Governing through Reason
Open Mic August 31
The news cycle was dominated by Hurricane Isaac and the Republican National Convention. Writers and reporters put away the word “presumptive” for another four years; Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are now officially nominees. Next week, the Democrats get their turn, but it probably won’t involve Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair, a performance that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer thought was “absolutely terrific”.
Politico asks six questions about the Romney acceptance speech:
- Does he pass the get-it test?
- Does he make a coherent case for his candidacy?
- Would you want to share a caffeine-free Diet Coke with that guy?
- Can he make his résumé relevant?
- Does he get the details right?
- Do listeners cringe?
- Does he surprise us?
The Labor Day weekend is upon us. Answer these questions, or any others that suit your fancy, or pose questions of your own. Or even — gasp — something not about the upcoming elections!What’s on your mind?
Don’t see an article on a particular topic, but want to talk about it somewhere? This is Open Mic. Talk about whatever you want, but stay respectful.
We create a new Open Mic every week to give a clean slate, but feel free to add to this topic at any time.
-
#2 written by WA7th 8 months ago
-
#3 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
Just for you, Max… 12 gun designs that didn’t catch on.
I can really see you with #4… the Blunderbuss!
-
#5 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
#6 written by Max 8 months ago
-
#7 written by Rose 8 months ago
It feels like bullheaded divisiveness isn’t limited just to Congress. From what I watched of the Convention, I feel as if there are two completly distinct “realities” in this country. A woman came into a store I was in, ranting because someone (me) had an Obama/Biden bumper sticker on their car. Fortunately, I missed her and was just told about it later.
The scenes of the security precautions in Tampa make me wonder about the mindset that required them. Store owners near the Convention site were really hurt because conventioneers apparently didn’t leave the building and regular customers couldn’t get near them.
When was the last time a raving liberal took out a political figure? We have gone from designated, remote, fenced-off protest zones to what looks like a police state. BTW, why didn’t we hear/see more about protesters outsie the RNC? Probably because the were confined to Sarasota?
Since Obama’s election, we haven’t heard much about the (initial anyway) 400% increase in threats against the President, but I suspect that his security will really be necessary (unfortunately), but at least be more subtle. -
Rose… Kevin Williamson, a conservative commentator at National Review, complained bitterly about the obtrusive and overly-visible security.
He said it was “un-Republican.” Also that either:
a.) it was necessary
b.) it wasn’t but they had chosen to do it anywayand neither option sent a very good message about America.
-
For those of you who get nostalgic about “the old days”.… here is a compendium of home remedies from 100 years ago.
I’d be interested in knowing what our own Fungus Man thinks about #3… putting a broken puffball up your nose to stop nosebleed. (Of course if there’s no fungus readily available, you could always try #4 for your nosebleed… apply a handful of ice directly to the scrotum. )
That’ll probably do it…
-
Rose asks,
When was the last time a raving liberal took out a political figure?
Depending on how you define “raving liberal”, I’d say the Manson twins of Sara Jane Moore and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme. Not successfully, of course, but I think you’re referring to the attempt, not the actual act.
You could make an argument for John Hinckley, I suppose, although I don’t see that there was any political motivation behind his schizophrenic ideation.
-
Krugman today notes that the tiny bit of policy in Romney’s speech was identical to what Bush said in 2000, and again in 2004, and what McCain said in 2008. Plus, the promise of 12 million new jobs is what economic forecasters are predicting anyway — except that it didn’t work in 2001–2009 when Bush tried the identical policies.
-
WA7th
Voter ID laws were upheld in Minnesota
Not quite. We voters are going to vote in November on a constitutional amendment to create a voter ID law. What the courts did this week was approve of the legislature’s wording for the title of the ballot question. I wrote an article on the issue a short time ago.
-
#15 written by Max 8 months ago
-
#17 written by DrFunguy 8 months ago
@Filistro
“I’d be interested in knowing what our own Fungus Man thinks about #3… putting a broken puffball up your nose to stop nosebleed. “I dunno about up the nose, but puffball spores are a well-known styptic with possible antibiotic properties; certainly they can improve blood coagulation of surface wounds.
-
#18 written by rgbact 8 months ago
Interesting list by Politico. Good grief, the mediaization of the president. I suppose it makes sense for people in media to obsess about optics and stagecraft. Little things like are you competent don’t matter much I guess. Anyway,I thought the week was a raging success.You can squabble about a stiff delivery or a robotic pose but when Mika Brezinski says she was moved to tears by some of the Mitt testimonials—I’d say mission accomplished.
