From Con
I didn’t see Romney’s press conference during which he used a white board to explain, but he seems to have forgotten what I thought was a tried-and-true Rule of Campaigns: ‘If you have to use a white board to explain, you have already lost your audience’? Doesn’t he remember Ross Perot and his white board explanations (always pausing to ask “Do ya follow?” in his condescending way)? I don’t think white board presentations work out the way candidates anticipate and I think Romney’s campaign came up with the idea at the last minute and without sleeping on it.
In any event, following these past several days with only average attention to details (so I could easily be wrong), it seems like I’ve heard 2 or 3 separate and inconsistent explanations by Ryan, Romney or their campaign – anyone else get this impression or is it just me?
In any event, history teaches us more about what to expect than current polling numbers and I believe that the smartest analysis involves looking back at previous campaigns and what happened between mid-August and voting day. I’m sure both camps are saving their best for last, so it should be very interesting to see what they believe is their best and what response is like. This is also the time when I always seem be asking “how stupid to these guys think American voters are, asking us to buy into their latest rhetoric”? That goes double for Talk Radio (Left or Right).
I also don’t find all of these news channel’s ‘campaign surrogate debates’ to be helpful analysis at all – there is zero objectivity, a lot of blind advocacy and I don’t find them informative on important issues. Voters are looking for objective and unbiased sources of information about both candidates and their ideas, but I’m at a loss to come up with any source I’d recommend.
I find the “Newshour” informative and objective. It’s on channel 2,PBS, 6pm Monday through Friday; also on channel 10, PBS, 7pm Monday through Friday.
I would recommend starting with PBS News Hour if you need an unbiased source of information.
I remember the hey-days of ‘Macneil-Lehrer Newshour’ (when both were present and at their peak) – watching that show every day was incredibly informative and some of their reports lasted an unheard of (today) 20 minutes.
Thanks for the News Hour recommendation – I listen mostly to BBC, but of course they give only normal coverage (in an international context). They even put a spokesperson for the latest ‘Swift Boating’ 22 minute video and I was surprised at how sharp and unrelenting the BBC interviewer was, asking direct and critical, but extremely fair questions that the spokesperson was at a total loss to answer.
I have always been a big fan of realclearpolitics.com. It’s a compilation of articles and polls from every news site imaginable. I choose several articles from both sides of the issue and try to sort it out.
M/L is very good. Charlie Rose is also good. The M-Fans Sunday morning talking head shows are OK but require a lot of filtering.
There are three internal contradictions presented by the Romney candidacy. First, Romney is a wealthy, blue blood, ivy league educated, northeast, moderate to liberal Reppublican, nominated by a party based largely in the south, southwest and west, and with an extremely conservative orientation in both social and fiscal issues. Second, the expansion of the entitlement system presented by the health care reform passed in 2010 was based on the plan Romney initiated and passed as governor of Masachussets, so the primary target of the fiscal/social conservatives that make up the base of the Republican party is, if not off the table as an issue, reduced to nuanced arguments over state/federal powers. Third, as Romney has boasted, he spent most of his career in the private sector with a private equity investment firm, Bain capital. This presents a basic problem for his candidacy as the vast majority of voters view the Wall Street banks and investment banks as at the center of the recent financial crisis and recession. The distinctions between their role in the financial system and that of Bain Capital again comes down to nuanced points.
I just don’t see how Romney overcomes these contradictions. His own base is fiercely against Obamacare, and has shown it strongly distrusts moderate Republicans based on the several they have thrown out of office. And the majority of the general electorate has a deep distrust of the investor classes, of which Romney is a member. And he has no where to go on foreign policy where Obama has ended wars the public strongly supports ending, and managed carefully and strategically through transition of several Mideast autocratic governments to the beginnings of democratic governments without
U.S. troop commitments, all on top, of course, of finally accomplishing the primary objective of eliminating Osama Bin Laden.
