Why didn't I live-blog the GOP convention last night? I'd thought I would, and I think I live-blogged every day of both parties' conventions in 2004 and 2008. I watched part of the afternoon roll call and all of the evening show. But I didn't want to say something about each of the speeches as I listened, though this morning I wish I had.
I watched on C-SPAN. I cannot tolerate the channels that have people who talk about what is going on while it's going one. They are obviously not listening, so what are they doing — other than getting in the way? But when you watch on C-SPAN, it's just a bunch of speeches. Speeches are speeches. There's a sameness to them. A good line now and then. A nice line reading. Themes emerge. It seemed to me that the main theme was that Americans work hard and construct their own families' economic well-being. There were a lot of "We Built It" signs (playing off the Republican's favorite Obama quote, "You didn't build that").
Chris Christie, the keynote speaker, was the main speaker who had his own distinctive theme: Truth. Americans are ready to hear the truth about government and economics. He told the truth in New Jersey, and he got elected, and he fixed things, and now this truth thing is going national. Without checking the text, I'm not sure how directly Christie associated Obama with not telling the truth, but I note that Obama was always the "dreams" guy. Talking tough about truth may be the perfect counterbalance to Obama's supremely — unfairly! — effective "hope" theme.
Who was the best speaker last night? Maybe it wasn't Christie. Maybe it was Rick Santorum. What am I saying? All that hands-touching-hands business. It got to me, and I am not a social conservative. I cried when he talked about Bella. Santorum was off the "we built it" theme. He was the one speaker — as I remember it — who talked about caring for people. But who votes based on caring? Don't those people vote Democrat?
I say that to Meade, and he goes on about how fixing the economy is the best way for government to care for people. That's not my point. Of course, that's true. That's rational. But I'm talking about the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision. Those people vote Democratic, don't they?
ADDED: Ann Romney carried the main "We Built It" theme by portraying Mitt as building his own wealth, starting out from nothing... basement apartment... ate a lot of pasta and tuna.... And her grandfather was a coal miner. In Wales.
But did she humanize him? I read in the press about a thousand times that it was her job to humanize him. Isn't it racist and sexist to portray Mitt Romney as inhuman?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५८२ टिप्पण्या:
582 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»The New York Times lead editorial on the convention is so strident and accusatory that it is practically hysterical. I can remember when I thought the Times was sort of impartial and detached. Perhaps my memory is flawed.
I don't.
The best thing we can do for suffering children is to get America back to being the powerful economic engine it once was, which includes getting more Americans back to the American work ethic. Voting Republican generally furthers those goals. Voting democrat supports putting more people on welfare and hurts ever more kids, in both the short and long terms.
Ann wrote, " But I'm talking about the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision."
So you, while emotionally charged, empower government to make love based policy. And what happens when the people don't love like you want. In the 20th century, those governments then lined up all those who didn't love right and shot them.
Really, Ann, you want to be the women who rejects those rational decisions and make emotional ones?
...for the first time ever, I listened from 5P (PST) to closing (I had to work anyways, so kept CSPAN going in a little window on monitor 1 of 4).
I paid attention to some. Rick, Nikki, Artur, a smattering of others. I missed Mia (earlier speech than when I connecected, I s'pose).
I paid attention to most of Christie (I'd never heard him give a full on speech before, just Youtube snippets).
But I was impressed by Ann Romney. (I didn't think I'd be when she started with the "I'm going to talk about love" ...I was wrong: she pulled it off).
As an ABR during the primaries, I didn't expect to become a fan of Romney, and was content (if slightly unhappy about it) being an ABO voter.
Not now.
I'm on board.
"The best thing we can do for suffering children is to get America back to being the powerful economic engine it once was, which includes getting more Americans back to the American work ethic. Voting Republican generally furthers those goals."
That was exactly Meade's response. My response to that is: I'm not talking about people like you. I'm talking about people who make decisions from within a realm of emotion.
[Christie] told the truth in New Jersey, and he got elected, and he fixed things, and now this truth thing is going national.
I'm waiting for an ad with Obama giving his famous lecture that "we have to stop demagoguing medicare reformers" followed by his demagoguing Ryan's medicare plan and every other statement any Republican makes.
We are ready for the truth, and we're ready to cast out those who aren't. Show people what Obama is doing.
Actual quote from NY Times editorial:
“We need a president who will say to a small businesswoman: Congratulations, we applaud your success, you did make that happen, you did build that,” said Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia. “Big government didn’t build America; you built America!”
That was far from the only piece of nonsense on the menu...
So, according to the NY Times, small businesses didn't build America, and any notion is "nonsense." And any notion that big government didn't build America is "nonsense," too.
God, I hope some Obama's buddy-Bill Ayers-wannabe plants a bomb at the NY Times building and blows it and the entire commie staff to kingdom-come.
P.S. Not encouraging or asking anyone to do it, just saying it would make me smile.
Ann Romney reminded me of Nancy Reagan last night, in a good way (not in the consulting astrology way). She seems to truly believe in her husband's abilities, and truly respects and admires him. That says a lot to me.
It sounded like the Republican establishment preparing to gin up big government again, from the morning radio news clips.
That comes from going after the women's vote.
There's morons all over.
He was the one speaker — as I remember it — who talked about caring for people. But who votes based on caring? Don't those people vote Democrat?
These people aren't the target. The targets are those who agree with Meade, but want to be reassured those making that decision really do care about people.
I thought the best speaker and the best speech -- the one that really spoke to me in the best way -- was Governor Scott Walker.
I do not live or vote in Wisconsin; but Walker seems to me to have the most gravitas given his recent battles.