-
@Doc… no kidding? Both a styptic and an antibiotic! You could hardly invent a better remedy, then.
I always wonder who thought up this stuff in the first place. Who was the first person who said, “Hey, look, little Thor has a nosebleed. Let’s stuff a puffball up his nose and see if it helps.”
Same with knitting. Who first looked at a couple of sticks and some plant fibre and thought, “If I wrapped some of this stuff around this stick to make a knot… and and then put the other stick through it and wrapped it around, like this.…”
Who first discovered that yeast will make bread dough rise? How did that even happen? Who figured out how to make glass, or graft plants to make new species?
We are a devilishly clever and inventive species, aren’t we?
-
A fairly penetrating comment this morning from Ramesh Ponnuru. I agree with him:
The Romney campaign seems to think that once Americans see Romney as likable, they will trust him to be president. They may be right. Or it may be the other way around: Not until they trust him to promote their interests will they find him likable. This is what I suspect. I would have preferred for Romney to spend more time making the case for how his agenda would help the country. But maybe what he said about it was just good enough.
-
Monotreme,
Depending on how you define “raving liberal”, I’d say the Manson twins of Sara Jane Moore and Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme
If you’re including that sort of event, the shooting death of Representative Ryan (!) on November 18, 1978, by a member of the People’s Temple. Current Representative Jackie Spier (D-Hillsborough, CA) got to witness the events unfolding.
-
rgbact,
I suppose it makes sense for people in media to obsess about optics and stagecraft. Little things like are you competent don’t matter much I guess.
Those who thought he was competent before he spoke last night would have been unchanged. Those who weren’t sure if he was competent before he spoke last night would also, unfortunately, have been unchanged. But, moreover, the purpose of the acceptance speech is optics and stagecraft. It’s to make someone who was unenthusiastic about Romney turn into someone who is enthusiastic about Romney. Generating enthusiasm, like it or not, requires optics and stagecraft.
-
#23 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
#24 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
#25 written by mclever 8 months ago
@shortchain
Regarding Eastwood, my guess is that those already predisposed against Obama thought it was great, while those less predisposed found it awkward. Based on reactions from my folks, my parents loved!! every second, and they’re Newt/Santorum converts to Romney, while my moderate-to-right-leaning brother (in the army) was not so impressed. He thought the empty chair thing was “stupid,” and he wasn’t impressed by Romney either. He’s the one member of my family that I’m hoping I can poach for the blue team this year, in part because his posting overseas means he’s not as inundated by campaign advertising and going more on policy, which he thinks the red team is lacking so far. Anecdotal, for sure, but a quick-poll of my folks is how I get a “validity” reading on what the news says about righty reactions.
-
#26 written by Max 8 months ago
So rgbact dismisses optics and stagecraft.
WTF do you think the past 3 days, and the 3 next week, are all ABOUT?? It IS partly a sales job. Get real!
And when those optics and stagecraft are an epic fail, it DOES distract from the message the candidate is trying to convey. When as much time today, and in the next days and weeks, is spent NOT talking about Romney’s message, the failure is apparent!
And I’ll say, for about the third or fourth time, people in strategic positions in the Romney campaign need to be FIRED: Fehrnstrom, Stevens and Schriefer, and whoever the idiot(s) that put Eastwood out there, in primetime, just before Romney and with an unvetted ad lib! Unfreakingbelievable!
They deserve to lose on those points alone as, quite obviously, they have NO decent organization, planning or strategic abilities. Why would we want someone like that in the most powerful position in the world?
Just like when Chris Darden had OJ try to put on those dried up leather gloves, over rubber gloves, in the jurors faces, the prosecutors deserved to lose that case!
-
#27 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
#29 written by rgbact 8 months ago
“Generating enthusiasm, like it or not, requires optics and stagecraft.”
I don’t disagree with you. The modern president is as much media personality in chief as he is anything. I wish we could just elect someone quietly competent like Angela Merkel, but I suppose with obsessive media critics and high priced consultants, there’s no going back
-
Early voting in Ohio… the judge’s ruling (from TPM):
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. -
#32 written by dawolf 8 months ago
-
filistro
The ruling in Ohio should be greeted as good news — or at least, of no consequence — by everybody. This is a win-win for the entire country, and is an issue to which no one should be opposed.
Those of us who felt that voters were being disenfranchised by the changes in Ohio’s rules should be happy that the changes have been set aside.
