Ramona's picture

    Why You Gotta Lie? A compendium of the Worst from the GOP Revels

     

    The media is abuzz about the speeches at the 2012 GOP Convention in Tampa, critiquing them on style, effectiveness, the number of laughs, the number of attacks on Barack Obama--especially the attacks on Obama.  Clint Eastwood even got an invisible Obama to sit in an empty chair and become the foil for some raucously out-there jokes.

    On the last night of the convention, the night when Mitt Romney was to accept his party's nomination and give the speech everyone was waiting for, he was outstripped by an aging but really, really famous Academy Award-winning actor/director who called President Obama crazy and twice pretended that Obama was making crude suggestions about where Romney could put his, um, ideas.  This was a moment so bizarre, it rendered even the usually verbose Rachel Maddow speechless.  The reaction over the Twitterverse, indeed over the entire Internets, was "What the Hell was THAT?"

    The Romney people were scrambling the next morning to tone down the tittering. "C'mon! It was just a light moment on an otherwise wonderful night."  But it could be that the distractions are a blessing in disguise.  The first days of the convention got a lot of attention, mainly because the main speeches were rife with easily refutable lies.

    The folks in the Romney camp would just as soon everybody--especially the newsguys--forget about that part.  They're out there making their case for a Romney/Ryan win and the Clint Eastwood mess is a much more agreeable distraction than a bunch of lyin' liars.

    So in case anyone actually believes all that stuff coming out of their Party party, let's take a look at some of the prevarication highlights (Wouldn't it be great if the Republicans could make their case without lying about their opposition? The problem for them is if they couldn't lie about the opposition, they wouldn't have a case):

    Remember Mike Huckabee's speech, where he hints at an old, outrageous (and debunked) lie that says President Obama not only believes in abortion, but believes in killing babies afterward?  This is what he said:

    Let me clear the air about whether guys like me would only support an evangelical. Of the four people on the two tickets, the only self-professed evangelical is Barack Obama, and he supports changing the definition of marriage, believes that human life is disposable and expendable at any time in the womb or even beyond the womb, and tells people of faith that they must bow their knees to the god of government and violate their faith and conscience in order to comply with what he calls health care.

    (More on the origins of that lie here.)

    And more:

    MediaIte:  Jon Stewart video on RNC first night misquotes about Obama.

    Alternet is on it with Six Big Lies from the first day of the Convention

    The always entertaining LOLGOP looks at the "reporting" by Howie Kurtz.

    Michael Tomasky, Howie's Daily Beast colleague, finds a web of lies in Ryan's speech.

    ThinkProgress checks out the Wednesday night line-up.

    The WaPo editorial board dissects Ryan's misleading speech.

    Brian Beutler lists Ryan's top five fibs over at TPM.

    Joan Walsh calls Ryan's lies "brazen".

    Ryan Grim sets the record straight on Ryan's lies about the GM Janesville factory closing.
     


    Alex Pareene makes fun of Rand Paul, that guy who said he got all choked up emotionally, it being like a "lump between my chin and my belly button." (To be fair, it sounds like something I might say on one of the many occasions when I begin talking before thinking, but if I saw those words on a teleprompter in front of me I would hope I'd have the good sense to think twice before saying them out loud.)

    But worst than that, he's still trying out the debunked sentence-out-of-context, "You didn't build that", to see if anyone on earth will buy the lie that Barack Obama meant it as a slight to small business owners.  (Apparently they will.  Paul's audience LOVED it.)

    Dan Amira at New York Magazine called Ryan's speech "effective."  He also called it "appalling and disingenuous."

    Conservative Ted Frier rips Ryan for his lies in "GOP holds Masked Ball, not Convention".

    Business Insider says there's a little problem with Ryan's account of Obama's role in the the AAA Credit Rating downgrade.

    Chris at Eclectablog does his own round-up of GOP lies from the Convention.

    And on and on it goes.  One has to wonder if putting Clint Eastwood on stage in a dumb conversation with an empty chair mightn't have been somebody's brilliant idea to make this last convention night so memorable everybody would forget about those damnable, sticky lies.

