Oor Presidential Second Generation Walt

#21
JJH, sincere question from someone who doesn't know much of the world outside of Europe, except what I read on the web- what are you so worried about? The possible (ongoing?) decline of the US? The financial and moral decline of the American middle class and its consequences? The destruction of the ideal of liberty and freedom from arbitrary rule set down in the Constitution? The US turning into a nightmarishly bureaucratic-socialist state? The general malaise of democracy in the West and the disappearance of the notion of political accountability? I can subscribe to much of that myself, but it sometimes seems to me that US politics has locked itself into a slanging match and does not even pretend any more to be about discussion, dialogue and compromises. Who/what would you say is responsible for that, if my impression is correct?
Without at all being facetious, all of the above.

As for responsibility:

1. the American "street" who are generally self-absorbed folk who have grown to take their freedom and lifestyle (make of it what you will) for granted and who have ceded responsibility to hold political leaders accountable to the very pols they elect.

2. the politicians-elected and appointed who by and large subscribe to "progressivism" (the view that governance should be by an elite--the criteria for admission depend on those already in the elite who set the rules of admission for themselves--who "know best" what the people should get whether they want it or not and without regard when necessary for the "greater good." This has devolved into a federal government that is anathema to our Constitution and its system of federalism whereby the people are in ultimate control of the federal government and the presumption is the federal government does not have any power not expressly given (now expanded over the last 100 years of progressivisn to include "implied" powers whether reasonable or not with the effect that the federal government is for most intents and purposes out of control). It must also be noted that progressivism has been eroding our system for over a 100 years and is no respecter of political parties with their differences usually being only in degree rather than kind with the inevitable result that the federal government grows in size and power.

3. Members of the "press" who have for the most part become the propaganda organ for the progressivists, especially those at the more "liberal" (not liberal in the classical sense) end of the socio-economic-partisan spectrum. They have abandoned their role as journalists (just the facts ma'am) for which there is special provision and protection in the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. The "press" however enjoy the benefit of such protection without now giving the quid pro quo for it, which is the press' vital role in holding government accountable for staying within its Constitutional bounds.
 
#22
JJH, I appreciate, that as an American, you are entitled to abuse your politicos to the nth degree; your vote, your privilege. My actual beef was that I feel sure the poster would not have dared use the epithet for the present POTUS. As far as I am concerned all politicians, regardless of race, colour, or creed, are greedy lying scum, who would tolerate their husband's infidelities for as long as it takes to get them up the greasy political pole.

I would feel the same unease were you to abuse Mr Antony Blair, even at my start of a thread; he's a greedy, venal, dishonest, shit of a human; but he is a Scotch (Fettes) lying bastard, and no damn foreigner is going to say the same even if I agree with them!
 
#23
CNN also only has a minuscule market share of viewers any more because it has failed so miserably since its better days at journalism instead of propaganda.

You are astute in seeing this so-called "swiftboating" to be a true red herring in that unlike the actual honest assertions of the actual Swift Boat combat veterans (first hand witnesses mind you), the character assassination by innuendo against Romney (for whom I have no strong feelings either way) are thus far without any relevant factual basis. The labeling of the latter to cloak it in the truth of the former is but another transparent effort by our "press" to carry the water for Him.
Actually there have been howls of protest from Barry lovers about the comparison but I think it's apt, cluster bombing the main perceived candidates strength with a haze of well designed Rovian smear tactics.

I hated Kerry, plainly the worst sort of over privileged Boston machine politician. But there's little doubt he was a combat veteran, which puts him a head above a lot of folks period. I'd say the same about the more plainly heroic Bob Dole and Bush senior.

As I recall the public dispute with comrades was wether he really deserved that medal, some supported his valor many did not, the most vocal critic did not realize he'd signed the citation, folk facing a hail of RPGs in little boats make such mistakes. My own view was many a well connected rich boy gets a big medal much more easily than the average grunt. I respect your opinion here but we won't agree.

