Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Karl Henning]

Let's not forget the greatest monarchs:

Thank you for underscoring my point. Symbolic, and at an utter remove from actual governance.

[kishnevi]

I'm not sure it's been genuinely odious in living memory. Distant, improbable, a little fabulous, certainly.

Most people I know in this country like the idea of monarchy in a sentimental way--that is, they like it so long as the king is more of a pageant and (most important) in someone else's country.  Notice how we are both attracted and repelled by the British royal family,  replete as it is with pageantry, history, a sort of common language, and a group of individuals who can be endearing (Prince William, for example), annoying (Prince Charles), or both at the same time (Prince Hal/Harry).  But why else would all the gossip magazine/tabloids feature the frolics of the last named prince if there wasn't some respect for princedom to work off in the first place?

[ibanezmonster]

3 pages I didn't read... so fast! 
Well, hopefully I'm not ignoring anyone...   

And whose fault is it if work doesn't pay well and the family have no savings, if not government's? Its primary business should be to see to it that the economy is strong enough so that the people be able to earn their money by their own work, not to make them dependent on social security. A temporary safety net for those in distress is absolutely necessary but when living on governmental aids becomes a permanent way of life for millions then disaster lurks around the corner.

That's the ugliest face of the welfare state: it turns people who, given the right conditions (which the selfsame state destroyed), would be earning their money by themselves, into dependents of the state. Instead of encouraging, assisting and protecting work and savings it destroys any incentive for doing exactly that.

Yes, exactly. It's also why a lot of people shouldn't have kids.


Okay, I read the rest of that sign! 

"I built this business in spite of government handouts.
Help me make Obama a one-term president."


1) So anyone who wants to build a business should already have the money... or what? In other words, should people not be allowed to make money if they don't have money? And then refuse government support? And become slaves? Or... just wither away and die or something? 

2) As Scarpia said, did he build the road or did the government? The government "handed out" the road for the people to travel to make him money... unless he wants to build his business in forest somewhere; let's see how well that goes...

[eyeresist]

Well, European constitutional monarchy has a history of roughly 200 years. Given this political and chronological frame, please show me one example of a stupid, cruel, corrupt and greedy monarch who was not forced either to abdicate or to behave himself.

So, you are a monarchist, but you advocate revolution as a way to change monarchs? That's an, er, interesting position.

[ibanezmonster]

So, you are a monarchist, but you advocate revolution as a way to change monarchs? That's an, er, interesting position.

Would you like the Aladeen news or the Aladeen news?

[Florestan]

Let me ask you a question about the here and now: is there great popular support for reinstating royalty in Romania?

Polls have it at about 15% but an honest and informed public debate on the issue has never taken place.

As for the "semi-presidential parliamentary representative democratic republic" I'm sure it sounds good to you but I can assure you that it is just empty rhetoric. It is in turn presidential or parliamentary, depending whether the president has the support of the parliament or not, those in power do not represent anyone but themselves and their vested interests, democracy is a sham (for instance, if the democratically-elected mayor of a town or commune is not a member of the ruling party or of its clientele, his chances of implementing the projects he was voted in for are very small, since it is the central government that allocate the money) and the republic is an oligarchy ruled in turns by rival factions which agree on nothing save their being entitled to rule. The Constitution is completely flawed and quite unworkable (for instance, the conditions it sets for anticipatory elections are of such nature as to make them virtually impossible); all parties talk about reforming it or changing it altogether but none is genuinely interested in doing that because it would mean the end of their rule.

Okay, now I'm really done with the off-topic for good but I wish to add one last thing: during this exchange I got myself inflamed several times and you might have felt insulted by some of my remarks. I apologize. I am a temperamental guy and when the issue is dear to me I tend to overreact. Please accept my apologies.

[Todd]

Maybe having Slick Willy speak wasn't a good idea, because Obama's speech wasn't quite as good.  It was sort of like a checklist of pandering: teachers, gays, the feminine pronoun, unions, car companies, etc; everyone got their mention.  And it seemed to lack the rhetorical punch of some of his earlier speeches.  But at least it's good to know our problems can be solved.  Who would have thunk it?  The audience response was tepid compared to that for Clinton, though some people in the audience had wet eyes.  (Why?)