     Mightn't it have been better to give Mitt Romney a speech that was unforgettable?  Oh, right.  Romney. Even the man chosen to introduce Romney--Marco Rubio--gave a token few minutes to talk about their party's chosen leader before turning the attention to his own--Marco Rubio's--life story.  Poor Mitt gets no respect. When people are reduced to keeping count of the number of times his name is mentioned throughout the entire convention, it's clear it's not about him, it's about, I don't know. . .2016?

    (Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

    Topics: 

    Comments

    Roger Ebert on Eastwood's gig last night:

    Film critic Roger Ebert gave actor Clint Eastwood’s speech at the Republican National Convention on Thursday two thumbs down.

    “Clint, my hero, is coming across as sad and pathetic,” Ebert tweeted during Eastwood’s remarks. “He didn't need to do this to himself. It's unworthy of him.”

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/click/2012/08/roger-ebert-eastwood-speech-was-sad-133923.html


    Apparently it's not unworthy of him.  Looks like it's pretty typical.


    The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is now just The Bad and Ugly.


    I'll NEVER forget Huckabee's analogizing sick people to burned out houses. You can't insure them after they've burned down, right?


      It's remarkable that Eastwood said we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. That isn't what the party says, and wasn't it a Republican president who went into Afghanistan?


    I don't know...

    I've responded viscerally to some of Eastwood's movies. His talent is undeniable.

    But frankly, the "Eastwood Ethos" is a lot of what's wrong with America.

    The "strong" silent male. The phony--"I hate violence, but won't back down from a fight." The jingoism. The heavily armed stance against all the evildoers who are inevitably out there, ready to prey on widows and orphans and cute women looking for a real man. The "bad guys and good guys." Action over sissified intellectualism.

    Is it any wonder our kids isn't learning? "We" don't believe in the stuff, not really.

    "We" admire people like Eastwood and denigrate the college professor and the scientist who actually knows something. "We" admire the corporate vampire and denigrate the community organizer. "We" admire the phony who lands on a carrier with a codpiece and denigrate the guy who signs up to put himself in harm's way.

    Not one of Romney's able-bodied sons has joined the military and yet Romney rattles the saber against Iran and "talks tough" (like Eastwood) to prove...what? That's he's a real man? That he's a real leader?

    I'll take bowing, apologizing, and leading from behind any day...

    And I'm happy to tell Romney to go fuck himself even if Eastwood doesn't really have the guts to do it.


    Who's this "we" Kemo Sabe? smiley

    Good points.  Thanks.


    Chris Rock tweeted something like, "Clint Eastwood just phoned the president and said, 'It all went according to plan, Sir.'"  lol


    Many sites have already dubbed him 'Lyin Ryan'. 

    It's sad and scary that it no longer matters to the majority if it's truth or lies, just as long as it 'fits' within their ideological arena. 

    Daily Kos put this up:  Lies, lies, lies, yeah! Musical tribute to Lyin Ryan

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/30/1125870/-Lies-lies-lies-yeah


    Condoleeza Rice is put on stage to criticize foreign policy? The Russian export who slept through the Bin Laden threat? Are you kidding me? She couldn't even tell the truth about how much improved the opinion of the United States is overseas compared to GW?

     


    all the lies were to satisfy their base ... and i'm quite sure they're tickled to death the rest of us are running around making a big scene of it  -  it was their intent.

    the election is turning into a referendum to force Obama out of office and secure enough votes in the Senate to take control and enough in the House to make Democrats an extinct poltical species like the Whigs.

    all the falsehoods heard were sharpened using focus groups to whittle down the specific language necessary to arouse and exite the base ... facts are irrelevant when compared with emotions. if a lie motivates the base, then is it a lie? if people believe the lie then there must be some truth to it is the thinking.

    so long as the lie is alive and the people are aroused, excited and emotionally keyed up, there's a chance they can win with a solid base of supporters unwavering in their enthusiam and devotion.