I thought Ann Romney was a remarkably good speaker; and her speech had a lot of good lines and good craftsmanship, but was very uneven. Too much touchy-feely for a political convention. There have been Oprah programs that were much more businesslike.
And while I really like Chris Christie, and I like him as a speaker, I was a little let down by his performance, which felt slightly awkward for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.
I am looking forward to Marco Rubio, who says he has no written speech, and who never uses a TelePrompTer. He just wings it; usually to spectacular effect.
I kind of thought Ann Romney's line about being there to talk about love was a bit saccharine, but otherwise a good speech. Christie's speech was more a rally the troops speech than an outreach speech, I think. Those are going to be the two big actual themes of the campaign: Love and truth, and how the hard realities for both require tough decisions to be made.
Well, seeing as how old Mitt WAS assembled from the discarded parts of a frugal alien cyborg civilization... IT IS RACIST to humanize him, but he has a valid Michigan long-form birth certificate in spite of it all - they think of everything, those cyborgs! Anyway poor old Barry Dunham, ...hasta la vista, baby & your little dog, too. Enjoy Chicago in 2013, & don't let the door smack you on the bottom.
"That was exactly Meade's response. My response to that is: I'm not talking about people like you. I'm talking about people who make decisions from within a realm of emotion."
Sure.
But it is a waste of time.
Those people will never vote Republican.
They aren't smart enough.
If you can't think past your feelings, then you really aren't an adult, in the full sense of the word.
If you can't think past your feelings, you really shouldn't vote. Don't cancel out a responsible person's vote with your emotional vote.
If you care, you'll "Do It for the Children™"
Good God. The comments here on Ann's blog about today's NYT editorial are actually quite calm and modest in comparison to the Times' screeching.
Who writes that stuff for the Times? It isn't Jill Abramson, is it? They haven't gotten off to a good start in rebutting the departing Public Editor's (Arthur Brisbane) comments concerning an insular sort of liberal bias.
"That comes from going after the women's vote."
Yes.
I still don't understand how conservatives are viewed as uncaring. Most conservatives also belong to churches and do their caring and charity through their churches which doesn't count with the national media. Even in liberal Madison the churches and religious groups run the homeless shelters, the soup kitchens at the homeless shelters and the food pantries. Our church, like most churches, also provides emergency assistance funds for parishioners, helps parishioners who are ill, and so on and so one. Of course some church goers vote Democrat, but I think the majority of church goers nationwide are conservatives and that the number of Democrats who go to church is decreasing. Of course, the liberal media is anti-church and ignores all of the social assistance provided by churches.
I thought the John Kasich's comment that my state is doing great while claiming Obama is running the economy showed the contradictions and distortions of the GOP--naw the auto bailout couldn't have had a positive impact could it. And I loved Christy gearing up for a run in 2016-- although I think that will by Ryan and Rubio.
"The comments here on Ann's blog about today's NYT editorial are actually quite calm and modest in comparison to the Times' screeching."
What do you mean? Only Shouting Thomas talked about that editorial.
Armstrong and Getty: Associated Press fat-checked Christie's speech.
Roesch: The auto bailout didn't help very much at all. Think of it more as delaying the inevitable. It's almost like someone else explained a better, perhaps more permanent, solution.
"Americans are ready to hear the truth about government and economics."
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford
Marco Rubio, who says he has no written speech, and who never uses a TelePrompTer
I thought that was the norm for Republicans...no notes and no teleprompters.
After the way the way so many on the right attacked Obama, are you telling me that some of the folks making speeches last nite actually used written help?!
The TOTUS jokes didn't really take off until he set them up to deliver remarks to elementary schoolers.
From ShoutingThomas' link:
Conventions are always full of cheap applause lines and over-the-top attacks
So, apparently, are editorials.
I only saw Ann Romney and Chris Christie. I thought Ann R. was magnificent. I hadn't watched her before and had no idea she could be so effective as a speaker. I've got to believe that she reached other Americans who had little experience of the Romneys.
Isn't it racist and sexist to portray Mitt Romney as inhuman?
More than those, it's classic propaganda dehumanizing the enemy, which is a clue to what most of the media and talking heads are up to.
I remember criticism of Gore as "wooden" or "stiff" during the 2000 Democratic primaries but "inhuman" is a charge I've never seen in presidential politics except in up-front polemics.
Isn't it racist and sexist to portray Mitt Romney as inhuman?
What makes a person associate the term "inhuman" with white men? Obviously Althouse's question is a reflection of her own racism and sexism.
That's how you like to play that game, right Professor?
I know it might not resonate with people as much, but for Christie to focus on *truth* is profoundly on target. I am increasingly convinced that although "what works", "what most helps people", "what is the best way to care for others", and so on, are important and valuable, overlooked in all this is the supreme value of Truth.
I have become much more aware of this for theological reasons, and I say this as someone who is a pastor and tries very hard not to impose my political views on my congregation. I hardly(?) ever make what could be considered a "political" comment in a sermon, have hardcore Democrats who wear Obama shirts, and yet they are never offended.
I have been studying Orthodox Christianity the last couple years, and Orthodoxy emphasizes heavily that Christianity is not supposed to be a "religion", a source of "spirituality" that "helps" us get through "life". It's about Truth, and in that Truth is Life (communion with God).
Fr Stephen Freeman has an exceptional blog in which he writes that the Christian faith is supposed to be about "authentic Existence". Living according to the Truth of all things. He writes: This is the reason that Scripture gives such a priority to telling the truth. The nature of a lie is found precisely in its non-existence. Thus the devil is characterized in his rebellion against God as “a liar and the father of lies.” Evil has no existence, but in the malevolence of the wicked one, it seeks to draw everything that has existence into non-existence.