On the other hand the Daily Beast makes this point:
...
Many commentators also forget that the most devastating anti-Kerry ad from the Swift Boaters involved unforgettable footage featuring an authoritative source that Democrats couldn’t possibly counter: John Kerry himself. The grainy black-and-white film showed the junior officer, shortly after his return from Vietnam, testifying in April 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he would later chair himself and accusing U.S. forces of perpetrating “war crimes” as a matter of course during their service in Southeast Asia. Lieutenant Kerry insisted that these atrocities were not “isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.” He claimed that his fellow members of the military “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power,” and “razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”
...
And that was an absolutely fair reminder of why many Vets should hate John Kerry, who had only second hand camp gossip knowledge of the bad things that happen in this sort of war. He now heads that same committee, badly, and it's partly due to liberally ratting out his comrades as the public opinion war turned against them.

Bush did not deserve a second term but he actually was a much better POTUS in round#2, I suspect Kerry would have been dreadful.

With Romney I have a gut feeling he's a decent pious man as well as a necessarily ruthless venture capitalist playing the game by the rules of the time. I've seen nothing so far to change that opinion. Liberals dropping smears on his clearly deeply held faith is disgusting. We'll see how Barry's negative campaign goes, the man is a hell of campaigner but not much of a POTUS just like his predecessor.
 
#24
Actually there have been howls of protest from Barry lovers about the comparison but I think it's apt, cluster bombing the main perceived candidates strength with a haze of well designed Rovian smear tactics.

I hated Kerry, plainly the worst sort of over privileged Boston machine politician. But there's little doubt he was a combat veteran, which puts him a head above a lot of folks period. I'd say the same about the more plainly heroic Bob Dole and Bush senior.

As I recall the public dispute with comrades was wether he really deserved that medal, some supported his valor many did not, the most vocal critic did not realize he'd signed the citation, folk facing a hail of RPGs in little boats make such mistakes. My own view was many a well connected rich boy gets a big medal much more easily than the average grunt. I respect your opinion here but we won't agree.

On the other hand the Daily Beast makes this point:And that was an absolutely fair reminder of why many Vets should hate John Kerry, who had only second hand camp gossip knowledge of the bad things that happen in this sort of war. He now heads that same committee, badly, and it's partly due to liberally ratting out his comrades as the public opinion war turned against them.

Bush did not deserve a second term but he actually was a much better POTUS in round#2, I suspect Kerry would have been dreadful.

With Romney I have a gut feeling he's a decent pious man as well as a necessarily ruthless venture capitalist playing the game by the rules of the time. I've seen nothing so far to change that opinion. Liberals dropping smears on his clearly deeply held faith is disgusting. We'll see how Barry's negative campaign goes, the man is a hell of campaigner but not much of a POTUS just like his predecessor.
Well-reasoned post. We are in general agreement!!! Mark it down. :)
 
#25
Excuse me, Alib, but LIBERALS are dropping smears about Romney's faith? It's the evangelicals who are Romney's biggest problems in terms of what particular set of fairy stories he is inclined to believe.

If I were a Republican, I'd have spent the last two weeks face-palming at the ineptitude of the man and his campaign. Liberals are attacking Romney and exploiting the fact that he's socially disconnected to the point of autism. The man, quite literally, went into an Iowa mom-and-pop coffee shop a few weeks ago and he couldn't identify a chocolate doughnut. When it comes to the issue of releasing his tax returns (a precedent set by his father) he's even lost the likes of George Will, The National Review and Rick Perry. The Bain problem is getting worse and worse for him. I don't know one way or the other whether there is any substance to the speculation that he committed fraud on SEC filings which stated that he was CEO/MD of Bain (as well as the sole owner) from 1999-2002, but I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so stupid as to declare so and NOT make themselves aware of what was going on there, when they would ultimately be held accountable. At best, Mittens is guilty of an egregious lack of judgement which definitely reflects on his aptitude for leadership. At worst, his behaviour just confirms in everybody's heads the perception that he's a man who will say or do anything if he believes it is the most expedient way of getting what he wants.