    While Democrats, independents, progressives and the rest may number more than the GOP base, chances are it's not locked up solid and can't be measured. So the number of voters non-republicans might be less than the republican base ... that's what they're hoping.

    I say this now, but Obama and the Democrats haven't had they say yet,.Things may change depending on the nature what comes out of their convention.


    There's no question that the lies resonate with the base.  I'm pretty sure the base either knows or doesn't care that they're lies.  Anything bad they can spread about Obama and the Democrats strengthens their passion to win. 

    Our job is to keep it honest by exposing the lies.  There are millions of voters outside the base who still need convincing.  They need to know their decisions may be based on outright falsehoods, and they need to see the truth.  I can't see how repeating the truth over and over and over again can ever hurt us.


    my point is, the focus groups defined the exact rhetoric necessary for the base to follow ... it's merges with their intrepreation on fact to produce a "synthetic" truth. A synthetic truth being one based on communal belief absent of truth or fact. religious belief is a synthetic truth ... faith in a belief that can't be proven by fact.

    so reinforce the synthetic truth and it binds the base in a hard belief they know the real truth everyone else mocks.

    and we all knows what happens when rigoriosly enforced religious faith collides with hard facts and truth.

     


    Exact rhetoric is one thing, but provable lies is another.  Seems like a good speechwriter could exploit the rhetoric, skirting the truth without allowing themselves to get caught.  Peggy Noonan was/is a master at it.  I'm sure there are others.  Ryan should have gone looking for them.  They might have set him straight. (And the RNC should have insisted.)


    Herman Munster ... I mean mitt Romney ... has his people responding fact checkers are dependent on the person doing the fact checking - they'll tell you whatever you want the truth to be.

    So the "lying" is just a diffeent set of "facts" checked and verified. That they don't pass muster with "other" fact checkers is irrelevant. The truth is in the eye of the beholder.

    What's important is reinforcing what the base believes as true and giving them "facts", from "their" fact checkers, to base their beliefs on. Again, everyone else may recognize their facts are fabrications of the moment, but they reinforce what the base truely believes.

    A simple way to explain this would be to try and convince a born-again christian there is no such thing as God ... no matter what "facts" and "proofs" you can offer to prove God does not exist, it only drives their determenation to refuse acceptance.

    And seeing how the republican base has a large majority of  chrisitans, the lies are easily spread and accepted without question.


    Interesting take on it by David Roberts at Grist:

    What’s creepy about the Romney crew is that they don’t do any of those things. They don’t deny, they don’t stop, they just don’t care at all. What they’ve realized is that, given today’s hyper-polarization and fragmented media, there’s no practical risk to lying. It doesn’t hurt them, in terms of getting votes, so why shouldn’t they do it?


    i think Robert's and I are on the same page ... you can make shit up and get away with it and if anyone calls you on it, you can ignore them and not wory about having to explain yourself later.


    I think I understand the reason behind the lies and the raucous reception of them by Republicans.

    It's clear that the GOP at all levels accepts and propagates falsifications and deceptions. Why?  As Clint said '(they) own it'.  'Owning it' is the core principle of the Republican Party. They believe they have the right to 'own' the country and the power over all it's inhabitants. Anything that advances that objective is championed and applauded. Anything that threatens that control must be relentlessly attacked.

    Jeb Bush said George W. Bush 'protected us', was it a lie? What about 9/11, the anthrax attacks, lying us into the Iraq War and then turning it into a bloody and expensive fiasco, the 1700 dead in New Orleans?

    It was not a lie to The Base or the GOP leadership. 

    George W. Bush, by merely being in the White House, protected Republicans from liberals and Democrats being there instead. To Republicans, Democrats are the number one enemy and threat to their power and ownership.  More dangerous than bin Laden ever was or Saddam.

    Lying the nation into war to win an election is OK, so Ms. Rice, the 'smoking gun is a mushroom cloud' National Security Advisor and Iraq War cheerleader, is still welcome. The only 'fact' that matters to the GOP from top to bottom, is winning the next election. Accountability, truth, sound governance or seeking to meet critical issues we face be damned.

