We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, August 31. 2012
The video of Romney's acceptance speech is here.
I think he accomplished exactly what he wanted to accomplish with Independents and disappointed Obama voters: "I'm a nice guy, I'm a family guy, I'm an optimist, I'm not scary and I'm not negative or angry, I'm competent, experienced, and have done lots of things, I respect the basic American values, I understand how the real world works, I know you want a job instead of a freebie, I'm a solutions guy and not a rabid ideologue, a solid manager not a sex object - and you can easily imagine me as a calming, adult, and effective President."
He views himself as CEO, not as a messiah or as a celebrity and he is saying "Hire me", not "Love me.". There are two theories of the American Presidency: the Figurehead theory and the Executive theory. How do you think he did?
Also, best line from Rubio's speech, re Obama: “These are the ideas that people come to America to get away from.”
I think Obama is toast, whether re-elected or not. He is last week's People Magazine and is no longer taken seriously by anybody because he is a glib lightweight who has failed in his job.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Stunning contrast to Obama. Less is more and Mr. Romney did the best that Mr. Romney could do. Being that we should only judge ourselves by ourselves, I would say Mr. Romney excelled himself. Having being constrained and disciplined all his life, his inhibitive nature was stretched. There were highs and lows in nuance ( a word I hesitate to use and a technique employed by the grifter in charge constantly), but I don't believe he used the word "folks" one time. Thank you Lord for that. After surviving a week of the "folks" meme going through Hurrican't Isaac, I am sick of the condescending use of the word "folks".
Well, I don't know that he reached me or my wife in a meaningful way, but she did say some complimentary things about him afterward. She felt he did reach out to women, and finally showed he cares about them, and did so effectively.
I agreed, and I also liked his concept that the president works for the citizens of the US. Even when you work for 'somebody', you're expected to show insight, vision, and display leadership. I don't see the first two from him, but I do see the third.
I think that's important, because you can get insight and vision from the people around you, but you can't get leadership from them. That's something you have to have on your own.
My wife felt Rubio was the best the convention offered. I think he was very good, too. Many of the speakers were excellent, but I rarely see words matched to action in the political realm, so we'll just have to wait and see.
"he did reach out to women, and finally showed he cares about them"! And what evidence have you ever had that he doesn't care about women? Simply because the left claims Republicans have a war on women now we are to believe it is incumbent on the Republicans to prove they do not. It was a silly even stupid proposition to begin with that depended on a silly and even stupid class of voters to believe in it. Sadly there are indeed droves of silly and even stupid voters out there. It is incredible that here in America where women are safer, richer, better educated, better provided for and better protected by law then 99% of the world that anyone would think there is a war on women.
If a woman tells you she feels he doesn't appeal to them, particularly if that woman is your wife - are you going to fire back with something like this?
If so, you're a brave person. It's one thing for me to believe an image is being crafted for him by the media with regard to women. It's quite another if a woman says it's happening.
So I'll take what you've written, put it to the side and say "this is a nice, emotional, response", and then turn to my wife and say "but of course, dear" - because I'm not stupid, and she is definitely not stupid (even if you implied as much).
It's also worth noting that she doesn't think Obama has much to offer woman. As I pointed out on another comment thread on Maggie's, she simply doesn't think men can ever really offer much on 'women's issues', primarily because she doesn't know what 'women's issues' means.
Now, when it comes to reaching out to women (as I wrote above), and caring about them - this is an emotional appeal. And even my wife will acknowledge that women tend to be more emotionally driven.
Romney has never shown a particularly emotional side. I think that is what my wife appreciated.
I'll tell you what I have picked up from conservative male politicians for decades, because it may have some bearing on the impressive gender gap between the parties. Especially some decades back, I was alert to signs that the politician had ever met a woman who wasn't simply the home-making life-supporting silent partner of some powerful man. I performed the same scrutiny when considering a job offer from a man or from any male-dominated company. A man like that, with the best will in the world, wouldn't recognize an issue of women's equal rights if it bites him on the butt. He usually had a hard time imaging women in any other role, or what life is like for a woman who doesn't have a husband who will perform that self-effacing, supporting role for her.
