typical Obama Derangment Syndrome (OBDS).
Ryan on the other hand gets a pass for not supporting Simpson-Bowles while chiding the President for nto supporting it. Ryan did more than just not support it, too. He actively urged other Republicans not to support it.
What should you expect from a campaign where just this last Sunday, Mitt Romney was telling women they should vote for him as he passed ObamaCare and in the same sentence promising to repeal ObamaCare his first day in office?
So how does Jeb argue for Mitt to connect emotionally with voters while telling them what a great guy George W. Bush is-their least favorite guy in the world. Isn't that a contradiction? Shouldn't any emotional appeal, avoid any reference to George W. Bush much less a campaign to somehow resuscitate his reputation?
What is Condoleeza Rice's Game?
A lot of people seem to love Condi's speech. I must admit I don't always come away with the consensus view. I had thought that Christy's speech was kind of good-as far as it went. But it's been almost universally derided.
I do agree that it didn't have much to do with Mitt Romney and I laughed at that headline yesterday that read Ryan Speech Interrupts Christy Campaign.
I 100% agree that Christy's speech was a Eat Your Spinach speech. Of course that's the GOP way. No matter how much we suffer, they are always the ones who worry that we've had it to good that the-virtually nonexistent-social safety net is "becoming a hammock."
While I don't like the premise, it is largely what Republicans believe. What I guess they try to avoid is packaging themselves as Scrooge, in the 1970s Jude Wanniski taught them to be a different kind of Santa Claus.
Christy didn't sound like Santa Claus on Tuesday. Worse of all, he said that respect matters more than love-I certainly find that unappealing as many do.
Yet, I think that what's unappreciated in Christy's speech was a certain genius. It was inspired to come from the standpoint of saying that, he's a Momma's boy, his Mother's son. The reason this is brilliant is it disarms us somewhat.
Because saying that what matters is respect not love, that maybe love comes later but first there must be respect is a very masculine, indeed patriarchal idea. It's the severe Daddy, who doesn't ever really love us quite like Mom does.
So if he had explained this as the tough lesson that his Father taught him it would be too much. But he makes it clear that the important authority figure in his life was his Mother not his Father.
He goes as far as portrays his upbringing as Matriarchal, as female-dominated. According to him, his Mother set the rules, gave him his standards, his Dad largely was just another passenger along with the kids. This is subtle but it makes the listener more open.
We may not trust Daddy. We may suspect him of not loving us, or at most loving us conditionally. But we believe Mom loves us unconditionally. So we know her rules are based on love-they are for our good, not to hurt us or trick us.
I'm not saying I like Christy's tough love spiel. But starting from his own Mother is clever and more effective. Basically he learned the Daddy Code from his Mommy. This is the rather inspired twist.
Yet, his speech has mostly been given the raspberry. What gives? Part of it it politics. Christy, it seems, came in having stepped on some important toes. The icing on the cake was that Ny Post piece where people close to him argue that Christy didn't want to be VP and sees Romney as probably losing.
And then, the speech was all about him. I notice people are comparing it unfavorably with Obama's 2004 speech, and saying it's like Clinton's 1988 speech which was universally derided as being way too long. Yet notice that both Clinton and Obama went on to win the next election, so what does it all mean?
Ryan's speech on the other hand, was preordained to be great-whether it was or not. So was Ann Romney's. In many ways the Republican job would be a lot easier if this were the pre Internet era, maybe even pre Cable. Yeah, I know, they have Fox. So probably their Golden Age for messaging was the late 90s-when they had Fox, but prior to MSNBC and all the liberal websites.
In the network era with just the big three, if the networks colluded, it could give the GOP a virtual lock on media opinion.
Those who didn't like it had no alternative outlets to get their information. They need the media to agree with them that the Ann Romney and Paul Ryan speeches were epic, historical, even. They aren't getting it.
So how about Condi? Everyone seems to love her speech. I notice that Christ Matthews, who was one of the few who agreed with me that the Christy speech was decent, loved Condi, ate her up with a spoon.
I was less than impressed. What she really conjures up for me are the memories of George W. Bush's saber-rattling. I listen to Condi and I can smell her passion for more foreign entanglements and adventurism, more Iraqs, more red meat for the NecCons.
Seeing as we've just gotten out of Iraq, and are finally winding down in Afghanistan, is there really more appetite for more Bush style hawkery? I sure hope not.
And that's what I hear when I listen to Rice. On the other hand when she talks domestic policy, I feel like she doesn't know what she's talking about.
What is her game? Some have suggested that this might put her in line for running for Governor in California-oh, God! Tell me no. Not that I live there but I was hopeful we wouldn't have another Republican Governor in California for a while at least.
What I also notice about her is that she was chiding people about "still blaming George W. Bush" the other day, and in her speech last night she did everything she could to try to get him some credit. She argued that the President has to at least share credit for killing Bin Laden with Bush-though he said back in 2003 that he was not all that concerned with "just one person"-Romney too, back in 2007 didn't see it as very important. Now they uncharitably claim that anyone could have done what the President did.
She also tried to get Bush some praise for "three trade agreements." I also see that Jeb Bush has been on this recent jaunt about how Obama needs to "stop blaming my brother."
Evidently, he plans to actually demand this in his speech tonight and claim that we should want more like W in public life. He went so far as to claim that Obama needs a spanking-if only I were kidding.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/jeb-bush-if-i-blamed-past-like-obama
Jeb ought to ask himself if it's just Obama that blames his brother. The American people still rightly see it as his policies rather than the President's that got us here. The GOP knows this-why else is Bush himself not allowed anywhere near Tampa?
When you have to tell people to give Bush credit, clearly he doesn't deserve any. What a contrast with Bill Clinton-whom everyone wants to be seen with today-sometimes it seems, especially the Republicans themselves.
He more or less now seems to be their favorite person in the world-and they have a pretty high estimation of Hillary Clinton, to boot.
I guess there is a thin line between love and hate. You'd never know to listen to them, that they tried to destroy this guy every day of his Presidency, right up to achieving a party line impeachment vote over his private extramarital affair.
Yet, we're to believe that it was an golden age of bipartisanship. Truth is, as Clinton says himself, they said and did everything to 'Clinton they now do to Obama.
I do agree that it didn't have much to do with Mitt Romney and I laughed at that headline yesterday that read Ryan Speech Interrupts Christy Campaign.
