y66 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Republican Debate Veers Toward the Absurd -- Commentary by Marc Pitzke in Spiegel International Online The US Republican candidates' debate in Florida quickly devolved into a horror show of absurdities on Thursday night as candidates argued about immigration and moon colonies. Mitt Romney was branded the winner, but the real losers were the viewers, the truth and politics in general. ... For 120 minutes they "debated" the "hot topics," producing sound bites but offering no insight into how these men would cope with the enormous challenges facing the US. The most important topic for voters, the economy, wasn't addressed at all. At the end, the commentators declared Romney the winner (because he bit the hardest) and Gingrich the loser (because he didn't bite back hard enough). Santorum was termed the "new" challenger (because he attacked everyone), and Paul became the funny uncle. But the real loser was the political system. No mention of the economy? Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Deleted duplicate post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted January 30, 2012 Report Share Posted January 30, 2012 Republican Debate Veers Toward the Absurd -- Commentary by Marc Pitzke in Spiegel International Online No mention of the economy? Wow. Don't you know - all you have to do is cut taxes and the economy fixes itself. It's in all the Republican handbooks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awm Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 Funny thing --if you eliminate all federal spending except defense, Medicare, social security, and interest on the debt... the US budget barely balances. This is not realistic; in particular it includes eliminating Republican priorites like the department of homeland security and some political non-starters like eliminating veterans benefits. Yet Republicans claim they want a balanced budget amendment. That would presumably mean balanced budgets now (not 10-20 years down the road under optimistic projections). And they want this while cutting taxes dramatically and increasing defense spending. Oh, and without any Medicare changes for folks currently 55 or older. What gives? Are they all bad at math? Or just hoping we are? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 1, 2012 Report Share Posted February 1, 2012 No sooner had the Florida primary ended that Romney snatched defeat from the jaws of victory - at least against anyone human running against him - with this comment... EAGAN, Minn. (AP) — Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, confident after his Florida primary victory, ended up inviting criticism Wednesday when he said he's "not concerned about the very poor" because they have an "ample safety net." Or, to paraphrase, Advisor: The peasants have no bread.Romney: If they're not rich, screw 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 No sooner had the Florida primary ended that Romney snatched defeat from the jaws of victory - at least against anyone human running against him - with this comment... Or, to paraphrase, Advisor: The peasants have no bread.Romney: If they're not rich, screw 'em.You really think that's going to hurt him? As in you think that anyone considering voting republican sees this as a negative? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 You really think that's going to hurt him? As in you think that anyone considering voting republican sees this as a negative? Really? He also said, "I don't care about the very rich." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 You really think that's going to hurt him? As in you think that anyone considering voting republican sees this as a negative? Really? Something like 50 million people voted to put Sarah Palin within a heartbeat of the oval office - how can anyone underestimate the ignorance of the American voting public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeh Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 He also said, "I don't care about the very rich."I heard the full quote, and the characterization placed on it by those attacking him is a distortion....just as was the quote attributed to Marie Antoinette...let them eat cake wasn't as dismissive as it sounds....the word 'cake' has a significantly different connotation to us than it did to her audience. I think one of the reasons politicans sound so false and inane to literate observers is that they have to constantly worry about deceitful critics quote-mining......if they ever say what they really mean, in a nuanced statement, all of the context will be omitted when the sound-bite is played or the attack ad run. Politics is the race to the gutter and it demeans everyone who participates whenever the money speaks....your campaign finance laws are an abomination to anyone who wants to see an informed democracy rather than election by sheeple. It's (regrettably) not that there are many better examples to look at....perhaps the scandanavian countries might have a legitimate claim....maybe even germany....it's more that the world would like to look to the US as an example of the possible. As it is, the platitudes of your presidents about US values and liberty and democracy come across as hypocritical as well as platitudinous. I am NOT claiming moral superiority...far from it....the bones of your system are good....it's the impact of money plus a woeful adherence to 'exceptionalism' that seems to create the quagmire. The money means that the rich control (most) elections (hence the phenonomen of much of the middle class consistently supporting politicians whose every action is designed to transfer ever increasing wealth from the middle class to the rich), and the exceptionalism operates to blind its believers to the possibility that other nations can set examples to be followed...despite its many strengths, the US lags way behind many countries in such basic matters as life expectancy, infant mortality, religious tolerance, gender issues and so on. I know...it's easy to be a critic from afar and I surely don't claim that canadians wouldn't be as bad if we were americans. And as a kid growing up in the rubble of the British Empire, similar traits were apparent, at least historically, in the attitudes of the ruling elite in the UK. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Regarding life expectancies and other data, this site is pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cherdano Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I heard the full quote, and the characterization placed on it by those attacking him is a distortion....It's certainly been taken out of context - but still: if you are concerned with the fact that 21% of all children grow up below the poverty line, if you have some empathy for those that live in unsafe neighborhoods, whose children go to bad schools - then you would at least use different language. And the quote in context is still quite odd: they don't need to worry, "We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I’ll fix it." The full context is that Romney's policy agenda explicitly or implicitly includes drastic cuts to the same safety net. ("will immediately cap spending at 20% of GDP" while increasing defense spending is pretty much all you need to know about this.) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onoway Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I know...it's easy to be a critic from afar and I surely don't claim that canadians wouldn't be as bad if we were americans. I certainly don't think that Canadians have any cause to point fingers at the U.S. At least when they had a President clearly doing wrong they could get rid of him whereas we were stuck with a Prime Minister who was running at what, 2% approval from the public? That was when I lost any sense of "our system works better". People here are just as likely to vote the party their daddy always did just as much as they are in the States. People here can still be spooked by labels and are just as afraid of anything they're not familiar with and so just as likely to figure the devil you think you know is better than the devil you don't. They're just as likely to vote in whoever tells them what they want to hear even though if pressed a little they admit they don't believe a word of any of it. It was interesting to me how many people here were rabid supporters of Obama and said something along the lines of; if he can pull it off in the States maybe it isn't too late for us to look for effective change here. Our government is just as much out of control as any other you might care to name, really, it's only that Harper hasn't really flexed muscles very much yet. Canada's not at all the free country that it used to be and that people believe it still to be. It's just that we haven't had the full weight of just how much we have lost since the Mulronney years laid on us yet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I heard the full quote, and the characterization placed on it by those attacking him is a distortion The amazing thing is that the full quote is about as far from true conservative values as you get. The point isn't that we need not worry about the poor because there's a safety net. The safety net should be there and be temporary so that the unfortunate can get back to work. I think that's likely to lose him conservative votes. The out of context (or in context) phrase is more likely to lose him liberal votes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Here's a columnist (humorously) go through the entire quote. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/opinion/collins-mitt-speaks-oh-no.html?hp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil_20686 Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I certainly don't think that Canadians have any cause to point fingers at the U.S. At least when they had a President clearly doing wrong they could get rid of him whereas we were stuck with a Prime Minister who was running at what, 2% approval from the public? That was when I lost any sense of "our system works better". People here are just as likely to vote the party their daddy always did just as much as they are in the States. People here can still be spooked by labels and are just as afraid of anything they're not familiar with and so just as likely to figure the devil you think you know is better than the devil you don't. They're just as likely to vote in whoever tells them what they want to hear even though if pressed a little they admit they don't believe a word of any of it. It was interesting to me how many people here were rabid supporters of Obama and said something along the lines of; if he can pull it off in the States maybe it isn't too late for us to look for effective change here. Our government is just as much out of control as any other you might care to name, really, it's only that Harper hasn't really flexed muscles very much yet. Canada's not at all the free country that it used to be and that people believe it still to be. It's just that we haven't had the full weight of just how much we have lost since the Mulronney years laid on us yet. I think many of the ex-british colonies have a somewhat mor sensible attitude to free speech than Americans. For example, the UK has the Press Complaints Commission. Which, among other things, has the power to fine political parties if they significantly distort the position of their opposition in the media. Now its not that the PCC is a great institution, but your politicians seem to run attack adds that are essentially complete fabrication in a way that is just not tolerated in the UK, and in many of the British-modelled democracies. Moreover, even to admit the power to fine a political party for statements about the opposition which are "significantly misleading" represents a totally different view of how freedom of speech is integrated into a political economy. I think this is much of the reason that our political discourse is somewhat more reasonable than america's. That, and the BBC. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Here's a columnist (humorously) go through the entire quote. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/opinion/collins-mitt-speaks-oh-no.html?hp Humorous yes, but like all good humor it appears to be pretty much on point. My take on Romney is that he may well be directing his campaign toward me, a middle-class retiree, but he is doing so because that's where the votes are. What he would actually do is a total crapshoot, unrelated to how he directs his campaign. True of them all, of course, but more so than with most I get the idea that Romney has set exactly one item on his agenda. Become president. Btw, I did not at all take exception to the comments of mikeh about our electoral mess. A mess it is. The possibility that Canadians might have a mess of their own is no comfort. Rightly or wrongly I do think that Republicans are more attracted to this scorched earth approach to campaigning than Democrats are, but I am not up for giving cheers to anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 My take on Romney is that he may well be directing his campaign toward me Well, one thing is a cinch - his campaign is not targeting the very poor. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted February 3, 2012 Report Share Posted February 3, 2012 "The Big Game" http://i.huffpost.com/gen/481433/NEW-YORKER-SUPER-BOWL-COVER.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 Deleted - embedded link expired Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 4, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 US politicians who bash Europe to pry votes from ignorant citizens really disgust me. So it was good to read Martin Klingst's piece in the Post yesterday: The GOP’s ‘Europe’ is a land of make-believe Europe is the European Union, a modern entity of 27 democratic countries that, despite many commonalities, greatly differ in history, culture, language, sociology and politics. Europe is difficult to comprehend, but viewing it through a single lens is like calling the United States a Third World nation because there are very poor areas in the South where some people live in shacks or have little access to health care or where some schools are corridors of shame.Romney lived in France, so knows full well that his comparisons are false. The French have a better healthcare system than the US at half the cost, but Romney says that he wants to reverse even the small steps the US government has taken to fix the healthcare system, on the grounds that those steps infringe on the right of free lunchers to sponge off of responsible citizens. I suspect that Romney -- unlike his opponents -- doesn't really want to do that, but he is willing to say so to appeal to the droolers in his base. Romney's appeal to me, sad to say, is that I don't really believe that he is as bad as he claims to be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenberg Posted February 4, 2012 Report Share Posted February 4, 2012 I suspect that Romney -- unlike his opponents -- doesn't really want to do that, but he is willing to say so to appeal to the droolers in his base. Romney's appeal to me, sad to say, is that I don't really believe that he is as bad as he claims to be. Apparently the right wing is also deeply concerned with the possibility that Romney is actually sane, as much as he tries to convince them otherwise. What's a guy to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted February 5, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Apparently the right wing is also deeply concerned with the possibility that Romney is actually sane, as much as he tries to convince them otherwise. What's a guy to do?Yeah. I disagree with partisans who want the republicans to pick a scary candidate on the grounds that Obama will then surely win. You never know. I want a steady hand on the wheel even when I disagree with a president's policies (as I always do, although the magnitude varies). In the meantime, Newt Gingrich Channels Michele Bachmann On the honky-tonk’s stage, Gingrich kept the ideas coming: He listed at least six orders he would sign on his first day as president, undoing legislation on health care and financial regulation, and moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He said he could bring back $2 per-gallon gas. And Michele's mom is right there cheering Newt on. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Yeah. I disagree with partisans who want the republicans to pick a scary candidate on the grounds that Obama will then surely win. You never know. I want a steady hand on the wheel even when I disagree with a president's policies (as I always do, although the magnitude varies). In the meantime, Newt Gingrich Channels Michele Bachmann And Michele's mom is right there cheering Newt on. :) What is truly frightening is Newt is considered "the smart one". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted February 5, 2012 Report Share Posted February 5, 2012 Truthfulness, emotional intelligence and conversational versatility are obviously not Romney's forte. I confess, the more I read about him, the more I like him. Just because a guy sucks as a presidential candidate doesn't mean he can't be a good guy in other ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted February 6, 2012 Report Share Posted February 6, 2012 GOP Introduces New "Mystery Candidate" With Paper Bag Over Head 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.