Then there are those like our good friend Grog, who were convinced that that shortening the hours of early voting would make no difference whatever, and would harm nobody. This means, obviously, that not shortening the hours of voting also makes no difference, and also harms nobody.
If it makes no difference to shorten the hours, then it also makes no difference to not shorten the hours. If it makes no difference, then it makes no difference. Right?
-
-
#35 written by astrodude 8 months ago
-
dawolf… Going into the convention, Obama led Romney by 14 points at Intrade and 20 at IEM. In the hours (literally, just hours) after Ryan’s speech, that gap narrowed by 5 points at Intrade and 10 at IEM. I checked a few minutes ago and both are back to exactly what their pre-convention levels were, 14 and 20 points respectively. Gallup and Ras trackers are also at much the same levels this morning as last week.
I wouldn’t count on much of a bounce.
(Also might be good idea to sell now if you’re long on Clint Eastwood…)
-
#38 written by Max 8 months ago
-
#39 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
#40 written by rgbact 8 months ago
-
#41 written by shortchain 8 months ago
On the “Eastwood Gambit”, a few choice bon mots:
– “Whose idea was it to let an 82-year old actor get on stage without a script?”
– “Man has debate with empty chair, loses.”
– “Daddy Party’s Senior Moment”There are a lot of currently-hot commodities in Hollywood today who could get up and deliver some decent lines at the D convention. Frankly, I’m not interested. I remember a time when the reference to “political theater” was a metaphor, not a description of the process. (Before Ronald Reagan proved that you needed only to be able to deliver a good one-liner.)
-
#42 written by dawolf 8 months ago
-
-
-
#46 written by channelclemente 8 months ago
-
I heard that the surprise guest last night was going to be a hologram of Ronald Reagan. But at the last minute, the Romney campaign committee thought it would be a bad idea for their candidate to be overshadowed by a guest who didn’t actually have a shadow. So instead, they got an aging cowboy to steal a standup bit from Bob Newhart.
-
@Michael… When Republican leaders can’t explain why something is bad when
Obama does it, but good when a Republican does it, it spells trouble.That applies equally well to the Clint Eastwood fiasco. If you hang around at winger sites, you’ll see them endlessly mocking the Dems for their close relationship with Hollywood and their preoccupation with movie stars. They are scathing about Dems “falling all over” people like Barbra Streisand, Matt Damon and George Clooney. But if they are able to dig up some movie star on their side, they never hesitate.
People are questioning what kind of logic led to Eastwood being scheduled in the pivotal final hour. The reason, or course, is that his agent demanded that time slot as a condition of the appearance. And the committee gave in, because they simply could not resist the chance to do the very same thing they always mock Democrats for doing.
-
Regarding former Rep. Artur Davis, I believe there was a sincere element beyond mere political survival that drove him away from the Democratic Party. Davis was a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, as one might expect. And he observed that they overplay the racism card. From my own observations, this seems true; the CBC appears to fit the axiom that, to a man with only a hammer, the world is made of nails. There is plenty of racism out there, even (especially?) in oh-so-progressive Europe, where soccer players of African descent are frequently subjected to monkey noises. And it’s still quite prevalent in the United States as well.
But just because it’s prevalent doesn’t mean that all accusations of racism are valid. Witness, for example, the brief brouhaha on many liberal websites regarding the chants of USA when the Puerto Rican representative was delivering their delegate count. The chant came, not because of her race, but because the Ron Paul supporters were clamoring for a point of order, and they were being drowned out by the Romney supporters. (I’ll leave for another time the acceptability of such behavior as it was intended.) It wasn’t about race at all.
If I were Davis, I’d find the overplaying of the racism card to be off-putting. And apparently, Davis being Davis, he finds it so as well.
-
This made my day http://youtu.be/huYGhZ9o0Ak
Some consensus is rising to indicate trotting old Eastwood out like that was a disaster.
-
The Freepers are now fully locked into a steel cage, fight-to-the death match between the bitter-enders who are willing to say in public that they hate Romney enough to stay home in November, and the bitter-clingers who hate Obama enough that they will even vote for Romney if that’s their only option.
One of the latter, in obvious total frustration, posted a joke this morning… (one of the few times a Freeper has ever made me LOL.)
POLLSTER: Who do you prefer in the upcoming Presidential contest, Romney or Obama?
VOTER: I like Ronald Reagan.
POLLSTER: Reagan isn’t running sir, he’s dead. But seriously, who do you prefer, Romney or Obama?
VOTER: I think I’ll go with Reagan.
POLLSTER: Really, sir, Ronald Reagan is no longer with us; he’s not an option. So who is it, Romney or Obama?
