Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[KevinG]

Here's a couple from that conservative rag, the Washington Post.

 

http://www.washingto...FbbCW_blog.html

 

http://www.washingto...ux6qV_blog.html

 

Here's another thing that's beginning to anger me. Apparently, Chris Matthews called the "Chicago" references made my Romney and others thinly veiled racism. That is, IMO, pure horseshit. Chicago references have everything to do with corrupt, cutthroat machine politics and nothing to do with Obama's race. The big-headed blowhard (who I actually like, sometimes) need to shut up, because he knows better.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call Obama corrupt, but he's definitely cutthroat. Ask his Secretary of State about that. Need evidence, here's some.

 

http://www.latimes.c...0,7478986.story - Classy move there, pal

 

http://www.boston.co...ding/?page=full - He's one to complain about too much money in poltics? Really? Come on.

 

Interesting. Thanks for the update. I wonder if that will become the meme that the Welfare thing is at the RNC, or the "You'd didn't build that" statement, which is another falsehood that the RNC seems to be repeating.

 

Chris Matthews is a blowhard, I tend to not listen to what he has to say.

 

And on the money in politics thing. Granted he did not use public funding (which is pretty shitty if you ask me). But I think he is more concerned with the PACs and corporations, rather then getting money form individuals and using that.

 

BTW I have not seen any of the convention tonight, but I heard that Clint was in rare form.

[uncool2pillow]

Clint was not good.

[IRememberDBoon]

Romney was meh at best.

[KevinG]

Clint was not good.

 

It is kinda shame that Clint was so gosh darn crazy, since it will probably be the major focus in the media tomorrow, rather than Mitt's speech.

 

And after watching the speech, it was really in poor taste. I mean like him or not, agree with him or not, he is the president of the United States he deserves respect.

 

Really Clint is going to overshadow Mitt.

[ih8music]

I thought Eastwood was embarrassingly bad, Rubio was very good, and Romney was fine. I'm not sure if he won over all that many independents, though. He certainly was trying to appeal to women voters a bunch of times, and his most effective line was where he basically said its ok to like Obama, just don't rehire him. So much of what comes out of these speeches is vitriolic that I think it was really effective to lighten the message.

 

Romney certainly didn't drop the ball tonight, but I'm not sure he knocked it out of the park, either. He'll undoubtedly get a bump in the polls, but will it last?

[uncool2pillow]

I don't think Eastwood was in bad taste. In a sense, it reminded me of Bob Newhart's old phone call routines. It could have had potential, it was just so poorly executed. It was as though he wandered out on stage and right then decided he might as well say something.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Possible headlines for today's Clint story:

 

"Go Ahead: Take Me Away"

 

"G.O.P. Ahead: Take Me Away"

 

I am sure I'll think of more later...

[KevinG]

I don't think Eastwood was in bad taste. In a sense, it reminded me of Bob Newhart's old phone call routines. It could have had potential, it was just so poorly executed. It was as though he wandered out on stage and right then decided he might as well say something.

 

Inferring that PBO is telling Mitt Romney or Clint Eastwood to go fuck themselves, is in bad taste. Though probably the only thing in his speech that was remotely funny, or made any sense.

 

Though having someone respond to things that PBO never said or did was really the theme of the whole GOP convention.

[lost highway]

references made my Romney

 

Freudian typo?

[LouieB]

Maybe Romney will win, I don't know. HIs speech was okay. I still have no idea how he thinks he will create 12 million jobs. Anyone know?

 

Despite being a great actor and director, Clint really needed to stay home last night. The speech was a bit too much ad lib and really fell flat although I dug his hair. Rubio is another one of the young lions waiting in the wings for 2016 should Mill lose. He is pretty articulate.

 

LouieB

[lost highway]

For my money Rubio is a truer republican than Romney, and more reasonable than Ryan.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

"We're not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term." - Lindsey Graham

 

http://gawker.com/59...-to-sustain-gop

 

http://youtu.be/yoqKdWY692k

[KevinG]

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I am a huge Clint fan, so it was particularly cringeworthy for me. If he had really schooled Obama, I'd be the first to admit it. I felt horrible after watching that.

Apparently, though, I live in a parallel universe from some on the far right. Here are a few comments on internet message boards this morning:

 

 

I liked his speech/message and I think it was a good thing for the Romney Ticket.

 

It was funny. You Libs need to to obtain a sense of humor.

 

To me, he made perfect sense, and the O'Blasphemy interview, well, thats typical Eastwood humor. The greatest thing is that he got to speak, and at his age, he did very good when he said " Make My Day"

 

For the second time in a 24-hour period, I am speechless.