I 100% agree that Christy's speech was a Eat Your Spinach speech. Of course that's the GOP way. No matter how much we suffer, they are always the ones who worry that we've had it to good that the-virtually nonexistent-social safety net is "becoming a hammock."
While I don't like the premise, it is largely what Republicans believe. What I guess they try to avoid is packaging themselves as Scrooge, in the 1970s Jude Wanniski taught them to be a different kind of Santa Claus.
Christy didn't sound like Santa Claus on Tuesday. Worse of all, he said that respect matters more than love-I certainly find that unappealing as many do.
Yet, I think that what's unappreciated in Christy's speech was a certain genius. It was inspired to come from the standpoint of saying that, he's a Momma's boy, his Mother's son. The reason this is brilliant is it disarms us somewhat.
Because saying that what matters is respect not love, that maybe love comes later but first there must be respect is a very masculine, indeed patriarchal idea. It's the severe Daddy, who doesn't ever really love us quite like Mom does.
So if he had explained this as the tough lesson that his Father taught him it would be too much. But he makes it clear that the important authority figure in his life was his Mother not his Father.
He goes as far as portrays his upbringing as Matriarchal, as female-dominated. According to him, his Mother set the rules, gave him his standards, his Dad largely was just another passenger along with the kids. This is subtle but it makes the listener more open.
We may not trust Daddy. We may suspect him of not loving us, or at most loving us conditionally. But we believe Mom loves us unconditionally. So we know her rules are based on love-they are for our good, not to hurt us or trick us.
I'm not saying I like Christy's tough love spiel. But starting from his own Mother is clever and more effective. Basically he learned the Daddy Code from his Mommy. This is the rather inspired twist.
Yet, his speech has mostly been given the raspberry. What gives? Part of it it politics. Christy, it seems, came in having stepped on some important toes. The icing on the cake was that Ny Post piece where people close to him argue that Christy didn't want to be VP and sees Romney as probably losing.
And then, the speech was all about him. I notice people are comparing it unfavorably with Obama's 2004 speech, and saying it's like Clinton's 1988 speech which was universally derided as being way too long. Yet notice that both Clinton and Obama went on to win the next election, so what does it all mean?
Ryan's speech on the other hand, was preordained to be great-whether it was or not. So was Ann Romney's. In many ways the Republican job would be a lot easier if this were the pre Internet era, maybe even pre Cable. Yeah, I know, they have Fox. So probably their Golden Age for messaging was the late 90s-when they had Fox, but prior to MSNBC and all the liberal websites.
In the network era with just the big three, if the networks colluded, it could give the GOP a virtual lock on media opinion.
Those who didn't like it had no alternative outlets to get their information. They need the media to agree with them that the Ann Romney and Paul Ryan speeches were epic, historical, even. They aren't getting it.
So how about Condi? Everyone seems to love her speech. I notice that Christ Matthews, who was one of the few who agreed with me that the Christy speech was decent, loved Condi, ate her up with a spoon.
I was less than impressed. What she really conjures up for me are the memories of George W. Bush's saber-rattling. I listen to Condi and I can smell her passion for more foreign entanglements and adventurism, more Iraqs, more red meat for the NecCons.
Seeing as we've just gotten out of Iraq, and are finally winding down in Afghanistan, is there really more appetite for more Bush style hawkery? I sure hope not.
And that's what I hear when I listen to Rice. On the other hand when she talks domestic policy, I feel like she doesn't know what she's talking about.
What is her game? Some have suggested that this might put her in line for running for Governor in California-oh, God! Tell me no. Not that I live there but I was hopeful we wouldn't have another Republican Governor in California for a while at least.
What I also notice about her is that she was chiding people about "still blaming George W. Bush" the other day, and in her speech last night she did everything she could to try to get him some credit. She argued that the President has to at least share credit for killing Bin Laden with Bush-though he said back in 2003 that he was not all that concerned with "just one person"-Romney too, back in 2007 didn't see it as very important. Now they uncharitably claim that anyone could have done what the President did.
She also tried to get Bush some praise for "three trade agreements." I also see that Jeb Bush has been on this recent jaunt about how Obama needs to "stop blaming my brother."
Evidently, he plans to actually demand this in his speech tonight and claim that we should want more like W in public life. He went so far as to claim that Obama needs a spanking-if only I were kidding.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/jeb-bush-if-i-blamed-past-like-obama
Jeb ought to ask himself if it's just Obama that blames his brother. The American people still rightly see it as his policies rather than the President's that got us here. The GOP knows this-why else is Bush himself not allowed anywhere near Tampa?
When you have to tell people to give Bush credit, clearly he doesn't deserve any. What a contrast with Bill Clinton-whom everyone wants to be seen with today-sometimes it seems, especially the Republicans themselves.
He more or less now seems to be their favorite person in the world-and they have a pretty high estimation of Hillary Clinton, to boot.
I guess there is a thin line between love and hate. You'd never know to listen to them, that they tried to destroy this guy every day of his Presidency, right up to achieving a party line impeachment vote over his private extramarital affair.
Yet, we're to believe that it was an golden age of bipartisanship. Truth is, as Clinton says himself, they said and did everything to 'Clinton they now do to Obama.
Paul Ryan's Speech as Job Creation For the Fact Checkers
We must say that his speech, and this entire GOP convention, has certainly resuscitated at least the industry of the fact checkers. Certainly I suspect that this is one "swing vote" that Ryan nailed down in his speech last night. With this fellow around, they will never want for work.
"Coming right off Ryan’s speech Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett seemed unable not to mention that Ryan’s speech had well … contained a lot of pretty huge fibs. So euphemisms to the rescue. The transcript …
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/great_moments_in_cnn_euphemisms.php?ref=fpblg
CNN, of course, never criticizes the Republican party anymore they prefer euphemisms when discussing them. As they fear nothing more in life anymore than Rush Limbaugh calling them liberals.
How was Ryan? I thought it was pretty good as an aesthetic exercise. He's got that Eddie Haskell thing down pat. It's not for nothing that his high school class voted him biggest brown noser-true story.
http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-high-school-prom-king-brown-noser/
He's great at this kind of "Aw shucks, Mr. Cleaver! I'm not the one who is destroying Medicare!"
"Mr. Cleaver-I would never lie to you!"