There were two moments I found humorous.  The jokes about Republicans offering tax cuts as solutions for everything.  That was good.  The other thing was unintentionally humorous.  His paean to veterans was pandering at its worst.  It reminded me of Valmont, from Dangerous Liaisons, speaking of his fling with Tourvel:

It had a kind of charm that I don't think I have experienced before.  Once she'd surrendered, she behaved with perfect candor.  Total mutual delirium.  Which, for the first time ever with me, outlasted the pleasure itself.  She was astonishing.  So much so, that I ended by falling on my knees and pledging her eternal love.  And do you know that at that time and for several hours afterwards I actually meant it.

This morning's jobs numbers is not a good follow up.  Should make for some fun ads, if not change the outcome of the election.

[Todd]

I apologize. I am a temperamental guy and when the issue is dear to me I tend to overreact. Please accept my apologies.

Don't worry about it.  Sometimes these things can get heated.  At least you actually care.  That's a good thing, in my view.

[snyprrr]

Maybe having Slick Willy speak wasn't a good idea, because Obama's speech wasn't quite as good.  It was sort of like a checklist of pandering: teachers, gays, the feminine pronoun, unions, car companies, etc; everyone got their mention.  And it seemed to lack the rhetorical punch of some of his earlier speeches.  But at least it's good to know our problems can be solved.  Who would have thunk it?  The audience response was tepid compared to that for Clinton, though some people in the audience had wet eyes.  (Why?)

There were two moments I found humorous.  The jokes about Republicans offering tax cuts as solutions for everything.  That was good.  The other thing was unintentionally humorous.  His paean to veterans was pandering at its worst.  It reminded me of Valmont, from Dangerous Liaisons, speaking of his fling with Tourvel:

It had a kind of charm that I don't think I have experienced before.  Once she'd surrendered, she behaved with perfect candor.  Total mutual delirium.  Which, for the first time ever with me, outlasted the pleasure itself.  She was astonishing.  So much so, that I ended by falling on my knees and pledging her eternal love.  And do you know that at that time and for several hours afterwards I actually meant it.

This morning's jobs numbers is not a good follow up.  Should make for some fun ads, if not change the outcome of the election.

That was NOT the Second Coming; I did not see God.

Yea, I'm glad others noticed too. Wow, I was gearing up for some Orwellian nazi speech and all I got was yer standard run 'o the mill politician speaking. Wow, the Chosen One is no longer appearing so chosen.

When I saw it over and over again later (background light,... can't turn lights on late), when I saw the family come up at the end, I just felt this creepy feeling like it was a concession speech. I saw the tears and thought they were saying, "We HAD a good run."

Yea, Clinton ruined it, haha. Wow, Barry just looked like a college professor, nothing more. Nothing more. Well,... of course, SAYING that would be racist, so,... it was the Greatest Speech I Have Ever Heard.


At one point he said, "You built that," three times in a row. Oy vey ,...


This is my objective review. I have no horse here. I think all will have too agree that this was not what it was supposed to be. Those with stars in their eyes for Obama, at this point, should simply be considered 'poor dears'.


That might be the single biggest public letdown I've experienced since the Oral Office incident. Embarrassed.

[Karl Henning]

Wow, Barry just looked like a college professor, nothing more. Nothing more. Well,... of course, SAYING that would be racist...

If you say so, old fruit.

[Sammy]

Most people I know in this country like the idea of monarchy in a sentimental way--that is, they like it so long as the king is more of a pageant and (most important) in someone else's country.  Notice how we are both attracted and repelled by the British royal family,  replete as it is with pageantry, history, a sort of common language, and a group of individuals who can be endearing (Prince William, for example), annoying (Prince Charles), or both at the same time (Prince Hal/Harry).  But why else would all the gossip magazine/tabloids feature the frolics of the last named prince if there wasn't some respect for princedom to work off in the first place?

The frolics of the Kardashians are featured as well, and it has nothing to do with respect; it's just entertainment and wanting to make a buck.

[eyeresist]

There was some coverage of the dem convention here. John Kerry's speech was pretty funny. I also appreciate the shots of audience members who look like they've just been made to remove their tinfoil hats

Obama's speech was functional. I think he needs an actor to advise on getting the most out of the rhetoric.