    George W. Bush was not at the GOP convention, but not because of his huge failures in leadership of the nation  He was not there because his fiascoes led to the election of Barack Obama.  
     


    life in America was so much more simple when the Soviet Union was the focus of their hatred


    enlightened


    Don't know if others have been watching--as I am now--but Jon Stewart has been ripping the Catfood Party a bunch of new ones this week.   


    How sick is it when you have to watch Jon Stewart and Stephen Cobert to get the truth?


    Very.


    The biggest lie of the convention was when Romney said so wistfully how the country came together after the election and wanted Obama to succeed...and now we find out that Ryan was in on the big meeting the night of the Inauguration to start plotting how to keep him from succeeding.

    AND to prove just what a habitual liar Ryan is, he's now taken to lieing about things he doesn't even NEED to lie about, like his 2 hr and 50 something minute marathon...seriously, does anyone REALLY believe you've run one marathon in your life and you're off on your time by over an hour???

    The point is, though, it doesn't matter. The leaders of the Republican Party don't CARE about the truth, and by looks of the audience, they don't either. If it sounds good, believe it, or at least pretend you do.

    And God forbid the MSM should have the intestinal fortitude to call a lie a lie, instead of searching for "nicer" words to call it. Why aren't they holding these people's feet to the fire? At what point does a distortion actually rise to a lie?

    A lie told often enough becomes the truth...and if a HUGE big deal isn't made about it, that's what will happen.

     


    angry   We need OUTRAGE!  LOTS OF OUTRAGE AND HOLDING THE MEDIA RESPONSIBLE FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOB! 

    (Glad you're 'here' stilli!  write one of your wonderful blogs about this please!)


    A lie told often enough becomes the truth...and if a HUGE big deal isn't made about it, that's what will happen.

    Stilli, this is the Republican mantra, botched a bit by the Nixon thugs but polished to perfection by the Reagan bunch and worked into every GOP playbook since.  It really should be up to the press to expose the lies and reveal the truth, but we know now that there will never be enough lies to make them do it. (And even if they did, at this late stage nobody trusts the press, anyway.)

    I see a few glimmers of hope after the indisputable lying mess from the Republican convention, but lies as close enough truth has become so ingrained in the minds of the Republican voters it may be too much for even the most diligent press to combat.

    The fact that Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden are still in a statistical tie, even after all of that, is disheartening and disgusting.  It's not all Big Money that's causing Romney to be right up there, and it's not all because of a lazy press.  It's because we haven't been able to get through to people just how dangerous that ticket really is.  Being outraged and screaming and yelling has no effect.  We've tried that.  They're not in the same room and they can't hear us.

     


    Being outraged and screaming and yelling has no effect.

    If there is no outrage over the lies, then what does that say about the 'sense' and 'future' of We, the People'? 

    One doesn't have to express outrage with incoherent rants or by engaging in who can scream the loudest competitions.  Outrage does not have to equate irrational and senseless acts that produce nothing of value - it can and often does generate positive changes. 

    No matter if the lack of outrage is because some rationalize they are just sick and tired of all the crap. The absence of outrage morphs into the sense of 'okay, their politicians and political hacks, that's what they do' - with a shrug and a sigh.  Bulletin: They do it because there is no outrage or consequences. 

    Well, IMO,it's the People's responsibility to deliver the outrage and consequences.  The freedom and ability to stand up and speak out honestly and passionately is one of the main principals of a democratic based society.  I will even proclaim it is in fact a duty that needs to be fulfilled in order to sustain and ensure the foundation of our nation.

    It seems to me that too many are lacking passion and verve, which I believe is the by-product of either a sense of hopelessness, ignorance and/or abdicating their role by indulging in a Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be) rationale.  

    My conundrum has evolved into deciding which entity is creating the highest degree of my outrage - those who are speaking the lies or those who aren't objecting with vigor.  Gotta say, at this moment, the latter is really pissing me off the most.