For a very long time, I assumed that if I wanted a voice in the world at all, I would naturally have to support liberal candidates.
These days it's not so bad, but I still cringe a little when powerful men try to tell me they think the jobs their wives are doing are more important than theirs. Sure you do, buddy. That's why you'd die before you traded places.
Having said all that, I loved just about all the speeches and am solidly on board for Romney and Ryan.
I am simply not a fan of balkanizing for "free stuff". I don't like politicians pandering to women, hispanics, LGBT, Southern, immigrants, etc. I would rather that politicians thought of all of us as citizens and treated all of us equally. I don't want a politician to be elected by promising to spend my tax dollars enriching some special group. If this is all they have then I refuse to vote for any politician who doesn't pander to Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, Irish-Americans, Scottish-Americans, German-Americans, ad-infinitum. If we must play crony politics to get the vote then I want my share of free stuff too. If you blame everything in life that didn't go your way on "powerful men" and never discover that EVERYONE is discriminated against by every group and every individual BECAUSE everone acts in their own interest. If you assign some anti-female motive to every action that you don't agree with then you are fated to a sad life of never ending discrimination (in your mind). I admit, I am lucky in that I am a white male and cannot easily claim victimization and consequently I have no other choice but to bucke down and work and make my own way. Obama will not provide money for my free education or food or housing. Being unburdened by those expectations I worked two and even three jobs and paid for my own education and needs. Since my family was poor I never expected either financial help or some inheritance to cover my butt. I found all of these an incredibly liberating experience that freed me to succeed or fail on my own and if I failed I picked myself up because no one was going to come console me and offer me "free stuff". In my opinion the welfare state (welfare being defined very broadly to include ALL the "free stuff") has destroyed lives and denied those in preferred/protected groups the basic right to try and succed or fail on their own and learn from their life experience. When the SHTF (and it will) be it another great depression or WW III or whatever and government simply cannot prop up every dependent person who came to expect "free stuff" who do you think will survive? Those who live off of others and never attended the school of hard knocks or those who never got and never depended on "free stuff"???
YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!
Hope and change 2012 style. I'm hopin' for change. This grand socialist experiment is over.
Perhaps we can have a return to normalcy? As if that is possible?
Let's get on with it America! Elect Mitt!
Mitt looked very presidential--such a stark contrast to the sitting president, who, i hope, is a lame duck.
I didn't have any problem getting on board with this:
"And unlike the president, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. It has 5 steps.
"First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.
"Second, we will give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today and the careers of tomorrow. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance.
"Third, we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences.
"Fourth, to assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish as have those in Greece, we will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget.
"And fifth, we will champion small businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare."
Post tenebras [comment #1] is exactly right --what MR did was completely fill out the MR persona --without (as Eastwood said) "hot-doggin' it".
Naw, conservatives often fall into defending MR with the preface, ''well, he's not my first choice, but ...'' --i think now is a good time to droip that way of thinking. Not to drop it as a ploy, but to drop it as a way of thinking anew about the partisan divide as not something that one side or the other will win or lose, but as something that is right before our eyes defeating BOTH sides --to no American's advantage, be assured.
He's okay. he's fine, nothing wrong with MR. High achiever, ambitious, aware, no way he's faking that wife and family record, the business record is in the numbers, the personal history is well-known and adds up, he's humble and deliberately not accidentally nor whimsically so.
I'm thinking, "Silent Cal" Calvin Coolidge is a good comparison. He and Ryan both are definitely ''popular culture'' throwbacks to an earlier model of American manhood --from the era we increasingly recognize (across may fronts, books, film, TV, everything but the red redoubts in academia) as anything but the dull pre-1968 American culture.
It's a globe, after all, and ''forward'' has clearly become ''backward''.
Meaning, to actually go forward, we have to go backward --at least to that last fork we shouldn't a took (sorry about the maxed mittaphor).