I appreciate the pledge for more science and math teachers. It's better than just hoping another Gates or Jobs will come along.

[drogulus]

It was sort of like a checklist of pandering: teachers, gays, the feminine pronoun, unions, car companies, etc; everyone got their mention.

      The Repugs have made it their mission to undermine, oh, let me think, teachers, gays, women, unions, car companies. Who else? Obama mentioned them, "pandered" to them in the sense that he did not threaten to make the government their enemy. And it was entirely right for him to do so.

[Gurn Blanston]

      The Repugs have made it their mission to undermine, oh, let me think, teachers, gays, women, unions, car companies. Who else? Obama mentioned them, "pandered" to them in the sense that he did not threaten to make the government their enemy. And it was entirely right for him to do so.

Yes. I'm curious when saying that "we don't condemn you to hell" became 'pandering'. Probably about the same time as 'Liberal' became "the L word  " 

[Karl Henning]

Yes. I'm curious when saying that "we don't condemn you to hell" became 'pandering'. Probably about the same time as 'Liberal' became "the L word  " 

Hah!

My own thought was: what, and writing "God" twelve times into the GOP platform isn't pandering to the rabid Evangelicals? The folks who feel that the Constitution is pretty good, but would be improved if the Fathers had larded it more, erm, liberally with "God"?

[Todd]

And it was entirely right for him to do so.

Sure, it's always right to pander.  That's been known since at least Cicero's time.  That doesn't make for an especially compelling speech.

My own thought was: what, and writing "God" twelve times into the GOP platform isn't pandering to the rabid Evangelicals?

Of course it is.  That was the right thing for Republicans to do.  (See above.)  Obama himself made sure to refer to the Big Guy in the Sky, too.  And Lincoln.  Yep, he covered all his bases in a checklist speech. 

Perhaps Democratic true believers think it was one of Obama's better speeches, but I sure don't.

The best speech of both conventions, at least that I saw, was easily Clinton's.

[snyprrr]

      The Repugs have made it their mission to undermine, oh, let me think, teachers, gays, women, unions, car companies. Who else? Obama mentioned them, "pandered" to them in the sense that he did not threaten to make the government their enemy. And it was entirely right for him to do so.

I just erased my long rant against your Post. Aren't you proud of me?


uh,... WHO's been waging war against ME for my whole life??



You have no idea how many pages I've erased from this Post. I should just auto rant away from the keyboard! Yes, I've gone back and erased even more. I'm sure I left some meat for you though. Aye, would you quit baiting me?!?!


I know, if you criticize any of the 'chosen' victim groups, you will be called an '-ist'. Fuck em. Now I see that 'unions' are in the bullied group. Good for them.


btw- I'm predicting an Obama loss based on his terrible speech.

btw- all of a sudden, I don't fear an Obama second term. I get the feeling that if he gets re-elected, there will be gridlock and unrest aplenty enough to keep things from going... uh... forward. Obama will be ground into fine powder and scattered in the Jordan. I would welcome er... be saddened... watching him be systematically dismantled by a thousand cuts for his arrogance and assumption.

poor '60s liberals... oops!, I mean 'progressives',...



If you're not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative when you grow up, you have no brain.


Show me where ANY politician who has claimed to be something different hasn't buckled and done things exactly the way his/her 'handlers' expected? Obama, as a brand, is a colossal manufacture.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prTarrgvkjo

[Todd]

btw- I'm predicting an Obama loss based on his terrible speech.

Obama's speech is irrelevant to his reelection chances.  I still think he'll win by a 3-5% popular vote margin, though Romney still has a chance, as ridiculous as that seems.  The Dems have got to unleash Clinton, who is still their best campaigner.  Perhaps he could be Obama's surrogate in the debates.

I'm not sure convention speeches ever really mean too much.  William Jennings Bryan gave one of the greatest convention speeches ever - the Cross of Gold speech - but McKinley beat him.  Perhaps someone could point out a victory directly tied to a convention speech.

[Coopmv]

Aren't we just glad this is not Greece?

Our Greece is on the left coast with 55 electoral votes ...

[Todd]

Methinks this may be a flip.  I'm awaiting the flop.