My intent is not to proselytize or imply any criticism of any other religion, only to help elucidate why Truth is such an overlooked priority in these political debates.
That the Obama campaign - along with many Democrats - lies so frequently, so brazenly, so casually, and with what appears to be a real "and we don't give a damn either" attitude is what troubles me deeply. More than whether its ideology and policies "work". That it appears to have no concern at all for Truth.
Which, I would argue, means it is, without realizing it, truly the party of Death (non-existence). Which is not to let "conservatives" or Republicans off the hook! But Christie was right on target, and if many "conservatives" feel he missed the boat, that is worth considering.
Jake Diamond seems to have forgotten all the racist attacks on races for being sub-human or not human. It's like he completely forgets what is racist when it isn't applied to something someone he does not like did.
How is Romney being warmer gonna help anyone? Mr. Rogers isn't running - he's dead. Now, when you stop crying, think about who you really appreciate most from your life, the people who treated you like a child, or the ones who insisted you grow up?
Ann Romney is pure class.
The Democrats have Code Pink and vagina costumes and a celebration of tax payer funded abortion at Planned Parenthood.
But did she humanize him? I read in the press about a thousand times that it was her job to humanize him.
Let's just say she started the process by adding some dimension.
"Fix your tie, dear."
This is the endgame and the endgame is always about low information voters.
A vote for Obama is a vote for food stamps, welfare, and life long dependency on government.
Hah! That was good for a chuckle, EDH.
Rick Santorum and Ann Romney were both making a direct emotional appeal to Catholic and evangelical moms.
Both groups vote and participate politically with a high degree of emotion. Just a different set of emotions than Democratic women. Both speeches repeatedly high-lighted the places where these women toil and where they seemingly get no respect from the MSM or Democratic women taste-makers.
Just like liberal women these women give a high degree of nuanced thought to family planning, education and healthcare. They just come to different conclusions.
I think the HHS contraception mandate will prove to be the tipping point that pushed enough of these women who formerly voted Democratic into Republican voters. And pushed those who formerly voted Republican but weren't active beyond that into political activists to cost President Obama his reelection.
"I'm talking about people who make decisions from within a realm of emotion."
That is, you have to go to the polls with the electorate you have, not the electorate you wish you had.
Althouse said--"Isn't it racist and sexist to portray Mitt Romney as inhuman?"
I reply--"Wasn't that expected of the press?"
@RV
I suspect any business that is thrown billions into it's coffers will be able to stay afloat for at least a couple of years. Next up! Saving the buggy whip manufacturers! I bet none of those jobs have ever been sent oversea, right RV?
Ps
How are those Volt sales going?
Of course, they didn't make that. Someone else had a hand in it
THE MEME
Pps
Hey Garage! Still waiting on that Walker indictment. Is the grand jury gonna' wait 'til after his term is up? For continuity.
Have you seen Rick Santorum's little Bella? You can't help but understand how lucky they are to have her. Real and true emotional love is that love between a parent and child and the understanding that despite her disability - that unconditional love is an inspiration to life. Pure joy.
The democrats have emotional immaturity. You see it displayed on MSNBC every day.
He told the truth in New Jersey, and he got elected, and he fixed things, and now this truth thing is going national.
Both Christie and Walker have awful jobs records, and they are out there bragging about.....jobs? Truth!
Then base the entire convention behind a a clipped line? It's just bizarre. It would be like basing a convention based off of "What can your country do for you!"
Democrats should just run mish mash clips of edited words from Romney. "America-is-a-horrible-place!" "I-love-terrorists!" "Horses-are-great-sex-partners!"
"After the way the way so many on the right attacked Obama..."
Do you know why people make fun of Obama's speaking problems? Because Obama was supposed to be the smart, articulate change from that dummy GW Bush.
So it is quite funny how needy Obama is for teleprompters.
Garage, do you define "awful record" the same way you define "in prison"? The opposite of the rest of us?
Garage: Is this how Romney's full employment was a bad job record, or do you have actual numbers to back up the assertion about Walker/Christie?
You want to read the dehumanizing of a man because he's white. Read David Brook's hit piece on Romney in the Times.
Condensed version: "The fucking bastard is white and rich!"
Even more emotional immaturity and hysterical bad faith - on display at the sad and pathetic leftwing NYT, too.
Althouse: "...the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision. Those people vote Democratic, don't they?"
Not necessarily (e.g., pro-life, school voucher or welfare reform advocates).
RHH: That comes from going after the women's vote.
The *married* women's vote. The "Life of Julia"'s are a Democratic lock.
The best thing we can do for "suffering children" is quit using them as human shields in furtherance of bad public policy.
"Democrats should just run mish mash clips of edited words from Romney. "America-is-a-horrible-place!" "I-love-terrorists!" "Horses-are-great-sex-partners!""
Well, it would fit right in with the Democratic platform.
I think Ann Romney's speech was aimed at women and aimed to persuade them that Romney is a caring man. It had women's themes: love, marriage, children, early days, sickness and no statistics or programs - that's why some say it was like Oprah. Or you could say it was like Jane Austen. There is a question about the character of a man - hasty judgments have been made about the man based on stories spread by the man's rival, a handsome, charming fellow. You get to know the first man and you realize the second is a glib, lying spendthrift.
There are thousands of stories for women (including, let me point out, "Julia") that have no other theme than the simple question: how will this man treat me and any children I have?
I'm talking about the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision.
Chris Christie: "Tonight, we choose respect over love."