     


    Aunt Sam, I should have said it has no effect on the people who will go on happily spreading those lies, no matter what.  I certainly do my share of screaming and yelling, and for the last 10-12 years my outrage has known no bounds, but I seriously doubt it has had any impact at all except to make me feel better.

    I think many people who have raised a steady stream of outrage with no effect--who in fact are seeing a backward trend--are so burned out there is almost no energy left.  I think part of it is because we aren't seeing Obama and the majority of the Democratic leaders showing as much public outrage as we are.   We feel like we're fighting this battle alone, without any powerful fighters on our side, and it's demoralizing.

    I don't know what to do about it, but if the lies coming out of the RNC weren't enough to build up some outrage in the press and in Washington, we're going to have to go looking for a really good Plan B.


    The biggest lie of the convention was when Romney said so wistfully how the country came together after the election and wanted Obama to succeed...and now we find out that Ryan was in on the big meeting the night of the Inauguration to start plotting how to keep him from succeeding.

    Yes, Stewart pointed that out with a Fri night segment reminding viewers with clips that Limbaugh 8 days into the Obama Administration was talking about how its policies weren't working (! I mean some of us at dagblog might be accused of being a bit impatient but I don't know that any of us can touch that when it comes to setting the standard) and showing a clip of Romney being interviewed around then and mumbling something incoherent when asked about it.  

    And Stewart didn't even get to Mitch McConnell's famously honest comment about how the GOP's top priority was to prevent Obama from being re-elected.  Or the GOP's treasonous brinksmanship over the debt ceiling crisis just last summer, which surely they are hoping the voters forget.  They were willing to roll the dice and risk sinking the economy because, hey, sinking the economy would sink Obama, right?  A year later they are back with the sheer chutzpah to ask the voters for the keys to the car.  Yeah, sure.  Whatever.

     


    And yet the polls show the 2 parties in a dead heat. How can that POSSIBLY be?

    I think it is because too many "people" (I've edited that word 5 times trying to come up with one that says what I REALLY think without being too terribly impolitic) either don't care that they are being lied to because we should never have put a "n$%%^r" in the White House in the first place, are too stupid to know they are being lied to (Stockholm Syndrome or just low information voters) or are so pissed that Obama has governed only slightly to the left that they just refuse to show any enthusiasm, and MAY even decide to exact their revenge by staying home and giving the election to the repubs.

    So there is plenty of fault on BOTH sides of the spectrum.

    What scares me the most is that MANY economists think that no matter what happens in Nov. there will be 12M jobs added to the economy in the next 4 years (barring a worldwide collapse) and that if the Repubs take over, they and their horrific policies will get the credit and it will 20 years before we see the Dems in power again. By then the safety net will be completely gone and the middle class decimated.

     


    All of that, Stilli, as well as AD's reminder of Mitch McConnell's early threat to defeat Obama by DOING NOTHING if they have to.  So it's out there loud and clear that the reason the Republicans in Congress have obstructed every good thing Obama and the Dems have tried to do is because to do otherwise might give Obama another four years, but Republican voters--even the Republican voters who were hurt badly by their inaction--just don't care.

    That's why a Plan B is so hard to come up with.  There's really nothing that's going to change their minds, ever.


    The ONLY way the repubs don't take over is if there is a last minute decision by a whole bunch of people that the risk of giving it back to the repubs is worse than giving Obama another 4 years to try and fix what the repubs did the last time they were in power. You would think it was decades ago instead of just a few short years that the greed of the right plunged us into a near depression...How quickly so many have forgotten, or more correctly have decided that it just doesn't matter.

    The repubs went into their little war room on inauguration night and plotted out their scheme to retake power, and have followed it brilliantly, aided and abetted by a large number of people who have been co-opted into believing once again that the piss raining down on us from the rich is really the "trickle down of prosperity."