Yet, the Congressman lied. He lied again. He lied a lot. There was hardly one true word spoken in it. To be sure, this is the new Romney campaign strategy. Forget about the fact-checkers, they need to get out of the way.
Romney believes the attacks on Obama over welfare are working and if they are he doesn't care if it's not true.
The idea that this is a pure referendum on the President and the economy is a mere memory. Make no mistake about it, the Romney team has long since given that up. The WSJ back in June told them that wasn't working.
What they have now determined is that a bad economy-and the current economy isn't as bad as it could be anyway-is not enough. This is where the racist dog whistle comes in. The Romney team has declared the fact checkers personal non grata.
So Ryan last night had no trouble lying to the American people and looking real earnest about it as he lied to them.
The most outrageous of course was blaming the President for the GM plant in Wisconsin that closed before he got in office. Then there was the chutzpah in yet again criticizing the President for not doing Simpson-Bowles, when Ryan had walked of the commission-and encouraged other Republicans not to support it.
The speech was shockingly dishonest. Indeed, the whole convention is built around the Urban Legend of You didn't build that. This is not hard to show. What does bode well is that the media largely seems to be calling him on it.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-convention-speech-media-backlash.php?ref=fpa
The worry is as Greg Sargent says-will it matter? The trouble is that in politics, those of us who are political animals and are conversant with the basic, essential facts of policy, history, etc. are in the position of having to convince those who aren't.
That's what all this talk about undecideds and swing voters amounts to. Basically the people who don't pay much attention, and have only a very cursory understanding of what's going on, get to decide the fate of all of us.
For me, and many of us, obviously Ryan's speech was rank and fallacious. However, what I don't know for sure, is what the great undecideds make of it all and what works with them-what clicks.
The Ryan speech was impressive on the level of mechanics, it was a fine aesthetic specimen. At this point the Romney campaign is both epistemologically and ethically bankrupt. They have no hope but to run an aesthetically pleasing campaign.
Will it work? I don't think so. But again, that's assuming informed voters. What's not easy to say is what someone who has little opinion coming in came away with from a speech like Ryan's.
I'm not at all sure that it's the home run the conservatives need to claim it was. I definitely believe that they way overstated Ann Romney's speech's greatness. I don't think it did very much for any swing voters to say nothing of female swing voters-although we'll have to wait for the polls.
I don't think Ryan's shtick necessarily set the undecideds' souls on fire, either. But his aw shucks persona may have some effectiveness.
It's a good thing that the MSM is largely calling out Ryan. At the end of the day, this matters a lot. After all, the undecideds will likely see Ryan's piece knocked for its mendacity. Much as I hate to speak with less than reverence about undecideds they are largely bandwagon jumpers.
I'd go as far as saying that there are basically four things that animate the independents. the undecideds, the "mushy middle."
1) They want to believe that they are in the Sensible Center-think David Brooks. They reject any idea that is widely declared to be "extreme" on either side. Note that the Center is not a static place though, but negotiated by the back and forth of the partisan wars. The Center is reverence for the paved road while abhorring how the paved road was built. The undecideds hate to see how sausage is made, while loving sausage.
2) They want to feel like they are unusually highly discerning in their conclusions. They love the flattery the media gives them of being painstaking and not making their decision until the very last minute.
3) So they are vain. Nothing appeals to them more than the word :"serious"-in connection with themselves.
4) For all that, they are congenitally incapable of holding any view for more than two seconds that is truly a minority view, that goes against the grain of what the other people they hear are saying. So I suspect that with the media all dumping on Ryan they may not be able to hold out long.
The reason for number 4-they're basically weak-willed as they are led by their vanity. They want to feel that their opinion is of great consequence and the media does everything to flatter it at ever turn. However, for this reason they find it tough to resist the current of any opinion. For how else do they know they are consequential if others don't agree with them? Again, they like to drive over the paved roads while tut-tutting those who actually built them.
Just think. It is these folks who the Romney team is trying to work on feverishly. It's sobering to realize that whether or not the New Deal is over-as it will be under a Romney Administration-is in the hands of these undecideds.
So if the media continues to call out Ryan then that might well have some impact. Of course, the other question is if they media continuues to call them out or if the Rush Limbaughs of the Right browbeat them into stopping it at some point.
"Coming right off Ryan’s speech Wolf Blitzer and Erin Burnett seemed unable not to mention that Ryan’s speech had well … contained a lot of pretty huge fibs. So euphemisms to the rescue. The transcript …
Blitzer: So there he is, the republican vice presidential nominee and his beautiful family there. His mom is up there. This is exactly what this crowd of republicans here certainly republicans all across the country were hoping for. He delivered a powerful speech. Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked at least seven or eight points I’m sure the fact checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward, I’m sure they will. As far as mitt romney’s campaign is concerned, paul ryan on this night delivered. Burnett: That’s right. Certainly so. We were jotting down points. There will be issues with some of the facts. But it motivated people. He’s a man who says I care deeply about every single word. I want to do a good job. And he delivered on that. Precise, clear, and passionate.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/great_moments_in_cnn_euphemisms.php?ref=fpblg
CNN, of course, never criticizes the Republican party anymore they prefer euphemisms when discussing them. As they fear nothing more in life anymore than Rush Limbaugh calling them liberals.
How was Ryan? I thought it was pretty good as an aesthetic exercise. He's got that Eddie Haskell thing down pat. It's not for nothing that his high school class voted him biggest brown noser-true story.
http://www.tmz.com/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-high-school-prom-king-brown-noser/
He's great at this kind of "Aw shucks, Mr. Cleaver! I'm not the one who is destroying Medicare!"
"Mr. Cleaver-I would never lie to you!"
Yet, the Congressman lied. He lied again. He lied a lot. There was hardly one true word spoken in it. To be sure, this is the new Romney campaign strategy. Forget about the fact-checkers, they need to get out of the way.
Romney believes the attacks on Obama over welfare are working and if they are he doesn't care if it's not true.
The idea that this is a pure referendum on the President and the economy is a mere memory. Make no mistake about it, the Romney team has long since given that up. The WSJ back in June told them that wasn't working.
What they have now determined is that a bad economy-and the current economy isn't as bad as it could be anyway-is not enough. This is where the racist dog whistle comes in. The Romney team has declared the fact checkers personal non grata.