Tell me again how Christie said anything that is inspirational?
" I'm talking about people who make decisions from within a realm of emotion."
Despite the rhetoric, I think liberals really share the same values as conservatives, except when they are talking politics and policy.
Liberals would be generally appalled to find out that their children are slobs collecting food stamp. They wouldn't want that anymore than a conservative. They also don't want their grandchild aborted just for convenience, and definitely would have a problem with seeing it done in month 9. They don't pay a penny more in taxes than they have to - they take every deduction. They want their children to be self-sufficient and strong, free to create and build without the government holding them back.
So why do they vote for and support policies that do just the opposite? My theory is it's a combination of tribalism, that crabs-in-the-bucket mentality that tells them nobody should get too much of anything. In short, it's lack of imagination.
Ann Althouse said...
"'The comments here on Ann's blog about today's NYT editorial are actually quite calm and modest in comparison to the Times' screeching.'
"What do you mean? Only Shouting Thomas talked about that editorial."
Ann, you will by now have also seen the post from "whoresoftheinternet," that I was attempting to place in some sort of context.
How is Romney being warmer gonna help anyone? Mr. Rogers isn't running - he's dead
Agreed. I like what Trump said. "We don't have to be nice to Obama". Obama is probably not even really a nice man at all. Team Romney needs to be on the attack. Maybe not so much personally about Obama but certainly ATTACK his policies and his record.
There is no reason on earth to be namby pamby about it and start of with...Obama is a nice guy. He isn't nice and we need the truth.
Truth. Tell the people the truth. We are adults (most of us anyway) and can handle the truth!
Truth. We are bankrupt. Truth. If we don't make some major changes and make them now, our country and the institutions that many rely upon (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) are going to crash. Truth. Unemployment is over 15%. Truth. Our current foreign policy is a disaster.
We need adults in office to make the hard decisions and to really tell us the truth.....that there isn't going to be a pony for Christmas and that horseshit is just that....horseshit.
Choosing respect over love means that instead of doing what some politicians do (promising the moon for a penny), Republicans are going to layout the fiscal reality (or as close to it as possible) for people.
You can't guarantee they'll love you for it, but you'll at least get respect, even if it is just self-respect at not having to debase yourself for politics.
Paco: That is, you have to go to the polls with the electorate you have...
What could possibly go wrong?
The David Brooks convention column on Romney is offhandedly nasty and belittling. This is from a man who all but licked Obama's shoes in public during the 2008 campaign based on superficial impressions.
I'm not crazy about Romney either, but I've seen no evidence that that Romney is anything but a decent, serious, and accomplished man, albeit with the usual vagueness found in all successful politicians.
Leaving politics aside, Romney is a far worthier candidate than Obama was in 2008, yet this is the way he is treated by a so-called conservative columnist in the most respectable American newspaper.
Ann Romney carried the main "We Built It" theme by portraying Mitt as building his own wealth, starting out from nothing... basement apartment... ate a lot of pasta and tuna.... And her grandfather was a coal miner. In Wales.
Starting out from nothing? Wasn't his father the CEO of an auto company who sent Mitt to a ritzy all boys school? And then he met Ann because she was at a ritzy all girls sister school? And at that time Mitt's father was a governor? As Chris Matthews said the other day, Romney started out already on third base. Nothing wrong with that, but why the bullshit? Obama's is a much more impressive success story.
BTW: I was looking at Ann Romney's family on Wiki last night. It's interesting that her father hated religion, and thought it was all bullshit for weak people. While Ann was old enough to make up her own mind when she got into Mormonism, I wonder what he thought about the Romney family sucking their teenaged daughter into a strange cult. But I guess it doesn't matter now, as the Romneys baptized her father as a Mormon after he died. Hmm, I should start paying attention to Crack Emcee's stuff about that strange religion. Love Mitt or hate Mitt, but do we really know him?
Still waiting on that Walker indictment. Is the grand jury gonna' wait 'til after his term is up?
Ann doesn't seem to do a good job with updates in regard to that issue. If you sincerely want more info then check out this blog.
As someone else pointed out, it took over seven years before they finally brought charges against Blagojevich. Anyone involved with The System knows that it often goes slow.
Tho, in this case, it is possible that Walker won't be indicted himself, and instead will testify against someone else higher-up-the-chain. Possible, but not probable. Given the evidence we've already seen (especially about the secret email router Walker&Staff were using during working hours) it seems most likely that he is the big fish they are seeking.
I love the lack of WV, but I don't think I've posted a typo-free comment since it started. Please don't put it back. I'll be more careful.
A wife's attitude towards her presidential candidate husband says a lot, because while you can fool the public, it is much harder to fool your wife.Ann Romney obviously thinks a lot of her Mitt's capabilities and respects him. Michelle treats Pres. Obama like a child.
This idea that Mitt Romney started out "from nothing" is the most absurd thing that I've ever heard.
Romney grew up in an extremely privileged household. He was wealthy. His parents were wealthy. His wife's attempt to relate to the American people was piss-poor.
If you're rich--you need to own it. But, making up stories about somehow being "less fotunate" when it wasn't the case at all? It comes across as phony.
Ann Romney reminds me of what I imagine Abigail Adams was to her beloved, John Adams..his ballast.
Mitt has said that 90% of what he achieved was to impress Ann. I find their obvious devotion to each other to be genuine, familiar and uplifting.
"Love Mitt or hate Mitt, but do we really know him?"
-- Remember when questions like that were below the dignity of public discussion and inherently racist?
Starting from nothing might be overstating it, but he did give away his inheritance. Not only that, he's had a constant string of successes.
Remember when success was cool?