    I understand that there are a whole lot of "disappointed people" out there who think Obama should have done more. They may be right. But we get to chose between a President who has done less than we hoped for, but still accomplished some of what we wanted, and a flagrant liar who wants to enable the very rich to FINALLY get rid of the New Deal in it's entirety, do away that pesky middle class, and get back to the business of getting richer.

    Every man for himself! And if women and minorities and old people are hurt in the process, tough shit. They should have married better, worked harder, or been born a different color or into wealth...that's the American way in the country THEY love.

     


    Oh come on. The economy sucks. Everyone has friends and family out of work and going under. Its absolutely amazing that Obama is dead even. The only reason Obama isn't polling in the 20's or 30's in this absolutely shitty economy is most people really really don't like or trust Romney.


    Okay, the economy sucks. Did anyone really believe it was going to stop sucking overnight? How does one inherit the mess he came into, along with an opposing party whose answer was a resounding "HELL NO!" to everything proposed, even when those things were their own ideas a few short years before, and the willingness to drive the whole country off a cliff rather than work for improvement that would give him a second term, and turn things around so quickly?

    EVERY measurable part of the economy has shown signs of getting better in SPITE of their efforts to keep it from happening.

    Yes, there are people who are still hurting. Does anyone seriously believe the repubs are going to make their lives any easier? Are they suddenly going to fund police, fire and teacher jobs? Are they going to encourage businesses to pay higher wages? Are they going to make any easier for a woman to determine how many children she wishes to have? Are they going to fortify the safety net, clean up the environment, do all they can to keep us out of wars? HELL NO!

    This is a no-brainer, yet here we are. The dems are far from perfect. Had we REALLY had a majority in the house and senate instead of so many weak-kneed "barely" dems, maybe we could have done more. Had Obama not tried SO HARD to bring about compromise, maybe we could have done more. But we are where we are. And unlike many who don't see any difference between Obama and Romney, I DO. And Romney and his ilk, scare the crap outta me.

     


    Is that really what you believe, Ocean-kat?  You believe if the Republicans had a better candidate Obama would poll in the 20s or 30s?  Why?  Why would the Republicans have an advantage?  What do you know about their qualifications that has thus far escaped me?


    First off I've got to say once again, I'm voting for Obama. This is a very important election in so many ways and Romney has to be beat.

    That being said, yes I do believe Obama would be polling in the 30's if there was a decent republican candidate. Its not about republican qualifications. Its about the economy. Maybe you just don't see how bad it is.

    I'll post some arguments but please remember these aren't my arguments against Obama. We could discuss all these points, details and extenuating circumstances, and I'd probably agree with you about many of them. I'm doing fine. I've got a decent job that I'm relatively happy with. But this is how I think the average low information working class voter sees things.

    The economy crashed around us. No one who caused it got punished. (people are a bit more willing to accept suffering if they see the bad guys getting punished for causing their suffering) They all came through it fine. Billions of dollars got funneled into their hands to save them while nothing was done to help us with our houses and our jobs. We've been stuck here for four years. While I lost my job or I saw some friends or relatives lose their job or house Obama wasted 2 years on a health care plan that does nothing for me. I have insurance. But if I should lose my insurance Obama is going to force me to buy insurance I can't afford. I don't blame Obama for the crash but its bad out here and I'm more than worried I'm scared. I'm scared I'll lose my job, I'm scared I'll lose my house.I'm scared what I see happening around me is going to happen to me too.  I don't know what to do but whatever Obama is doing isn't working and I don't think it will work. We need a change.

    I was a handyman in Florida barely getting by during the recession. People were coming to me to see if I needed helpers, looking for a job I didn't have to give them. I'm a newcomer in Arizona these last two years and people are coming to me to see if the owners of the ghost town I caretake are hiring people to do renovations. They are not. The first two years of Obama's term I watched the people around me in florida get more and more desperate. In the two years I've been in Arizona I watched the people around me get more and more desperate too. The unemployment rate, which I think is vastly understated, has been above 8% for nearly 4 years. At best you could call it stagnation but as stagnation drags on for years it feels like things are getting worse.