So Ryan last night had no trouble lying to the American people and looking real earnest about it as he lied to them.
The most outrageous of course was blaming the President for the GM plant in Wisconsin that closed before he got in office. Then there was the chutzpah in yet again criticizing the President for not doing Simpson-Bowles, when Ryan had walked of the commission-and encouraged other Republicans not to support it.
The speech was shockingly dishonest. Indeed, the whole convention is built around the Urban Legend of You didn't build that. This is not hard to show. What does bode well is that the media largely seems to be calling him on it.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/paul-ryan-convention-speech-media-backlash.php?ref=fpa
The worry is as Greg Sargent says-will it matter? The trouble is that in politics, those of us who are political animals and are conversant with the basic, essential facts of policy, history, etc. are in the position of having to convince those who aren't.
That's what all this talk about undecideds and swing voters amounts to. Basically the people who don't pay much attention, and have only a very cursory understanding of what's going on, get to decide the fate of all of us.
For me, and many of us, obviously Ryan's speech was rank and fallacious. However, what I don't know for sure, is what the great undecideds make of it all and what works with them-what clicks.
The Ryan speech was impressive on the level of mechanics, it was a fine aesthetic specimen. At this point the Romney campaign is both epistemologically and ethically bankrupt. They have no hope but to run an aesthetically pleasing campaign.
Will it work? I don't think so. But again, that's assuming informed voters. What's not easy to say is what someone who has little opinion coming in came away with from a speech like Ryan's.
I'm not at all sure that it's the home run the conservatives need to claim it was. I definitely believe that they way overstated Ann Romney's speech's greatness. I don't think it did very much for any swing voters to say nothing of female swing voters-although we'll have to wait for the polls.
I don't think Ryan's shtick necessarily set the undecideds' souls on fire, either. But his aw shucks persona may have some effectiveness.
It's a good thing that the MSM is largely calling out Ryan. At the end of the day, this matters a lot. After all, the undecideds will likely see Ryan's piece knocked for its mendacity. Much as I hate to speak with less than reverence about undecideds they are largely bandwagon jumpers.
I'd go as far as saying that there are basically four things that animate the independents. the undecideds, the "mushy middle."
1) They want to believe that they are in the Sensible Center-think David Brooks. They reject any idea that is widely declared to be "extreme" on either side. Note that the Center is not a static place though, but negotiated by the back and forth of the partisan wars. The Center is reverence for the paved road while abhorring how the paved road was built. The undecideds hate to see how sausage is made, while loving sausage.
2) They want to feel like they are unusually highly discerning in their conclusions. They love the flattery the media gives them of being painstaking and not making their decision until the very last minute.
3) So they are vain. Nothing appeals to them more than the word :"serious"-in connection with themselves.
4) For all that, they are congenitally incapable of holding any view for more than two seconds that is truly a minority view, that goes against the grain of what the other people they hear are saying. So I suspect that with the media all dumping on Ryan they may not be able to hold out long.
The reason for number 4-they're basically weak-willed as they are led by their vanity. They want to feel that their opinion is of great consequence and the media does everything to flatter it at ever turn. However, for this reason they find it tough to resist the current of any opinion. For how else do they know they are consequential if others don't agree with them? Again, they like to drive over the paved roads while tut-tutting those who actually built them.
Just think. It is these folks who the Romney team is trying to work on feverishly. It's sobering to realize that whether or not the New Deal is over-as it will be under a Romney Administration-is in the hands of these undecideds.
So if the media continues to call out Ryan then that might well have some impact. Of course, the other question is if they media continuues to call them out or if the Rush Limbaughs of the Right browbeat them into stopping it at some point.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Why is CNN Sitting on RNC Racial Incident?
Talking Points Memo has a plausible theory:
"You’ve probably seen that last night an RNC convention attendee was ejected from the hall for pelting a black CNN camerawoman with nuts and saying the words “this is how we feed animals.”
"Follow up reports this morning say actually two people were ejected."
"Now, one of the more interesting things about this story is that it broke on TPM. Actually, not quite. We first saw a tweet from David Shuster. Then we got confirmation of what happened from CNN and were the first to run the story. (This morning the RNCC essentially confirmed something rotten had happened.) But you may have noticed that one of the biggest news organizations in the world — CNN — has been remarkably tight-lipped about this."
"So it’s worth noting why that probably is. There’s a normal and correct tendency for a news outfit not to want to make itself into the story. But this goes way beyond that and puts CNN in an exquisitely awkward position. CNN has been bending over backwards of late trying to position itself as the last holy beacon of objectivity and fairness in cable news, as Fox and MSNBC play to more clearly partisan audiences. Yet they’re under almost constant assault from conservatives for alleged (and basically mythical) liberal bias.
Meanwhile, the Republican National Convention is the GOP’s quadrennial ‘we love us a lotta non-white people’ fest. And given what I said above the last possible thing CNN wants is to rain on that parade or become the focus of a huge messaging nightmare if attendees were harassing an African-American member of their team. Certainly, the Convention organizers want to avoid discussion as much as possible too."
"As a side note, one can only imagine how Fox News would be going to town over this had something somehow analogous happened to one of their staffers at a Democratic convention."
"Journalists don’t tend to like non-transparency from other news organizations. And CNN’s relative silence (they did finally put out a basic report this morning) will, I suspect, generate a backlash from viewers outraged by the incident."
"Eventually both sides will have to say a lot more. A political convention, by definition, is a news vacuum. And nature abhors a vacuum."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/cnns_exquisitely_awkward_spot.php?ref=fpblg
See this type of thing drives me crazy. Basically it's what I thought-CNN is so desperate not to be called liberal by the Right that they are twisting themselves into pretzels. It's brilliant, actually. By bowing and scraping to the Right to prove they aren't biased against conservatives they are more and more biased against liberals. Think of Anderson Cooper's faux outrage with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or John Acosta's apologetics for Romney's birth certificate slur while at the same time making a mountain out of a mole hill regarding Biden's "chains" comment.
No wonder CNN is struggling in the ratings-they have no integrity left. They are basically just a more moderate version of Fox News.
Hopefully the TPM piece is right and CNN will soon have to be more forthcoming on what happened at the RNC with the black camerawoman.
"You’ve probably seen that last night an RNC convention attendee was ejected from the hall for pelting a black CNN camerawoman with nuts and saying the words “this is how we feed animals.”