And that's a message that's going to resonate with Conservatives as much, if not more, than with Liberals. The real right wing nut cases know that Romney isn't one of them and he's just pandering. He was pro-choice when it suited him in senate and gubernatorial races, now he's pro-life. He was singing about Romneycare from the rooftops when it was implemented in Massachusetts and it was seen as the brain child of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, but then has done his level best to run away from it once the Right decided that because it was rolled out by a democrat, it became the thin edge of the socialist wedge. Romney had a 59 point, 160 page, economic plan that- for all I know- might have actually been based in some sort of reality, but he decided that he needed to smoke some more teabagger cock so he threw that out and made Paul Granny-starver Ryan his blue-eyed boy and endorsed his (and I use the word in the loosest possible sense) "budget".

The list goes on... and on... here:

14 Bald-Faced Mitt Romney Flip-Flops That Were Dug Up By John McCain - Business Insider

http://mittromneyflipflops.com/

You see the Obama campaign know that there are an awful lot of people who are none to jazzed with the way things are turning out and that they'll have a hard time persuading those people to vote for Obama. Their calculation is that if they make Romney equally unpalatable, then those people won't bother to turn out to vote. It's quite a cynical kind of politics, but hey, at least it's not as bad as taking legal steps to suppress voter turnout.
 
#26
[FONT=&amp][/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]...Barack Hussein Obama Sr. (His father) was born 4/4/36 and died: 11/24/82 at the age of 46. He was 5 years old when WW II started AS FAR AS THE USA IS CONCERNED

[/FONT]
The date generally given by historians for the kick-off of WW2 is 1 September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland, so for the rest of the World his dad would have been nearly 3 and a half when the war started.

If you turn up late (again) it's your own fault - don't blame us for starting without you...
 
#27
Excuse me, Alib, but LIBERALS are dropping smears about Romney's faith? It's the evangelicals who are Romney's biggest problems in terms of what particular set of fairy stories he is inclined to believe.
...
Yes liberals are attacking Mitt across the board but they are not above delivering some kidney punches on his faith, which they know is a weak spot.

I keep hearing more and more from folk like NPR about how strange Mormons are, you know being involved with the Boy Scouts of America covering up child abuse. Satan is Jesus's brother in the Mormon faith. How Mormons believed black folks had no soul. How they attack gay rights. How it began as a quasi-socialist faith. How Mormons massacred a wagon train. How Romney's grandfather fled to Mexico to practice polygamy. How they out compete evangelicals by out spending them.

Now this is not without some basis in fact and done in a sickeningly PC way but I think it is a sneaky flanking move aimed at suppressing Mitt's vote. It all looks politically expedient bollocks like the Barry is a Muslim schtick.
 
#28
And that was an absolutely fair reminder of why many Vets should hate John Kerry, who had only second hand camp gossip knowledge of the bad things that happen in this sort of war. He now heads that same committee, badly, and it's partly due to liberally ratting out his comrades as the public opinion war turned against them.
Kerry testified as the spokesman of Vietnam Veterans against the war, not as an individual reporting hearsay.

Incidentally, in 2006 the Pentagon declassified a 9000 page contemporary archive of atrocities perpetrated by the US Army in Vietnam. Among the cases that the Army itself substantiated at the time were: seven massacres between 1967 and 1971 in which at least 137 civilians died; seventy-eight other attacks on noncombatants in which at least 57 were killed, 56 wounded and 15 sexually assaulted; 141 instances in which U.S. soldiers tortured civilian detainees or prisoners of war with fists, sticks, bats, water or electric shock. Hundreds of soldiers, in interviews with investigators and letters to commanders, described a violent minority who murdered, raped and tortured with impunity. There were cases of abuse in every single Army division that operated in Vietnam, yet only 23 soldiers were convicted and only 14 received prison sentences.
 
#29
Now this is not without some basis in fact and done in a sickeningly PC way but I think it is a sneaky flanking move aimed at suppressing Mitt's vote. It all looks politically expedient bollocks like the Barry is a Muslim schtick.
I believe it was the prophet Stephen Colbert who once said that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

You draw an interesting parallel between something that you admit to having a basis in fact, and something else which is patent bollocks.