    The only things saving Obama is the republicans. Only a far right republican can win the primary. He's not allowed to move toward the center in the general. Romney doesn't feel trustworthy or sincere. People know about Romneycare and that he was a governor of liberal Mass so there's evidence that he's a flip flopper and not trustworthy. Romney is not a likeable candidate who has tied himself to far right policies that moderate or maybe center right America doesn't like. If it weren't for that I think Obama would lose in a landslide.

     


    So in other words, even though you'll vote for him it's all Obama's fault. 

    I think there are probably millions of people who wouldn't agree with you about "a wasted two years on a health care plan that does nothing for me."  I'm sorry it does nothing for you.  Multiple members of my family are being helped, and best of all, the insurance companies are being forced to change their sleazy methods.  It's slow, for sure, but something like this happened even without the help of the Republicans.  Think how much better it would have been if the Republicans hadn't been obstructing every step of the way.

    I'm really sick of saying this but I'll say it one more time:  Obama moved too slowly and too cautiously.  He tried to work with the Republicans even though they sneered at him, thumbed their noses at him, told him "no" in no uncertain terms. He chose badly when it came to members of his cabinet.  He went along with cutting needed social programs and he didn't close Guantanamo.  Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

    I wish he wasn't such a slow learner or such a dismal liberal, but the one thing he's got going for him is that he's not Mitt Romney and he's not a goddam Republican.


    From my post above:

    I'll post some arguments but please remember these aren't my arguments against Obama. We could discuss all these points, details and extenuating circumstances, and I'd probably agree with you about many of them. But this is how I think the average low information working class voter sees things.


    Underneath it all, it IS about the economy, but what have the Repubs done to make ANYONE believe they are better able to handle it?

    I have read several accounts of Romney's time at Bain, and it is pretty obvious he was a bit of a dictator. His primary M.O. was to take over companies, borrow huge amounts of money in their name, charge them millions to tell them everything they need to cut, and how many people they need to fire, then leave them to face the debt on their own, and ultimately declare bankruptcy. Just how does that work in a country? Can he fire Congress for not working with him? Can he take over a state and load it up with debt and force them to declare bankruptcy? Would he pick the winners and losers in the economy and not have to be concerned with what happens to the losers? Will he fire all the federal workers and farm out their work to companies who will pay minimum wage for the same work?

    He turned the Olympics around, but he got TONS of Federal money to do it with.

    Will he privatize Social Security and Medicare so the fat cats have tons more of our money to screw around with?

    As bad as things have been in the great recession, how much worse would it have been if people had lost 40%-50% of their Social Security money in addition to that much in their 401Ks?

    The Repubs ran up the National Debt with 2 unpaid for wars, a ginormous unpaid for tax cut, and an unpaid prescription drug program. Why would anyone believe they would do a better job this time? How can anyone look at the Ryan budget and think it has any way of working? How can anyone believe that corporations, left to their own devices will do what is best for workers, or the environment when the Repubs gut all the regulations?

    And to top that off, they are chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran and God knows who else.

    I could keep going for pages...

     


    I could keep going for pages...

    I wish you would...


    Hahahaha! I have been away from political blogging for awhile, and concentrating on my nice, sweet, art blog. I had to give myself a break because I was making myself crazy. But I've missed it so much. I've tried to talk politics on my personal facebook page, but my "friends" are mostly repubs (and low info voters) who just get pissed when I call them on their crap, so it's come back here or explode! Besides, this is MUCH more intellectually stimulating.


    Well, damn!  Welcome back!


    I agree with most everything you posted. I sure hope the democrats can make that case because in spite of all you just posted this race is dead even according to the polls. I gave you some information as to why I think that is. Why do you thing this race is dead even?


    Do you think that all the $$$$$ that's flowing into Romney's campaign, delivering the ability to publish more negative media ads, etc. (thanks to citizens united debacle) accounts for a couple of the percentage points - the ability for them to spread their lies, negative rants to more voters, more often?