VOTER: Ah .… Ronald Reagan.
POLLSTER: Sir, spell the “dog” in “dogfish.”
VOTER: D-o-g.
POLLSTER: Spell the “cat” in “catastrophe.”
VOTER: C-a-t.
POLLSTER: Now spell the “f**k” in “Reagan.”
VOTER: There ain’t no f**k in Reagan.
POLLSTER: That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you! Now will you please answer my question?
-
#53 written by channelclemente 8 months ago
Michael, as I was reading your comment #22, I was taken by how much tribalism writ large plays a part in our politics today. Rich, poor, religious, non religious, business, educated, old, young, worker, boss seem to be the rather confused reference point of the various pronouns Romney and his GOP minions used last night. They seem to slip effortless through the different groups being addressed as ‘we’ or ‘you’ during their speeches talking seemingly to everyone, but actually directing the comments to very different groups. I wonder if that isn’t at the root of a lot of political discord about who real Americans are, and explains why Republicans and Democrats so often talk at cross purposes. Life without tattoos is complicated.
-
-
-
#57 written by rgbact 8 months ago
MW–
Whats this new media practice to ask another person
about someone else’s statements. And I wonder if Fortune will be including
all “ums” and “ahs” from Obama speeches now too. I guess they felt the
need to quote him when he basically says he can’t speak to it. Pathetic.
More of our unbiased media hard at work. -
I see the Dems have given Martin O’Malley a speaking slot at the convention.
I’m getting increasingly interested in this guy. He sure looks good on paper (and not bad in photos, either
Has anybody heard him speak? I wonder if he’s as effective in person. If so… a good prospect for 2016. Hey Chris… he’s your governor, isn’t he? What do you think?
-
Hi Fili,
I’ve been doing music articles and nature videos.
The clip is sorta like minimalist synth pop with fun visuals.
But that’s just it. It is so over the top ridiculous and pitiful, people around the intertubes are going nuts making fun stuff with it.
I recognize the onset of dementia and other cognitive deteriorations of the elderly and it was basically horribly sad.
I know old Clint’s politics and don’t care. The old guy took a hit for a craven team and made a mess of himself in a no one wins situation.
In general, this is starting to look like the repugnicans already know they are toast. Demographics are not favoring the angry white guy vote now. Angry White Guy is quickly becoming a bewildered and isolated minority, a lot like Clint.
This whole convention seemed like they were just going through the motions. Mitts candidacy may come to be remembered as an utterly pathetic hail mary that was doomed out of the gate by a party grown inoperably fractious by its own hissing vituperations blasting every which way. -
#60 written by channelclemente 8 months ago
-
I’m from Massachusetts, not Maryland.
My governor is an old Obama classmate and son of a saxophone player in Sun Ra’s Arkestra.. Duval Patrick,… and he’s been doing fine running this crooked dump of a state. -
-
#64 written by WA7th 8 months ago
mac: So, Hillary Clinton is not going to be at the Democratic Convention. Two likely interpretations of this are:
a) She’s not running in 2016.
or
b) She thinks her odds in 2016 are better if she distances herself from Obama now.
What do you folks think?
My gut feeling is that she’s ready to completely retire from politics as soon as possible. She recognizes that Congress would present the same obstructions to her as they have to Obama, and she has no remedy for that.
-
WA7th said pretty much what I believe:
My gut feeling is that [Hillary Clinton is] ready to completely retire from politics as soon as possible.
2008 was her last realistic chance at the Presidency. I look forward to evaluating the potential 2016 candidates next week.
Incidentally, I have yet to view Rubio’s speech (I hope to do that later today), but there seems to be an awful lot of people aside from Teapers who found his speech to be compellingly delivered. Those of you who didn’t think so, was it because it was really solid, but not quite at the star-quality level of Christie’s and Rice’s? Or was it one of the more mediocre speeches in the vein of the endless parade of mediocre speeches that are used as early filler in these national conventions before the last hour of each night?
-
#66 written by channelclemente 8 months ago
Hillary is at a meeting of 20+ Pacific Island Nations at their regional security conference. She is sewing up the last open seam or two in containing Chinese expansion into that region of the Pacific. It seems that the Earth’s rotation has stopped for our election, but in truth, history marches on, to steal an old newsreel phrase.
-
I think Bill & Hilary are going to work together to position Chelsea for a post-2016 world. She’s 32 now, and therefore eligible for any public office in 2016, although she needs some political experience on her resumé to run for President. I would bet on a 2014 House or Senate run.