Even if your hypothesis is correct, it's not the Liberals that have a problem with Romney's religious beliefs. They're reminding the evangelicals on the right that THEY have a problem. Liberals aren't going to vote against Romney because he's a Mormon. They're going to vote against him because they support the President of the United States and think that Romney is a sock puppet who will be unable to control the three ring circus that today's Republican Party has become.
 
#30
Yes liberals are attacking Mitt across the board but they are not above delivering some kidney punches on his faith, which they know is a weak spot.

I keep hearing more and more from folk like NPR about how strange Mormons are, you know being involved with the Boy Scouts of America covering up child abuse. Satan is Jesus's brother in the Mormon faith. How Mormons believed black folks had no soul. How they attack gay rights. How it began as a quasi-socialist faith. How Mormons massacred a wagon train. How Romney's grandfather fled to Mexico to practice polygamy. How they out compete evangelicals by out spending them.

Now this is not without some basis in fact and done in a sickeningly PC way but I think it is a sneaky flanking move aimed at suppressing Mitt's vote. It all looks politically expedient bollocks like the Barry is a Muslim schtick.
I now better understand you......NPR you say? :)
 
#31
I believe it was the prophet Stephen Colbert who once said that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

You draw an interesting parallel between something that you admit to having a basis in fact, and something else which is patent bollocks.

Even if your hypothesis is correct, it's not the Liberals that have a problem with Romney's religious beliefs. They're reminding the evangelicals on the right that THEY have a problem. Liberals aren't going to vote against Romney because he's a Mormon. They're going to vote against him because they support the President of the United States and think that Romney is a sock puppet who will be unable to control the three ring circus that today's Republican Party has become.
No, it's not total bollocks. The thing is there's a vein of truth in both narratives, both men's primary electoral credential is vulnerable to a sneak attack.

The Dems had projected Kerry as a decorated Veteran who could handle nation security a area that they felt they were weak at a time when America was engaged in another unpopular war. He wasn't tainted in Dem voter eyes in the cultural struggles over Vietnam, he had taken a principle stand against that vile war. What could go wrong?

By this time Hollywood had got to Vietnam, veterans who had once been pilloried in the press as baby killers, were as much sacrificial victims as those that died in the holocaust. Liberals began to realize their youthful activism against Vietnam, often given fire by the outrage at the draft, had pilloried US soldiers as a group and perhaps not always fairly, it was part of the martyrology of the war in the popular imagination. Their attitude to men serving in Iraq was to be more protective, these heros were not to be spat on in airports instead their sacrifice by "chickenhawks" who dodged service in that tragic Asian war was to be highlighted.

The Swift Boat thing may have contained unsubstantiated smears but at bottom it highlighted that Kerry was an anti-war activist, a man who many would seen as a betrayer that lost a war for the US. He was a veteran but hell, he was just one of those dirty hippies who denigrated brave mens service. A vote for Kerry became a vote for accepting defeat in Iraq. This energized GOP voters and really took the shine of Kerry for the undecided. Rovian genius at its finest, the liberals had run onto a spear.

Now the similar attack on Romney, goes for his credentials as a job creator, a strength the GOP has played up. It seek to highlight moral imperfections in his career. It's aimed mostly at energizing the Dem party base and swaying swing voters, just as the Swift Boat attacks were. As with Kerry it casts him as a betrayer of Americans. A vote for Mitt becomes a vote for offshoring jobs and plutocracy.

Romney who has a similar gaff prone rich guys lack of agility may prove to be as much a contemptible fish in a barrel as Kerry. At the moment he's flailing in the quicksand of his past just as Kerry did.

The tactical assault on Romney's faith is different, it's target is Evangelical support for Romney, something that is decidedly Luke war and easy to chill. That's more akin to Rove leaking out that John McCain had a colored daughter.