[LouieB]

I am going to guess that if Clint actually talked to Barack they would have more in common than he would with Mitt. After all Barack is the best Republican president we have had in awhile.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Apparently I was right, Clint has overshadowed old Mitt.

 

I know it is form Maddow, but it lists all of the inaccuracies in Mitts speech (yes I know numbers can be spun, so believe what you want.)

 

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/31/13593775-chronicling-mitts-mendacity-vol-xxxii?lite

 

Is it an over zealous liberal media out to get Mitt? Or is Mitt actually just stretching the truth.

[uncool2pillow]

 

 

Freudian typo?

Maybe. More likely a damn iPad typo.

[kidsmoke]

For the second time in a 24-hour period, I am speechless.

 

If only Clint had been.

[LouieB]

Having had 24 hours to think about all this, at least Clint just got up there and winged it, unlike all the vetted and heavily edited speeches that the rest of the folks made. Not to mention the endless trotting up of the only minorities in the party to show just how diverse the Repubs are becane nauseating. He injected a bit of humor into what was a humorless affair. The Clint at least brought some levity to the whole sorid thing and got people talking about it.

 

Meanwhile back where the real action is....

 

LouieB

[uncool2pillow]

Obama's in town today (Des Moines). I think he brought the National and Chris Cornell with him.

[lost highway]

Here's a good one. John Cusack (of all people) takes Obama to task for civil liberty issues with the help of a law professor:

 

http://truth-out.org...as-constitution

 

See, that's what I find really interesting. When I talk to people who support the administration, they usually agree with me that torture is a war crime and that the administration has blocked the investigation of alleged war crimes.

Then I ask them, "Then, morally, are you comfortable with saying, 'I know the administration is concealing war crimes, but they're really good on healthcare?'" That is what it comes down to.

The question for people to struggle with is how we ever hope to regain our moral standing and our high ground unless citizens are prepared to say, "Enough." And this is really the election where that might actually carry some weight — if people said, "Enough. We're not going to blindly support the president and be played anymore according to this blue state/red state paradigm. We're going to reconstruct instead of replicate. It might not even be a reinvented Democratic Party in the end that is a viable option. Civil libertarians are going to stand apart so that people like Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama and others know that there are certain Rubicon issues that you cannot cross, and one of them happens to be civil liberty.

 

This article seems to be a good bridge between some of Sparky's more flippant remarks and the issue at hand. I for one think the Democratic Party is just as much in need of a paradigm shift (most seriously on these issues of international law and U.S. foreign policy) as the GOP.

 

The conversation on the thread has batted (sometimes eloquently and sometimes rabidly) back and forth domestic issues, most importantly the tax code, social programs, and the question of the government's role in aiding the economy. One thing both parties are hosed on is the war machine.

 

I confess I have apologized for Obama on these issues as a "lesser of evils" (excuse the cliche) argument. Bush marches the troops in by the thousand, and while Obama seems to do a decent job of marching them back home, he also sends drones to kill more specific targets. I think Obama sincerely looks to capture, detain, kill etc dangerous men who would hope to do harm to our nation. The problem is he continues (and in some ways extends) the Bush administration's habit of overstepping legal and ethical boundaries to do so.

 

**Edit/ PS** I just stumbled across more of the bizarre footage of Eastwood at the RNC. At one point he digs into Obama for having the horrible idea to try convicted terrorists in NYC. Apparently Obama's brief flirtation with due process is worthy of derision.

[uncool2pillow]

I don't think the trials were the issue. It's the inane location. Security would have been a nightmare.

[Tweedling]

I think Obama sincerely looks to capture, detain, kill etc dangerous men who would hope to do harm to our nation. The problem is he continues (and in some ways extends) the Bush administration's habit of overstepping legal and ethical boundaries to do so.

Interesting statement. Is there an ethical boundary when it comes to "capture, detain, kill etc"? No.

And I'll say Obama has followed a lot of the same stuff that Bush started despite acting like he was going to do things completely different during his first campaign.

[KevinG]

Here's a good one. John Cusack (of all people) takes Obama to task for civil liberty issues with the help of a law professor:

 

http://truth-out.org...as-constitution

 

 

John Hodgman, kinda wrote the flip side to this article. He stated why he is voting for Obama, even though he doesn't agree with Obama on everything, he still is voting for him.

 

http://90days90reasons.com/13.php

 

Honestly he doesn't get in to the straight up constitutionality and such, but he much more of a pragmatist when looking at elected officials.

 

Also the site where this was written, http://90days90reasons.com/ is pretty interesting. Some good essays by interesting people. They are only up to 27 right now so 63 more to go.

[Sparky speaks]

Good one...