"Follow up reports this morning say actually two people were ejected."
"Now, one of the more interesting things about this story is that it broke on TPM. Actually, not quite. We first saw a tweet from David Shuster. Then we got confirmation of what happened from CNN and were the first to run the story. (This morning the RNCC essentially confirmed something rotten had happened.) But you may have noticed that one of the biggest news organizations in the world — CNN — has been remarkably tight-lipped about this."
"So it’s worth noting why that probably is. There’s a normal and correct tendency for a news outfit not to want to make itself into the story. But this goes way beyond that and puts CNN in an exquisitely awkward position. CNN has been bending over backwards of late trying to position itself as the last holy beacon of objectivity and fairness in cable news, as Fox and MSNBC play to more clearly partisan audiences. Yet they’re under almost constant assault from conservatives for alleged (and basically mythical) liberal bias.
Meanwhile, the Republican National Convention is the GOP’s quadrennial ‘we love us a lotta non-white people’ fest. And given what I said above the last possible thing CNN wants is to rain on that parade or become the focus of a huge messaging nightmare if attendees were harassing an African-American member of their team. Certainly, the Convention organizers want to avoid discussion as much as possible too."
"As a side note, one can only imagine how Fox News would be going to town over this had something somehow analogous happened to one of their staffers at a Democratic convention."
"Journalists don’t tend to like non-transparency from other news organizations. And CNN’s relative silence (they did finally put out a basic report this morning) will, I suspect, generate a backlash from viewers outraged by the incident."
"Eventually both sides will have to say a lot more. A political convention, by definition, is a news vacuum. And nature abhors a vacuum."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/cnns_exquisitely_awkward_spot.php?ref=fpblg
See this type of thing drives me crazy. Basically it's what I thought-CNN is so desperate not to be called liberal by the Right that they are twisting themselves into pretzels. It's brilliant, actually. By bowing and scraping to the Right to prove they aren't biased against conservatives they are more and more biased against liberals. Think of Anderson Cooper's faux outrage with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or John Acosta's apologetics for Romney's birth certificate slur while at the same time making a mountain out of a mole hill regarding Biden's "chains" comment.
No wonder CNN is struggling in the ratings-they have no integrity left. They are basically just a more moderate version of Fox News.
Hopefully the TPM piece is right and CNN will soon have to be more forthcoming on what happened at the RNC with the black camerawoman.
Romney Gets Chalian Fired Now Sets His Sights on Juan Williams
Romney likes being able to fire people and he's already gotten David Chalian fired because Chalian dared express an unflattering opinion about Mitt and Ann Romney.
But of course, that''s not enough for Mitt. No, now he's turning his sights on Juan Williams for telling the truth about Ann Romney's allegedly "great speech."
“Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, on the other hand looked to me like a corporate wife,” Williams said on Fox News. “And you know the stories she told about struggle, eh, it’s hard for me to believe. She’s a very rich woman, and I know that and America knows that.”
"Williams said Ann Romney didn’t convince him she understood the struggles of average American women, and looked like “a woman whose husband takes care of her and she’s been very lucky and blessed in this life."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80350.html#ixzz24xpjKxiS
For this honest opinion, Crybaby in Chief Mitt Romney is trying to put pressure on him-after all, Mitt has some obvious, big pull at Fox News:
"Mitt Romney’s campaign charged Wednesday that Fox News analyst Juan Williams’s comments labeling Ann Romney a “corporate wife” after her convention speech were “unfair” and “deeply disappointing.”
“We respect our colleagues in media and appreciate they too have invested a lot to be here to cover the convention,” a Romney aide said in a statement to POLITICO. “But, Juan’s comments are deeply disappointing: Not only were they unfair and personal, they were wrong.”
Oh, do tell. How were they "wrong?" I'd love for them to be forced to even begin to give us anything tangible about how they were "wrong." Do you mean factually wrong? If so, how so? Morally wrong? Why? Is this Mitt Romney's brand of ethics where his Categorical Imperative is thou must never say anything unflattering about Mitt Romney?
Juan is standing by what he said for now.
"In an appearance Wednesday on Fox, Williams defended his remarks."
“I think my criticism was aimed at the reality of the economics and the blessings that the Romneys have had,” Williams said. “They’re not average Americans, in terms of their wealth, by any stretch of the imagination.”
"Williams said he wasn’t criticizing Romney as a person, and said he sympathized with her battle against breast cancer as “a cancer survivor, and I am one.”
"It’s not known when Williams had cancer or what type he had. A message left with a Fox News spokesman wasn’t immediately returned."
"Williams said Romney’s speech should have focused more on the family’s charitable giving, something Romney has mentioned repeatedly in the past."
“This was intended as an analysis of the speech,” Williams said. “I think in the economic realm, from my mind, it was intended to appeal to American women, where the Romney campaign has a deficit right now."
"And it would’ve been smarter, in my mind, if she had been able to say: ‘We know we’re blessed, but let me tell you how much we are doing for others.’”
"Williams, who was famously fired from his job at NPR for comments made on Fox, was a dissenter from the conservative network’s consensus Tuesday night. One of Williams’s co-panelists, Brit Hume, labeled Romney’s address as “the single most effective political speech I’ve ever heard given by a political wife.”
We'll see if he is on tonight and going forward. Last night he conspicuously left after his comments for the always mawkish Peggy Noonan. However, the FOX News team insisted he'd be back tonight. Now that Romney has whined we'll see if they keep their word.
As an aside, though, it's interesting to remember why Fox hired Williams in the first place. Basically because he was fired by NPR in 2010 for claiming to get nervous when he sees "people in Muslim garb" garb on airplanes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80364.html?hp=l3
So it was only out of sympathy pains for his bigotry that they hired him in the first place. We'll see if this finishes him or at least reduces his role during the convention or in future assignments regarding the election.
But of course, that''s not enough for Mitt. No, now he's turning his sights on Juan Williams for telling the truth about Ann Romney's allegedly "great speech."
“Mitt Romney’s wife, Ann Romney, on the other hand looked to me like a corporate wife,” Williams said on Fox News. “And you know the stories she told about struggle, eh, it’s hard for me to believe. She’s a very rich woman, and I know that and America knows that.”