Rove no doubt will admire all this dirty handiwork.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#32
I like the Democrat decision process:

1. Let's put up a black candidate, that will get lots of liberal votes.

2. Oh dear, that will lose all those Dixiecrats that only vote for us because Lincoln was a Republican.

3. Never mind, let's find a black candidate from the South who will symbolise the freeing of the slaves and so forth.

4. Oh dear, we haven't got one. The Republicans pinched Condoleeza.

5. This one's Kenyan but he'll have to do.

6. But is he going to be any good as POTUS?

7. Get real, as if that matters!
 
#33
I like the Democrat decision process:

1. Let's put up a black candidate, that will get lots of liberal votes.

2. Oh dear, that will lose all those Dixiecrats that only vote for us because Lincoln was a Republican.

3. Never mind, let's find a black candidate from the South who will symbolise the freeing of the slaves and so forth.

4. Oh dear, we haven't got one. The Republicans pinched Condoleeza.

5. This one's Kenyan but he'll have to do.

6. But is he going to be any good as POTUS?

7. Get real, as if that matters!
Err, the Dixiecrats mostly transfered to the GOP base since LBJ enforced black folks civil rights in Dixie.

Too damn close to 40 acres and a mule for some folks, as is Barrycare which some say overwhelmingly benefits poor folks of color especially in the Red States. Wingnut mate of mine bitterly called it reparations for slavery and he's still griping that Uncle Sam never properly compensated slave owners for the loss of their lawful private property.

They'd have voted for any damn fool the Dems put up after eight years of Bush and with the economy going spectacularly down the pan. The skin color was just gravy, a lot of them were equally excited by a potential POTUS with a vagina.
 
#34
No, it's not total bollocks. The thing is there's a vein of truth in both narratives, both men's primary electoral credential is vulnerable to a sneak attack.

The Dems had projected Kerry as a decorated Veteran who could handle nation security a area that they felt they were weak at a time when America was engaged in another unpopular war. He wasn't tainted in Dem voter eyes in the cultural struggles over Vietnam, he had taken a principle stand against that vile war. What could go wrong?

By this time Hollywood had got to Vietnam, veterans who had once been pilloried in the press as baby killers, were as much sacrificial victims as those that died in the holocaust. Liberals began to realize their youthful activism against Vietnam, often given fire by the outrage at the draft, had pilloried US soldiers as a group and perhaps not always fairly, it was part of the martyrology of the war in the popular imagination. Their attitude to men serving in Iraq was to be more protective, these heros were not to be spat on in airports instead their sacrifice by "chickenhawks" who dodged service in that tragic Asian war was to be highlighted.

The Swift Boat thing may have contained unsubstantiated smears but at bottom it highlighted that Kerry was an anti-war activist, a man who many would seen as a betrayer that lost a war for the US. He was a veteran but hell, he was just one of those dirty hippies who denigrated brave mens service. A vote for Kerry became a vote for accepting defeat in Iraq. This energized GOP voters and really took the shine of Kerry for the undecided. Rovian genius at its finest, the liberals had run onto a spear.

Now the similar attack on Romney, goes for his credentials as a job creator, a strength the GOP has played up. It seek to highlight moral imperfections in his career. It's aimed mostly at energizing the Dem party base and swaying swing voters, just as the Swift Boat attacks were. As with Kerry it casts him as a betrayer of Americans. A vote for Mitt becomes a vote for offshoring jobs and plutocracy.

Romney who has a similar gaff prone rich guys lack of agility may prove to be as much a contemptible fish in a barrel as Kerry. At the moment he's flailing in the quicksand of his past just as Kerry did.

The tactical assault on Romney's faith is different, it's target is Evangelical support for Romney, something that is decidedly Luke war and easy to chill. That's more akin to Rove leaking out that John McCain had a colored daughter.

Rove no doubt will admire all this dirty handiwork.
I think you misunderstood my first paragraph, I was referring to appearing to establish some sort of equivalence between drawing attention to the shadier side of Mormonism- which you admit is based in fact- and the assertion that Obama is a Muslim- which is patent bollocks.