So all Romney has going for him is the continuing stubborn tide of unemoloyment
With the old, disproven supply side solutions for reduction of taxes and regulations, which are what acted the economic problems in the first place.
JTO-
What Romney has going for him also is widely held disappointment that Obama has not turned out to be what we (or at least, I) hoped and expected. Does that make the electorate vote for Romney/Ryan? Perhaps not, but its in Romneys favor also.
To an extent, it does not matter which party’s candidate wins. The money is always there to channel the results to its own greedy ends.
Doubtful – curious what you consider Obama’s failures?
It does matter which candidate wins.
One major reason this election matters is the potential for legal “Court Packing” of the Supreme Court – up to 3 potential retirements means 3 potential appointments. Was the SCOTUS always so political? Sometimes it seems like a small Congress with partisan Justices appointed for life.
Imagine ‘What is the worst that can happen?’ if there are A) 3 Liberal Justices appointed who consistently vote along party lines with little regard to the merits of the case; or B) same question with 3 Conservative Justices appointed? Either way there’s the potential for a kind of disinfranchisement of 40 – 49% of American Citizens (by a branch of Government that is supposed to be THE definitively objective ‘check’ in a system of Checks & Balances).
Neither result good for America because a political Judiciary is not good for America. We are supposed to have a SCOTUS that is truly non-partisan and objective whose decisions are based solely on the Constitution and the merits of a given case. I know both sides argue that is how ‘their side’ hears and decides cases, but I don’t believe it based on the recent trend (why does anyone claim a given Justice to be from ‘our side’?). No matter who wins the election, all Americans deserve as much Equality as the system can possibly manage and the Judiciary has historically been THE branch of Government that represented the best hope for that Equality and as a Check against too far a pendulum swing. That is it’s very purpose: to be objective.
The majority of SCOTUS-decided cases are business or economically based, as opposed to the occasional highly political case that comes along. Given the possible issues to be decided in the future and the potential challenges to either side’s ‘Plan’, that means the SCOTUS will have the final word on many hugely important issues and it would be a great failing if it all depended on whether a given Justice or Court is ‘Conservative or Liberal’.
I agree with Con. It does matter who wins.
What I’ve noticed a lot lately is the meme that both parties are essentially the same, they are both bought and paid for, and that nothing really changes. To an extent I believe there is some truth to this if one is looking for change from a more radical standpoint, however from a traditional moderate view, there certainly are distinct differences between the party platforms. These differences have become more pronounced by the Republican party which has moved much further right in their agenda. Anyone who fails to see this is either a conservative ideologue or not paying attention. So when someone makes the statement “they’re all the same”, be sure to point out specific differences in specific policies such as:
Health care policies
Education policies
Environmental policies
Entitlement policies
National Defense policies
Women’s Rights
Financial Regulatory Reform
Gay Marriage
Immigration Policies
Economic policies
Just to name a few. There are strikingly clear differences between the parties related to these issues. Though both remain similar in their potential for political corruption and both remain arms to a frightful capitalistic system, there are specific differences that truly matter.
Justthisonce says:
“Doubtful – curious what you consider Obama’s failures?”
That has to be the biggest set up I have ever seen at the Cafe’
Talk about a thread starter
Db
So prominent speakers at the GOP convention next week include JEB Bush, Chris Christie, and, my favorite, Donald Trump. JEB is of course scion of an old New England blue blood family which made its fortune in the investment banking business. Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, made his fortune in the investment banking business at Goldman Sachs and has used it to bust the teachers unions in New Jersey, which he believes wrongly pay teachers a living wage with benefits and provide them traditional public service job security. Then there is Donald Trump, who inherited $50 million dollars and – eventually – after two bankruptcies and defaults on voluminous debt – converted it into a massive real estate empire.
Maybe they should ignore my suggestion to rename themselves “The Crazy Party”.
Let’s go with “Rich White Guys Who Hate Paying Taxes So Will Reduce Government Services and Push Cost Onto The Middle Class” party.
That’s too long. I’m sticking to “The Crazy Party”.