"Williams said Ann Romney didn’t convince him she understood the struggles of average American women, and looked like “a woman whose husband takes care of her and she’s been very lucky and blessed in this life."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80350.html#ixzz24xpjKxiS
For this honest opinion, Crybaby in Chief Mitt Romney is trying to put pressure on him-after all, Mitt has some obvious, big pull at Fox News:
"Mitt Romney’s campaign charged Wednesday that Fox News analyst Juan Williams’s comments labeling Ann Romney a “corporate wife” after her convention speech were “unfair” and “deeply disappointing.”
“We respect our colleagues in media and appreciate they too have invested a lot to be here to cover the convention,” a Romney aide said in a statement to POLITICO. “But, Juan’s comments are deeply disappointing: Not only were they unfair and personal, they were wrong.”
Oh, do tell. How were they "wrong?" I'd love for them to be forced to even begin to give us anything tangible about how they were "wrong." Do you mean factually wrong? If so, how so? Morally wrong? Why? Is this Mitt Romney's brand of ethics where his Categorical Imperative is thou must never say anything unflattering about Mitt Romney?
Juan is standing by what he said for now.
"In an appearance Wednesday on Fox, Williams defended his remarks."
“I think my criticism was aimed at the reality of the economics and the blessings that the Romneys have had,” Williams said. “They’re not average Americans, in terms of their wealth, by any stretch of the imagination.”
"Williams said he wasn’t criticizing Romney as a person, and said he sympathized with her battle against breast cancer as “a cancer survivor, and I am one.”
"It’s not known when Williams had cancer or what type he had. A message left with a Fox News spokesman wasn’t immediately returned."
"Williams said Romney’s speech should have focused more on the family’s charitable giving, something Romney has mentioned repeatedly in the past."
“This was intended as an analysis of the speech,” Williams said. “I think in the economic realm, from my mind, it was intended to appeal to American women, where the Romney campaign has a deficit right now."
"And it would’ve been smarter, in my mind, if she had been able to say: ‘We know we’re blessed, but let me tell you how much we are doing for others.’”
"Williams, who was famously fired from his job at NPR for comments made on Fox, was a dissenter from the conservative network’s consensus Tuesday night. One of Williams’s co-panelists, Brit Hume, labeled Romney’s address as “the single most effective political speech I’ve ever heard given by a political wife.”
We'll see if he is on tonight and going forward. Last night he conspicuously left after his comments for the always mawkish Peggy Noonan. However, the FOX News team insisted he'd be back tonight. Now that Romney has whined we'll see if they keep their word.
As an aside, though, it's interesting to remember why Fox hired Williams in the first place. Basically because he was fired by NPR in 2010 for claiming to get nervous when he sees "people in Muslim garb" garb on airplanes.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80364.html?hp=l3
So it was only out of sympathy pains for his bigotry that they hired him in the first place. We'll see if this finishes him or at least reduces his role during the convention or in future assignments regarding the election.
Mitt Romney Must Be Smiling: David Chalian Fired
We know that he likes being able to fire people and he's gotten someone else fired in Yahoo's David Chalian. Chalian's sin was expressing a negative opinion about Mitt and Ann Romney. That's not allowed in David Brooks' media.
So while Mitt claims to know how to create jobs, he's just destroyed another one like all those he used to downsize and outsource over at Bain.
"Yahoo News' Washington bureau chief David Chalian was fired on Wednesday after a hot-mic incident during an online broadcast from the GOP convention in Tampa. Media watchdog NewsBusters was first to post audio of the incident. Politico broke the news of his firing."
"During the broadcast, Chalian can be heard saying that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife Ann were "not concerned at all" and "happy to have a party with black people drowning." Chalian seemed to be referring to the simultaneous occurrence of the GOP convention convening in Tampa and Hurricane Isaac hammering its way across the gulf coast and through New Orleans."
"A Yahoo spokesperson released a statement regarding the company's decision to fire Chalian "effective immediately:"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/david-chalian-fired-yahoo-news-hot-mic_n_1840278.html
I'm offended that a good reporter was fired just to please these two vapid fat cats, Mitt and Ann Romney. But no doubt, Yahoo doesn't care about that.
I mean, what's left out of the equation is even a pretense of considering whether or not what he says is true. All that matters is the Romney's discomfiture which is all that matters. Yahoo is falling all over themselves "reaching out" to the Duke and Duchess. Next I expect this Yahoo spokersperson to offer up his or her kidney.
What an injustice that the someone had the nerve to say something unflattering about the Duke and Duchess.
So while Mitt claims to know how to create jobs, he's just destroyed another one like all those he used to downsize and outsource over at Bain.
"Yahoo News' Washington bureau chief David Chalian was fired on Wednesday after a hot-mic incident during an online broadcast from the GOP convention in Tampa. Media watchdog NewsBusters was first to post audio of the incident. Politico broke the news of his firing."
"During the broadcast, Chalian can be heard saying that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife Ann were "not concerned at all" and "happy to have a party with black people drowning." Chalian seemed to be referring to the simultaneous occurrence of the GOP convention convening in Tampa and Hurricane Isaac hammering its way across the gulf coast and through New Orleans."
"A Yahoo spokesperson released a statement regarding the company's decision to fire Chalian "effective immediately:"
David Chalian's statement was inappropriate and does not represent the views of Yahoo!. He has been terminated effective immediately. We have already reached out to the Romney campaign, and we apologize to Mitt Romney, his staff, their supporters and anyone who was offended.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/david-chalian-fired-yahoo-news-hot-mic_n_1840278.html
I'm offended that a good reporter was fired just to please these two vapid fat cats, Mitt and Ann Romney. But no doubt, Yahoo doesn't care about that.
I mean, what's left out of the equation is even a pretense of considering whether or not what he says is true. All that matters is the Romney's discomfiture which is all that matters. Yahoo is falling all over themselves "reaching out" to the Duke and Duchess. Next I expect this Yahoo spokersperson to offer up his or her kidney.
What an injustice that the someone had the nerve to say something unflattering about the Duke and Duchess.