Bender said...Tell me again how Christie said anything that is inspirational?
I liked:
Our founding fathers had the wisdom to know that social acceptance and popularity is fleeting and that this country’s principles needed to be rooted in strengths greater than the passions and emotions of the times.
Our leaders today have decided it is more important to be popular, to do what is easy and say “yes,” rather than to say no when “no” is what’s required."
I also think you are misinterpreting Christie's "respect before love" theme. He was saying that real love does not come without respect. That the proper order is respect earning love. And then he pointed out that of course his mom was talking about romantic love. I am not sure that I want to "love" my government nor do I need it to love on me, so the respect part was resonant.
I like that comparison, RAA! :)
Wake me in November.
"While Ann was old enough to make up her own mind when she got into Mormonism, I wonder what he thought about the Romney family sucking their teenaged daughter into a strange cult."
-- Why do you think women are unable to make rational decisions about their own religion that should be respected?
Obama's entire success is due to one simple thing: All his life people have looked at him and said this guy will make a great symbol. Then they helped him, they pulled strings, they overlooked weaknesses, they inflated or invented strengths, all to get that symbol erected.
Barack didn't build Obama.
Ha. When I read that David Brooks column this morning, I kept laughing. All I could think of was his comment last time around about the Obama of the "perfectly creased trousers."
"This idea that Mitt Romney started out "from nothing" is the most absurd thing that I've ever heard."
There's something to be said for this... but the problem is... how do you differentiate this from the standard Democratic party candidate?
Obama, despite the BS, comes from a remarkably privileged background, as does his wife. Obama had an unfortunate choice of mother and father, but he lucked out in having a grandmother who was quite wealthy, and was VP of a Honolulu bank.
His wife is related to the Jesse Jackson family, and she benefitted from the Jackson shakedowns of corporations in Chicago and St. Louis.
The Obamas also hail from big money.
I missed Santorum's speech, unfortunately. Also, I guess there was a video of Mia Love. Anyone have a link?
All in all, I thought the night was great, but I wanted it to be great -- I am not of the mindset of Rachel Maddow, for instance. The speakers were young, energetic, successful, steeped in optimism by their successful immigrant parents, full of love for them and for their new country. Pow!
I thought Mrs. Romney was good but a little too giggly and pandery in the beginning. Did she mean women are better than men, or did I understand it wrong? "That will get an Althouse post tomorrow," I thought to myself.
Meanwhile, Urkel is out campaigning and mocking them. Punching down again.
"respect before love" theme
I believe that it is usually referred to as "tough love".
You love your children, but you don't give them everything without asking for something in return. Responsibility and respect. To do otherwise is to cripple your children and make them unable to be self sufficient adults.
You don't assist your friend or relative in their spiral into alcoholism or drug addiction and death. You confront them. Make them face their true situation and help them make the hardest decisions that they will ever have to make. You do it with force and you do it with love.
The Liberals just want to give away the candy and feel good even though the consequences have been horrific for the Country. I think we need/must have some tough love before it is too late.
"Americans are ready to hear the truth about government and economics."
"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." -- Henry Ford
Considering Ford's virulent Jew-hatred, PP, I'd give you 10-1 odds that he meant "if they know how those Jews control the banks, they'd hang the Yid bastards higher than Haman."
Marco Rubio, who says he has no written speech, and who never uses a TelePrompTer
I thought that was the norm for Republicans...no notes and no teleprompters.
After the way the way so many on the right attacked Obama, are you telling me that some of the folks making speeches last nite actually used written help?!
Nice strawman, there. Let me know when any of the teleprompter-reading GOPers talk about "corpse men" or need the screen to say "hello" to school kids. Then we'll talk.
Love over respect is for your pets.
PatCA said...
I missed Santorum's speech, unfortunately. Also, I guess there was a video of Mia Love. Anyone have a link?
Links to most of the speeches are available on NROs "the corner".
/reversed/
Bender: Tell me again how Christie said anything that is inspirational?
Chris Christie: "Tonight, we choose respect over love."
Truth.
I wanted to like Chris Christie's speech, but he seemed to ramble in a start and stop way. He would build up some momentum, maybe tag a target, maybe not, then back off, change direction, and try again.
Along the way, he said good things I liked, but overall he never seemed to connect solidly with the points he was making or the audience he was addressing.
while I really like Chris Christie, and I like him as a speaker, I was a little let down by his performance, which felt slightly awkward for reasons I can't quite put my finger on
Can't put your finger on it? Well, let’s see, what were the predominate themes of Christie’s speech?
(1) Respect over love. (After Ann Romney spoke positively about love.)
(2) No.
(3) Sacrifice.
(4) We need the hard truth of No and Sacrifice.
(5) Leaders are the key to American greatness.
Find me ONE thing that is inspiring there. Trashing love, saying no, burdening people more, and failing to see that American greatness comes from her people, not leaders. None of that is inspiring.
Looking at the speech from an objective view, rather than as a political cheerleader, this was a horrific speech (and that’s not even mentioning how Christie-centric it was). If anyone can find any flaws in the line-by-line analysis I did in the previous post (specific flaws and not just "you're an idiot"), I'd like to know.
____________
Rick67 -- Yes. Truth in all things. Actually, from a Christian theological point, it is LOVE and truth in all things. Not "respect over love," but love one another. Without love, all you have is a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.
Moreover, there is the virtue of telling the truth, and then there is the vice of condescension, of presuming that people need their "leaders" to inform them of the truth of what they already know, of what is glaringly obvious.
Shouting Thomas wrote:
Condensed version: "The fucking bastard is white and rich!
As is David Brooks, that elitist twat.