-
Also, for 2016, I could see Schumer or Wasserman-Schultz running, depending on how things work out in their respective Houses. I think females will have the inside track on the 2016 Democratic nomination, though.
Unlike Mule, I feel the Democrats have some depth on the bench, but it’s not evident until we put them in the game and see how they hit a pitch. -
#69 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
-
#70 written by channelclemente 8 months ago
-
#71 written by Mule Rider 8 months ago
“Also, for 2016, I could see Schumer.…”
Little/no appeal outside of NY state.
“or Wasserman-Schultz.…”
Makes me think of a female Howard Dean. So, no.
“Unlike Mule, I feel the Democrats have some depth on the bench, but it’s not evident until we put them in the game and see how they hit a pitch.”
The only legitimate contender I could see coming into the fold is Brian Schweitzer. If not him, look for Obama to find a way to stay in the game.
-
-
-
#74 written by WA7th 8 months ago
Eastwood has always been an unknowable quantity, and although he has seemingly moved a bit rightward in his dotage, he’s never ever been in lock-step with the establishment wing of his own party, so it’s difficult to guess what they were expecting by letting him up there.
Here’s a guy who is an enigma himself, and who made his name playing enigmatic characters onscreen, but anyone who ever saw any movie he produced or directed himself would never confuse the enigma that is Clint with the engima that was one of his characters. No one could have guessed what was going on in his head, but I think they could have predicted that he would say whatever he darn well pleased once he was on the RNC stage.
-
-
#77 written by channelclemente 8 months ago
-
#78 written by channelclemente 8 months ago
I’m really struck by the fact that, despite all the sound and fury in Tampa, Nate Silver’s numbers have actually worsened for Romney.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/author/nate-silver/
-
#79 written by marc miwerdz 8 months ago
I was so excited 3 weeks ago when Mr. Trump said he would have a huge role in the convention. He wasnt allowed to talk about it because it was hush hush. Iset up the dvr to cover the entire convention because being a huge fan I couldnt risk not seeing Mr Trump. Well, I declare somehow the dvr missed his entire appearance.Those darn glitches. Iwas hoping he was going to reveal what his investigators found in Hawaii about Obamas birth cert. You remember when he said ‘you wont believe what we are finding over there’ So please tell me a little about what I missed. It must have beem mezmerizing
-
@Marc… So please tell me a little about what I missed. It must have beem mezmerizing.
A Freeper with an inside track reported that a surpise skit was planned for Monday night, to be shot that day in Tampa and then televised for the convention. It would have shown The Donald sitting at a table with two other men. One, with his back to the camera, would be an Obama look-alike. The other would be actual Mitt Romney. Donald would review their individual job performances, raking Fake Obama over the coals without mercy. At the end he would say, “You’re fired!” Then he would turn to Romney, smile and say, “And you’re hired!”
What a pity they didn’t get to run with that idea. It would have been almost as clever a conversation piece as the Empty Chair. These guys are creative geniuses, aren’t they?
-
#83 written by mclever 8 months ago
-
#84 written by WA7th 8 months ago
-
#85 written by Armchair Warlord 8 months ago
http://mobile.politico.com/iphone/story/0812/80532.html
Oh my God.
Holographic Ronald Reagan not deployed to the GOP convention for fear that it would upstage Romney.
Somebody please tell me this is an Onion story Politico has cluelessly reprinted. Please.
-
#86 written by mostlyilurk 8 months ago
http://mobile.politico.com/iphone/story/0812/80532.html
Oh my God.
Holographic Ronald Reagan not deployed to the GOP convention for fear that it would upstage Romney.
The first time I saw this, I thought is was an Onion headline. I had no idea it was for real.
-
#87 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
#90 written by shortchain 8 months ago
-
-
#92 written by WA7th 8 months ago
-
#94 written by WA7th 8 months ago
@Mono — Unlike Mule, I feel the Democrats have some depth on the bench.
I don’t even see evidence of a broom closet, let alone a bench. If anyone was actually on it, they should have run in the 2012 primaries against Obama. If the 2016 nominee is anyone already considered part of the party establishment today, then I predict lower turnout than either Gore or Kerry got.
No matter what Obama does right the next four years, asuming he’s still in office, he’s as poisonous to the Dems hopes in 2016 as GWB was to the Repubs in 2008. If some Dem actually wants to win in 2016, they should start running against Obama on Nov 7 and look for excuses to criticism him as often as possible for the next four years.
-
WA7th,
If anyone was actually on it, they should have run in the 2012 primaries against Obama.