The rest of your analysis I agree with, but that's the nature of presidential campaigns now. While we can all lament that the process isn't like the West Wing would have us believe, we have to recognise it's just the nature of the beast. This is the time when Romney has to define himself to the electorate and so far he's let his opposition do the job for him, and, like with Kerry, his opposition is doing it by attacking what Romney perceives to be his greatest strength.

I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Romney at some level. I honestly think we may be starting to see a Rick Perry-level implosion before he even gets to the Convention. His steadfast refusal to release his tax returns is causing him no end of problems to the extent that senior Conservative figures are practically screaming at him to do so. What he saw as his greatest qualification- his history at Bain- is being discredited or at least questioned. On top of that, to give independents a reminder of what could result from the GOP return for the White House, George W Bush chose yesterday to emerge from the woodwork and say how "awesome" it was to be President and to launch a book on how to stage an economic recovery. That's right, the man who took the US from a $240bn budget surplus to a $1.2tn deficit and took the unemployment rate from 3.2% to 9% is back pushing the Republican economic agenda. I'm sure Romney just loved that image in the public consciousness.

And, if all that isn't enough, in an attempt to protect Romney on the issue of his tax returns- and rebut claims that Romney was rejected as McCain's VP because of his tax history- John McCain went on record to say that he picked Sarah Palin... Sarah Palin, mind you... because she was a better candidate. That's CAN'T be helpful.

On top of all that, in another Kerry-esque moment, last weekend, Romney was photographed lounging around in New Hampshire at ONE of his vacation homes, boating with his family. That same day, Obama was pictured stumping in a torrential Virginia thunderstorm. Even right wingers on the interwebz had to agree that this reinforced perceptions that Obama is the harder worker and wants it more and Romney just seems to convey a sense of entitlement.
 
#35
...
On top of all that, in another Kerry-esque moment, last weekend, Romney was photographed lounging around in New Hampshire at ONE of his vacation homes, boating with his family. That same day, Obama was pictured stumping in a torrential Virginia thunderstorm. Even right wingers on the interwebz had to agree that this reinforced perceptions that Obama is the harder worker and wants it more and Romney just seems to convey a sense of entitlement.
At least he wasn't sailboarding!

There was this bombshell echoing a damning revelation about Kerry a couple of days ago:
[video=youtube;xyP2M0DTch8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyP2M0DTch8&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
 
#36
On the other hand Barry nails it for the American voter.
[video=youtube;dWl5XoGX8Os]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWl5XoGX8Os&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
 
#37
At least he wasn't sailboarding!

There was this bombshell echoing a damning revelation about Kerry a couple of days ago:
[video=youtube;xyP2M0DTch8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyP2M0DTch8&feature=player_detailpage[/video]
Of course he does, he spent 2 and a half years in Bordeaux to avoid the draft and try to sell a different brand of superstitious nonsense to a bunch of perennially half-pissed, secular, Catholics.

In 30 months he managed to get exactly two converts. How's that for people skills?
 
#38
Romney on his $8m New Hampshire Estate


Obama in Virginia. The same day

 
#39
Romney on his $8m New Hampshire Estate

...
The pussy even lets the wife drive the jetski, that isn't going to play well in the trailerparks.

On the other hand busy Barry has spent three whole months golfing. Apparently with all the security a session takes five hours and he's up to 100. Fox pointed out Barry's hard holidaying predecessor quit golf after 24 sessions in order to share the sacrifice of soldiers in Iraq... no I'm not tearing up at this supportive act either.
[video=youtube;Gmo7tubRNmk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmo7tubRNmk[/video]
I would not hold that generous allocation of leisure time against Barry and I'm sure a lot of business takes place on the fairway except it's fecking golf. If he was out shooting quail and the occasional buddy in the face I could understand it.
 
#40
...
In 30 months he managed to get exactly two converts. How's that for people skills?
Well it was France and Mormons don't even drink tea or coffee. I'd say he must be the Billy Graham of the LDS to bag two.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top