    That's the big question we're all wondering about. Some analysts talk about diminishing returns and don't think the huge republican war chest will have that much of an effect. I want to believe that. But I keep thinking about Rove's 300 million dollars. Remember back to the Bush McCain South Carolina primary. Rove was the one who came up with the idea to run a push phone poll  asking this "poll" question. "Would you be more likely or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew that he fathered an illegitimate black child?" The McCain's have an Bengali adopted daughter with very dark skin.

    Bush had this thing about giving people nicknames. His nickname for Rove was Turd Blossom. I'm pretty nervous wondering what Turd Blossom is going to do with that sea of money he's swimming in.


    Romney is going to win for just the reasons you describe.

    Of course advertising works. Look at the sales of Budweiser et al.Of course it works in politics. Look at Harry&Louise and Swiftboating.

    Some ad campaigns fail. The Madmen are not all equally brilliant. Some get to the top  by being talented, some by pleasing the boss. Somehow.

    One conclusion we can draw from Romney's business success is that he knows how to pick the ones who are talented. He must have already done that, a long time ago . I wish the Media would tell us.

    But we'll see the results soon enough.

    At least not help them along with the puerile argument that its worth enduring a Romney victory because it will set the stage for re invigorating the left. The only thing a Romney victory will do is to set the stage for another 4 years of Romney/Ryan.

    Pity. Obama richly deserves to be re-elected for saving General Motors and creating Obamacare.Sadly, he's not going to be.

     

     

     

     

     


    Advertising is not simply a numerical game. Its not like if a voter sees four ads by democrats and 8 ads by republicans, republicans win! Obama isn't going into this broke. Both sides have enough money to saturate the media markets in the swing states. How much will it help that republicans have enough to over saturate the markets. The theory of diminishing returns is that once you've saturated the market with your ads over saturating the market is wasted money.


    If it were still the case that there were only a handful of networks you would  probably be right. .But with the explosion in cable stations maybe saturation requires a lot more bucks today.. 


    With the less regulated current situation there is also the possibility that one or more of the independent ads goes too far over the top on Obama-hating and Obama-lying and itself becomes an unwanted subject of discussion for the Romney-Ryan campaign. I'd be surprised if Rove hasn't made killing unhelpful ads before they go on the air one of his to do items. But that doesn't mean he'll succeed at that.


    And I suppose if the race stays close, maybe some of the mega-wealthy Dems will part with some of the cash they've kept on the side-lines. Stranger things have happened. For some reason I'm feeling just a little more optimistic since the repubs got such a teeny bounce from their convention...course, if we don't get a bounce, maybe it means nothing.


    Altho I've been forecasting dire consequences for months I have to admit that the Republicans haven't so far exploited their financial advantage.

    Maybe because they feel they should hold fire until after the dem convention. If so, Obama was wise to schedule his convention for this late.By mid October it will start being too late for Romney to get much more benefit from his war chest. Partly  because the cliche is that most voters make up their minds by then, partly because so many of them will already have made use of the various ways to vote early.


    Mid-October is probably the perfect time to go after those with short attention spans.  Look for the Big Money to rear some pretty ugly heads around then and beyond.

    A whole lot of voters still think it's smart to wait until they're inside the booth before they make up their minds.  The Republicans know that better than the Democrats do.  It could be that the Dems find that sort of behavior pretty unbelievable.  That could be our problem overall--we really do underestimate the casual voters.


    Here's another one (not sure if someone else posted this link already), from that bastion of America-hating Socialism, FoxNews.com, a piece by Sally Kohn called "Paul Ryan's Speech in 3 Words" published August 30:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/


    Why am I reminded of the book "The loneliness of the Long Distance Runner"? 


    Well if you visited A-man's thread there were multiple references to marathons. wink  

    Good for foxnews.com to publish that piece.  Wonder what's up with that?  Can't wait to see what they publish this week about the DNC.


    She's been writing for Fox for a while now.  Their token liberal, I guess.


    FOX must have published this by mistake, because it's honest and stuck to the facts.

    Appreciate.


    Latest Comments