Obama's is a much more impressive success story.
Did you actually type that with a straight face?
"The Obamas also hail from big money."
Yet, the Obamas gave very little to charity until they got very wealthy, and even then not until they got into politics. And Biden? Just throw a homeless guy a quarter and you got him beat.
Romney charitable giving is huge and goes way way back. It never had anything to do with politics. Tell me about who's warm and human.
So, according to the NY Times, small businesses didn't build America, and any notion is "nonsense." And any notion that big government didn't build America is "nonsense," too.
Well considering that more than 50% of the population pays no taxes whatsoever, they (the non taxpayers) certainly didn't build those roads and bridges that we all use. So, small business and big business in fact built those too. Yes the middle class contributed, but the middle class works at jobs created by small and big business so absent their saliaries, would be part of the population that paid no taxes.
So, in effect, business is responsible for creating itself and the infrastructure it was built upon.
Those who pay no taxes? "You didn't build that" (the roads, brdiges, businesses).
See bagoh, but his charity is the icky, religious kind. So it doesn't count. Doubly so since its the icky, MORMON religious kind.
Convention notwithstanding, Romney will forever be viewed as out of touch. Nothing will change that, so he and the convention should adjust to that reality and move on.
Again, there's a reason he easily lost to another RINO in 2008 and only won by default against several train wrecks this year. Most cons don't like him and will vote for him "only" because they hate Obama!
It's that basic, no psychology needed ...
"But I'm talking about the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision. Those people vote Democratic, don't they?"
Do you mean the phonies and dupes who pretend to care about children while voting for Democrats who will saddle our kids and grandkids with unprecedented debt? Those voters?
The theme of the convention should have been: "Remove Obama for the sake of our children."
"While Ann was old enough to make up her own mind when she got into Mormonism, I wonder what he thought about the Romney family sucking their teenaged daughter into a strange cult. "
He probably thought something like "This Mormon doctrine is ridiculous, but Mitt's a good man and they obviously love each other very much. So perhaps I should trust the judgement of my daughter and set aside my negative view of religion as not particularly relevant."
Because that's generally how adults deal with such things. By trying to be tolerant and respectful of each other's differences, and accepting kind gestures in the spirit in which they are intended. It works pretty well. You should try it!
"Convention notwithstanding, Romney will forever be viewed as out of touch."
And a guy who grew up in Honolulu, attended the priciest prep school in the city, was raised by the VP of a major bank, etc. is a champion of the common man.
Starting from nothing might be overstating it, but he did give away his inheritance.
Well, this isn't exactly true, is it? Romney gave away a fraction of his inheritance to "charity," and the remainder (perhaps the great majority) of his inheritance was passed to his children, presumably for tax avoidance purposes. Mittens is quite clever when it comes to tax avoidance, as we all know.
Of course Mittens has told some pretty fabulous whoppers about his inheritance too, like in the GOP primary debates when he claimed that he "didn't inherit money from [his] parents."
Mittens is quite clever when it comes to tax avoidance, as we all know.
It's quite clever to avoid double taxation on income whenever possible.
Point of order: small only businesses created and serviced the market for the big businesses to supply industrial production in the USA for that market.
But today both "new world order" Bushies and "Redistribute" Obama have intentionally handed that market over to China's big businesses to supply industrial production to that market for a cut of the wealth.
And whether or not anyone agrees with "respect before love," just exactly how is that a rallying cry to inspire people to vote for Romney??
What the hell is such a line even doing in a speech, even a speech as self-centered as Christie's?
How is it not an invitation to bash Romney and Republicans over the head? Obama: "Those Republicans don't care about you. People need help! That's what love is all about, helping people. People are struggling! Sure, the Republicans will respect you in your suffering, but they won't do anything about it. They'll just say 'no' to you and demand that you hard-working families make sacrifices."
How has that speech not opened the door to Democrat attacks?
The whole point of a convention speech is not to make debate points, but to convince undecided people to vote for your party. In that, Christie failed miserably, even if you agree with the slop he said.
Roesch/Voltaire - do you have a clue what you're talking about? Obama's economic policies have been abject failures. The chart comparing Obama's own prediction of unemployment to actual gives a snapshot of how great the failures.
Kasich's state, Ohio, is beating Obama as are states, as a whole, with Republican governors.
After the way the way so many on the right attacked Obama, are you telling me that some of the folks making speeches last nite actually used written help?!
The telepromoter gags became fashionable once.people noticed that the 'Great Orator' came across as a yammering dolt if he didn't have a prepared speech.
Next time, don't tout your candidate as if he came from Mount Olympus if you don't want his or her human foibles called out.
I liked Ann Romney's delivery last night. I'm not sure what I was expecting, I hadn't heard her speaking to a large audience before. But if you compare that to the nearly breathless shouting/screeching of Hillary Clinton at a convention or on a stump speech, the contrast couldn't be greater.
I went to YouTube and looked at Pat Buchanan's 1992 Houston speech. Man, that was a stem winder! It a very exciting opener for that convention, and I remember watching it from a Denver hotel room, on my feet for the entire speech. I would cite that as an example of an event which happened back when the major media had nearly exclusive control on the interpretation of events. During that convention, daily tracking polls showed support for G.H.W. Bush increasing each day of the convention. In other words there was no perceptible negative reaction registered to Buchanan's opening night speech. But in the ensuing weeks the media gravitated to the theme "Buchanan's over the top red meat vitriol destroyed Bush's chances". Unsupportable at the time of the convention, but repeated often enough, it became the interpretation that many accepted.
Today, the NYT, CNN, or any of the major media entities, do not have that sort of retrospective function in their power, thank God.