Heidi Heitkamp Frustrating GOP Senate Plans
My previous two posts on the need for the Dems to run a more effective campaign going after Ryan's Medicare privatization plan were based on recent numbers that show Obama roughly tied with Romney on Medicare-which is an outrage and totally unacceptable.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/right-now-republicans-are-winnning.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-democrats-mission-on-medicare.html
Still, it's clear that in state races there are Democrats already getting it done. Heidi Heitkamp in particular stands out. The Republicans are now forced to invest RSCC funds in a race they assumed would be safe-after all North Dakota is a Republican state, there's an oil boom and 3% unemployment-it should be no-brainer for them to pick this up
However, between Heitkamp's personal popularity and her attacks on her opponent's support of the Ryan plan the RSCC is forced to put money in state they never thought they would have to-while being forced to take money not just out of Akin's race in Missouri, but a New Mexico Senate race they thought was a good target as well.
"The National Republican Senatorial Committee is rolling back its investments in two battleground states and investing heavily in North Dakota, where the GOP is facing an unexpectedly difficult fight to pick up an open Senate seat."
"Several strategists told POLITICO that the campaign arm of the Senate GOP will begin running ads in North Dakota starting Wednesday. The NRSC is booking $3.1 million in airtime there between tomorrow and Election Day, a committee source said."
"The source said the NRSC is also canceling its ads in New Mexico, where Democrat Martin Heinrich appears to be pulling ahead of Republican Heather Wilson, and Missouri, where Rep. Todd Akin’s comments about abortion and rape have damaged his campaign and caused national Republicans to flee the state."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/nrsc-shuffles-senate-map-reinforcing-north-dakota-133581.html?hp=l22
"Of all the places where the NRSC is moving its money, the North Dakota race may be the most frustrating for national Republicans."
"That campaign pits Republican Rep. Rick Berg against Democrat Heidi Heitkamp, a former state attorney general whose high personal favorability has buoyed her campaign. Republicans believe it is essential for Berg to win the Senate seat if the GOP is to win a majority in the chamber, but the first-term congressman continues to suffer from damage inflicted in his 2010 House campaign. Democratic outside groups have also leveled sharp attacks on Berg, tying him to an unpopular Republican Congress and its proposals to overhaul Medicare."
To be sure, the Republicans claim they now see openings in Ohio and Florida-in Ohio, Sherrod Brown is up but the race is much too close for a long time incumbent like him. But, we do see that some Democrats are playing Medicare right and that things are not going according to plan for the RSCC during this election cycle.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/right-now-republicans-are-winnning.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DiaryOfARepublicanHater+%28Diary+of+a+Republican+Hater%29
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-democrats-mission-on-medicare.html
Still, it's clear that in state races there are Democrats already getting it done. Heidi Heitkamp in particular stands out. The Republicans are now forced to invest RSCC funds in a race they assumed would be safe-after all North Dakota is a Republican state, there's an oil boom and 3% unemployment-it should be no-brainer for them to pick this up
However, between Heitkamp's personal popularity and her attacks on her opponent's support of the Ryan plan the RSCC is forced to put money in state they never thought they would have to-while being forced to take money not just out of Akin's race in Missouri, but a New Mexico Senate race they thought was a good target as well.
"The National Republican Senatorial Committee is rolling back its investments in two battleground states and investing heavily in North Dakota, where the GOP is facing an unexpectedly difficult fight to pick up an open Senate seat."
"Several strategists told POLITICO that the campaign arm of the Senate GOP will begin running ads in North Dakota starting Wednesday. The NRSC is booking $3.1 million in airtime there between tomorrow and Election Day, a committee source said."
"The source said the NRSC is also canceling its ads in New Mexico, where Democrat Martin Heinrich appears to be pulling ahead of Republican Heather Wilson, and Missouri, where Rep. Todd Akin’s comments about abortion and rape have damaged his campaign and caused national Republicans to flee the state."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/08/nrsc-shuffles-senate-map-reinforcing-north-dakota-133581.html?hp=l22
"Of all the places where the NRSC is moving its money, the North Dakota race may be the most frustrating for national Republicans."
"That campaign pits Republican Rep. Rick Berg against Democrat Heidi Heitkamp, a former state attorney general whose high personal favorability has buoyed her campaign. Republicans believe it is essential for Berg to win the Senate seat if the GOP is to win a majority in the chamber, but the first-term congressman continues to suffer from damage inflicted in his 2010 House campaign. Democratic outside groups have also leveled sharp attacks on Berg, tying him to an unpopular Republican Congress and its proposals to overhaul Medicare."
To be sure, the Republicans claim they now see openings in Ohio and Florida-in Ohio, Sherrod Brown is up but the race is much too close for a long time incumbent like him. But, we do see that some Democrats are playing Medicare right and that things are not going according to plan for the RSCC during this election cycle.
The Democrats Mission on Medicare
As I suggested in a previous post, we are, alas losing the Medicare argument at present. To be sure it's only been a few weeks with Ryan and there is still time to turn it around, but right now the GOP is right where they wanted to be when Ryan first became the nominee.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/right-now-republicans-are-winnning.html
The Dems have to deal with this contradiction in public opinion regarding Medicare. There are two facts about public opinion.
A) Americans hate the Ryan plan. By huge margins of 2 to 1 and even larger among Seniors Americans reject his voucher plan.
B) However, completely paradoxically, they are not at present gaining anything by this politically. Recent polls seem to suggest that the public splits basically 50-50 on preferring President Obama or the Ryan-Romney Medicare plan.
The mission for Democrats is to somehow fix this disconnect. Clearly these two facets of public opinion are in conflict. How do we bring A and B together?
The GOP plan has worked optimally for them so far. They know about A just as well as we do. They come into the fight knowing perfectly well that the public disagrees with them. For that reason they have no illusion about winning the fight, their whole goal is just to fight to a draw. This is literally the phrase used by a RSCC video when Ryan became the nominee.
They don't need to win, they simply need to avoid it being the big loser that A says it should be. They just need the numbers in B to diverge enough from A to neutralize it as a Democratic weapon. So far they have.
The trick with politics is it's not enough to be right. On policy issues, taking the long hall,, the Democrats are usually right. Yet overall, they win only about half of the elections in this country. This has been the story since 1968.
We need B to come in line with A. Voters should favor Obama on Medicare by the same 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 margin that they favor his approach-not fundamentally changing traditional Medicare.
How, is the 64 million dollar question. It can be done. The President, through his effective messaging has able to make the country realize that they favor his tax plan.