Nonsense. If you want your party’s nomination next cycle, you do not run against an incumbent president, particularly not one who is going to win re-election with well over 300 electoral votes. Why in the world would any Democrat run against President Obama? That’s just silly.
I predict he’s going to leave office nearly as popular as he was when he came in, which is quite unusual for the last half-century. His second term may well nearly guarantee a Democratic victory in 2016. Let’s you and me talk again four years from now, okay?
-
WA7th,
I don’t even see evidence of a broom closet, let alone a bench. If anyone was actually on it, they should have run in the 2012 primaries against Obama.
Why? That would have made it less likely (IMO) that we’d still have a Democrat in the White House, and would run the risk for the challengers that they’d end their careers in the challenge.
No matter what Obama does right the next four years, asuming he’s still in office, he’s as poisonous to the Dems hopes in 2016 as GWB was to the Repubs in 2008.
That may well be true. I’ve been noodling in my head on that topic, formulating an article about it.
If some Dem actually wants to win in 2016, they should start running against Obama on Nov 7 and look for excuses to criticism him as often as possible for the next four years.
But I’m not so convinced of this.
-
#97 written by Max 8 months ago
-
#98 written by mclever 8 months ago
@WA7th
No matter what Obama does right the next four years, asuming he’s
still in office, he’s as poisonous to the Dems hopes in 2016 as GWB
was to the Repubs in 2008. If some Dem actually wants to win in 2016, they
should start running against Obama on Nov 7 and look for excuses to
criticism him as often as possible for the next four years.Before Al Gore ran in 2000, people were saying the same thing about Clinton, that he was toxic and the Dems would have to distance themselves to hope to win. After Gore lost, many people realized in retrospect that they should have asked Clinton to play a more prominent role in the campaign and convention rather than running away from him. With moderates and Democrats, Clinton is and was a very popular figure, but Democratic strategists in the Gore campaign made the mistake of assuming that opposition press matched popular opinion…
It’s too soon to say what Obama’s popularity will be like in another 3 or 4 years, but generally, it’s a very bad idea to run away from an incumbent, especially one who is so gifted at campaigning, because he’s a bigger asset than detriment, regardless of what the opposition thinks of him.
-
Okay, so Romney is running for president based on his claim to be a financial genius, though it’s not clear what investing other people’s money to send jobs to China has to do with being Commander-in-chief. But no matter, this financial genius tell us his money is in a blind trust, so he has no idea where it’s invested. Apparently, that’s genius. Except that his one tax return he’s released claims he manages his own investments, so he gets all sorts of tax advantages for that. So he’s either a liar or a tax cheat, and that’s why he should be President.
-
OK, so I watched Rubio’s speech. A few things jumped out at me.
First, something I should have noticed before. He bears a striking resemblance to Matt Damon, both in looks and enunciation. If they do a movie relatively soon about Rubio, Damon should have a lock on the role.
Second, his speech was well-written (I wonder how much was written by him), but with very few word changes could be delivered in Charlotte next week.
Third, his delivery was good enough that he could be a contender for President in four years, but he needs to step it up a couple of notches if he wants to. There’s something…thin about it.
I think he exudes a sort of sincerity that, while not as “deep” as Paul Ryan’s, is also not as…creepy. Ryan goes all puppy-dog eyed in that way that a five-year-old can lie convincingly with absolute conviction, but it’s that sort of selfish earnestness. Rubio’s only peccadillo that I noticed was pulling out the “raiding Medicare” chestnut. But while Ryan gave looks that made you want to believe him, Rubio has a spirit that simply makes you believe him, period. It’s a nice quality for a politician to have.
OBTW, did any of you catch him blowing one of the last lines of the speech? The transcript says he said:
We chose more freedom instead of more government.
But he actually said
We chose more government instead of more freedom.
It was jarring enough that I had to go back and listen again.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
Instead of going back to the old thread, on the subject of civilian carry, I am posting this story here. This happened yesterday here in San Antonio. A life, no, TWO lives, were saved. But that woman would probably be dead today.
http://www.ksat.com/news/Armed-man-to-school-stabbing-suspect-Do-you-see-what-I-have-aimed-at-your-head/-/478452/16435398/-/m2thnqz/-/index.html
This also happens a lot and does not get near the same publicity as when shots are fired. So for those who think that all of us strap on each day, just hoping to be able to get our day made and have an excuse to blaze away, this shows much more the truth of the matter. And how the vast majority of us THINK in such situations, not just act.