"And a guy who grew up in Honolulu, attended the priciest prep school in the city, was raised by the VP of a major bank, etc. is a champion of the common man."
Indeed, much like FDR and JFK who were affable, outgoing and had empathy for the less fortunate despite their family background. Hey, don't blame me mittens is all about $$$ and has no personalty.
Again, the reality of the situation. Deal w/it cons!
Chris Christie: "Tonight, we choose respect over love."
I think Christie was also taking about America's place in the world. Obama seems to believe that because America elected his awesome self, the world will love America.
I prefer that the world respects America than love us. Today, most countries do neither. Obama has sucked up our enemies and pissed off our friends.
@Bender - That's a fair point. As long as one is not setting up Love against Truth (which you are not, so far as I can tell).
Mittens is quite clever when it comes to tax avoidance, as we all know.
Tax avoidance is not the same thing as tax evasion. You do realize this? One of these things is not like the other.
Speaking as someone who spent about 20 years as a financial advisor, one of my main functions was to help individuals not only make money but to structure their tax burden, within the laws, to avoid as much taxation as possible.
If you think that the tax laws should be structured so that there is no opportunity to adjust or avoid excess taxation....then complain about that.
To complain that someone was smart and legally complied with the law, is only showing an inadequate ignorant small mind filled with jealousy. That isn't very attractive on you.
"Without checking the text, I'm not sure how directly Christie associated Obama with not telling the truth"
I don't know about directly but it seems to me that Obama didn't tell truth to the American people by ignoring his own Simpson Bowles commission and not dealing with the debt. He could have provided leadership there. The whole point of the Christie's speech was that the people can handle the truth.
shiloh,
I'm not one of those people who want to demonize Obama. I don't dislike him personally, because I don't know him personally.
But, your attempts to suggest that there is any class difference between Obama and Romney is just bunk.
And, both are going to precisely the same places for their campaign contributions. You might want to recall that Timothy Geithner, of Goldman Sachs infamy, guides Obama's economic policy. You are deluded in your belief that Obama is any less in the pocket of big business than Romney.
In a way, I distrust Obama precisely because of the pretense that he's "helping the common man."
furious_a said...
The best thing we can do for "suffering children" is quit using them as human shields in furtherance of bad public policy.
furious_a FTW! I'm going to steal that. :-) (I really like the Disqus commenting system, where you can "Like" comments"
Definitely.
Vote for the guy with the best bullshit empathy.
Christ.
DEAD COUNTRY WALKING.
And a guy who grew up in Honolulu, attended the priciest prep school in the city, was raised by the VP of a major bank, etc. is a champion of the common man.
Come on now, shouting Thomas, you're ignoring "common man" speakers slated for the DNC convention, such as John Kerry, Caroline Kennedy, Rahm Emanuel, and Iva Longoria (I guess Clooney wasn't available), as well as big business icons Austin Ligon and Jim Sinegal. This, along with 41+ months of high unemployment, rising energy and food costs, is living proof the DNC cares about the common man.
To complain that someone was smart and legally complied with the law
"legally complied" isn't always the same thing as "moral".
That isn't very attractive on you
You know what else isn't "attractive"? Making multiple posts that do nothing but complain about being bored by other peoples' comments...
Santorum is boring me with all that love talk. Lots of people have love, and they are worth their weight in gold; but we need a politician in DC that cares about the righteous and the unrighteous alike...like God does...and does a secular job that requires cruel neutrality.
Politics has been a horse trade among various American geographic interests. It requireds an opposition party to keep the one in power honest.
Our battle today is with a world cabal of financial and industrial interests ( and their candidate Obama and the Dems) that claims an ownership interest here.
ST
"your attempts to suggest that there is any class difference between Obama and Romney is just bunk."
Please reread my posts as I didn't try. And regardless, no need since it's obvious to anyone who can think there is a definite class difference ... except you.
And, re the tax avoidance biz.
In a previous incarnation, I worked for the wealthiest corporate law firm in the world. That firm is a major player in Democratic Party politics. So major, in fact, that one of its partners was campaign manager for Gore's campaign.
One of the biggest businesses of that firm is tax avoidance for wealthy individuals.
Once again, the allegations of tax avoidance being levied against Romney are farcical, because you cannot demonstrate any difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to employing this entirely legal device to protect individual income and assets.
LoafingOaf said "Obama's is a much more impressive success story."
True, and interesting. Romney started from a privileged position, and made spectacular success from there based on hard work and talent.
Obama started from a privileged position and made spectacular success from there based on lies (born in Kenya) and being black.
Damn, this is turning into a whining about Obama thread, as per usual.
Shocking!
Mittens is quite clever when it comes to tax avoidance, as we all know.
As are a lot of people who use the myriad of deductions from mortgage interest to qualified medical expenses to avoid paying additional taxes.
Perhaps you think tax avoidance and tax evasion are the same thing?
You know what else isn't "attractive"? Making multiple posts that do nothing but complain about being bored by other peoples' comments..
Then stop doing it, why don't you.
:-P
Thanks Darcy. That's why President American Idol gives softball interviews to Glamour Magazine and Entertainment Tonight. He's grasping at his own fleeting popularity in the hopes that he will keep the low information voter with his charming and unserious Tigerbeat likeability.
Chris Christie: "Tonight, we choose respect over love."
Christie invites political leaders to earn the respect of voters. What a radical concept.
Enough with the badfaith/blind faith adoration of a phony messiah and his false promises.
My personal favorite tax avoidance method, made famous by a Democrat president: writing off your used underwear as a charitable donation.