Note how we phrase this: the Democrats mission is basically to help the American people realize that they agree with them about Medicare. The President did this on taxes. Americans favor taxing the rich at a higher rate but not the middle class and the polls are in line as he is preferred on taxes by a double digit amount.
If anyone may know how to go about this it's Bill Burton. His Super Pac though seriously out-raised by Romney's Super Pacs, has been very effective in his Bain attacks on Romney.
The David Brookses of the world tend to tut-tut the Bain attacks as being a distraction from the real issues. To the contrary, the personal focus was needed to flesh out the real policy issues at stake regarding things like tax policy, the budget, and job creation.
When Burton did focus groups back in January, most that he interviewed refused to believe his claim that Romney is the most Right wing candidate we've seen in 100 years. What did sell better was the idea that he's out of touch. lacking in empathy and only cares about rich people like himself.
In truth the second message doesn't contradict the first-they actually are synonymous in fact. However, the public was more open to the second narrative than the first even though they're just two ways of making the same point.
While they hate to admit it publicly, the Romney camp admits off the record that the Bain attacks have been very effective.
Somehow the Obama team and the DNC will have to figure out the correct messaging for this out.
"That means the Obama campaign will have to change up to keep up, said Bob Shrum, a veteran of many Democratic presidential campaigns."
“Long term, as the campaign plays out, I would be very surprised if this issue didn’t redound very strongly to Obama’s benefit. But,” Shrum said, the Romney campaign has “thrown up the static of the $716 billion cut in Medicare.”
He added, “There’s a real advantage for Obama here, but he’s going to have to develop it, and he’s going to have to block the static that’s coming from Romney.”
"Democratic consultant Joe Trippi said the Ryan Medicare plan could help Obama’s team link its portrayal of Romney as a cold-hearted venture capitalist to fears about his agenda. But Trippi said the Obama campaign’s response to Romney’s counter-attack is cause for concern."
“I don’t get the sense that they expected that attack or were ready to thrust back on it, and that’s something that they may now regret or try to fix,” Trippi said. “The Republicans were better prepared for the attack coming than we were for the response.”
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/right-now-republicans-are-winnning.html
That's exactly right-the Dems were not ready for this. They need to figure this out. Paul Begalia says they will:
"Begala cited two famous lines to preview what lies ahead: from “The Wizard of Oz” — “All in due time, my pretty” — and from “Pulp Fiction” —“We’re going to go medieval on their ass.”
Well if that's true then we will have something to look forward to very soon.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/right-now-republicans-are-winnning.html
The Dems have to deal with this contradiction in public opinion regarding Medicare. There are two facts about public opinion.
A) Americans hate the Ryan plan. By huge margins of 2 to 1 and even larger among Seniors Americans reject his voucher plan.
B) However, completely paradoxically, they are not at present gaining anything by this politically. Recent polls seem to suggest that the public splits basically 50-50 on preferring President Obama or the Ryan-Romney Medicare plan.
The mission for Democrats is to somehow fix this disconnect. Clearly these two facets of public opinion are in conflict. How do we bring A and B together?
The GOP plan has worked optimally for them so far. They know about A just as well as we do. They come into the fight knowing perfectly well that the public disagrees with them. For that reason they have no illusion about winning the fight, their whole goal is just to fight to a draw. This is literally the phrase used by a RSCC video when Ryan became the nominee.
They don't need to win, they simply need to avoid it being the big loser that A says it should be. They just need the numbers in B to diverge enough from A to neutralize it as a Democratic weapon. So far they have.
The trick with politics is it's not enough to be right. On policy issues, taking the long hall,, the Democrats are usually right. Yet overall, they win only about half of the elections in this country. This has been the story since 1968.
We need B to come in line with A. Voters should favor Obama on Medicare by the same 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1 margin that they favor his approach-not fundamentally changing traditional Medicare.
How, is the 64 million dollar question. It can be done. The President, through his effective messaging has able to make the country realize that they favor his tax plan.
Note how we phrase this: the Democrats mission is basically to help the American people realize that they agree with them about Medicare. The President did this on taxes. Americans favor taxing the rich at a higher rate but not the middle class and the polls are in line as he is preferred on taxes by a double digit amount.
If anyone may know how to go about this it's Bill Burton. His Super Pac though seriously out-raised by Romney's Super Pacs, has been very effective in his Bain attacks on Romney.
The David Brookses of the world tend to tut-tut the Bain attacks as being a distraction from the real issues. To the contrary, the personal focus was needed to flesh out the real policy issues at stake regarding things like tax policy, the budget, and job creation.
When Burton did focus groups back in January, most that he interviewed refused to believe his claim that Romney is the most Right wing candidate we've seen in 100 years. What did sell better was the idea that he's out of touch. lacking in empathy and only cares about rich people like himself.
In truth the second message doesn't contradict the first-they actually are synonymous in fact. However, the public was more open to the second narrative than the first even though they're just two ways of making the same point.
While they hate to admit it publicly, the Romney camp admits off the record that the Bain attacks have been very effective.
Somehow the Obama team and the DNC will have to figure out the correct messaging for this out.
"That means the Obama campaign will have to change up to keep up, said Bob Shrum, a veteran of many Democratic presidential campaigns."
“Long term, as the campaign plays out, I would be very surprised if this issue didn’t redound very strongly to Obama’s benefit. But,” Shrum said, the Romney campaign has “thrown up the static of the $716 billion cut in Medicare.”
He added, “There’s a real advantage for Obama here, but he’s going to have to develop it, and he’s going to have to block the static that’s coming from Romney.”
"Democratic consultant Joe Trippi said the Ryan Medicare plan could help Obama’s team link its portrayal of Romney as a cold-hearted venture capitalist to fears about his agenda. But Trippi said the Obama campaign’s response to Romney’s counter-attack is cause for concern."
“I don’t get the sense that they expected that attack or were ready to thrust back on it, and that’s something that they may now regret or try to fix,” Trippi said. “The Republicans were better prepared for the attack coming than we were for the response.”
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2012/08/right-now-republicans-are-winnning.html
That's exactly right-the Dems were not ready for this. They need to figure this out. Paul Begalia says they will:
"Begala cited two famous lines to preview what lies ahead: from “The Wizard of Oz” — “All in due time, my pretty” — and from “Pulp Fiction” —“We’re going to go medieval on their ass.”
Well if that's true then we will have something to look forward to very soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)