Meanwhile, I will agree with all the praise that people are giving for Ann Romney's speech (at least from reading the text -- I did not watch the delivery of any of it).
She gave a good nice speech. Did it "humanize" Mitt enough, did it convince anyone to vote for him?
I don't know. But humanization can be the tipping point in some cases. I remember being very uncomfortable with George H.W. Bush in 1988 -- he had appeared to be rather cold and distant -- but I immediately felt comfortable with him when I saw the video they showed of his toddler granddaughter (Jenna or Barbara?) running up to Grandpa. He became a regular guy.
Isaac is doing a really nice job of sitting still squarely over New Orleans, which has to be a message about Obama to the networks.
Bill said...
This idea that Mitt Romney started out "from nothing" is the most absurd thing that I've ever heard.
Romney grew up in an extremely privileged household. He was wealthy. His parents were wealthy. His wife's attempt to relate to the American people was piss-poor.
------------------
Funny how this class envy warfare was not used when Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean (of the Park Ave Deans), Bill Richardson were running...all from wealthy families.
Obama went to posh schools paid for in large part by his evil capitalist grandmother. Throughout his life, he and Michelle have had their respective skinny and copious backsides schmootched be wealthy mentors culminating in the series of "minimal effort" jobs created for them at U of Chicago by the billionaire progressive Jewish Crown, Klutznik, and Pritzker Families...who control the U of CHicago's Board.
The Obamas were their pets.
This "white privilege shit" from the people in critical race theory that want to divide America and hopefully lead to social justice that supresses the evil Whitey...was also never applied to FDR, the Kennedys.
And just as J Robert Oppenheimer was credited with being a bright physicist scientist and organizer on his own talents despite his family's great Jewish wealth and privilege as a Family deep into trade and banking since medieval times....
Romney didn't take a dime from his parents to get him started in his business career. He picked a field and locale far away from where George Romney had any influence. What he inherited from his Dad and Mom he gave away to Church and Charity.
What he made of himself is just as much his own doing as Oppenheimers, or what a recent Republican did outside the "white privilege" of the son and grandson of Admirals....McCain.
No Diamond, not even PolitiFact could find a hole in the claim that Romney gave away his inheritance.
PatCA said: I thought Mrs. Romney was good but a little too giggly and pandery in the beginning. Did she mean women are better than men, or did I understand it wrong? "That will get an Althouse post tomorrow," I thought to myself.
I tuned in after she had started, and during that part, and that really bothered me, too. I hate this whole pandering to moms and going on and on about how moms are the end all be all in everything (Nothing against moms, of course, just that I think that things can get very over the top.) I found it borderline offensive in the pandering and was kind of let down, as I've seen Ms. R speak in the past and thought that she was fantastic.
But it did pick up once she got off that subject, and she lost the nervous giggles after that, too, for some reason. I was surprised more people (including AA) haven't commented on it, too.
Shiloh: "...and had empathy for the less fortunate despite their family background."
Barack Obama: "...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Maybe there's some "empathy" buried somewhere in all that condescension, but like the pony in a pile of manure, it isn't apparent.
"legally complied" isn't always the same thing as "moral".
If you are referring to our tax laws, I wholeheartedly concur. Relying on 20% of wage earners to fund over 2/3rds of income tax revenue with the expectation we contribute even more isn't moral.
I will say, it is ironic to see a liberal opine about morals.
Bill said...
This idea that Mitt Romney started out "from nothing" is the most absurd thing that I've ever heard.
Romney grew up in an extremely privileged household. He was wealthy. His parents were wealthy.
Does not follow.
Yes, he grew up in an extremely privileged household. Yes, his parents were wealthy. That does not mean that he and Ann started out with anything.
I've known people in a similar situation to Mitt's. Once they were out of school, they were on their own, to sink or swim as their own abilities and choices dictated. Some excelled, some didn't.
So I'm perfectly willing to believe that Mitt got out of school w/o any debt, but that he and Ann then lived on whatever he made, not on handouts from Daddy.
Do you have proof otherwise? Or are you just some left-wing hack, throwing around charges w/o caring about that facts?
IIRC - not looking anything up -- Romney's dad was not wealthy, but became wealthy. IIRC Mitt Romney left the rich school after he got back from France and finished at BYU. They had a small apartment in a basement. (I have middle class friends whose kids go to Chapel Hill and they rent or buy condos or whole houses!)
IIRC Mitt Romney gave away his inheritance. Whatever that means, it means he didn't just float on Daddy's money.
It appears from Ann Romney's description (and other sources) of being a grad student's (according to Dems, a filthy rich grad student's) wife it did not involve a nanny. Unlike the many rich celebrity women who love Obama and trash the Romneys for being rich and "out of touch!" (Go figure.)
Thought there was some unevennes in Ann Romney's speech, but hey -- running for POTUS is not in the same league as running for governor. I thought it was somewhat refreshing in that it was not boilerplate politician stuff and that it was positive.
Ann Romney will be more a Laura Bush FLOTUS than a Michelle Obama hectoring FLOTUS.
Wanna bet the slick media doesn't go all gaga about what great fashion sense she has and put her in the Jackie Kennedy pose front cover?
*burp*
@ Lyssa
That pandering to "moms" also bothered me. Like women and "moms" are special needs children who should get special pats on the head for having basic living skills.
However, it was nice to see Ann Romney show her respect and love for her husband on a personal level. If anyone was humanized by her speech, I think it was she.
Bill said...
This idea that Mitt Romney started out "from nothing" is the most absurd thing that I've ever heard.
Romney grew up in an extremely privileged household. He was wealthy. His parents were wealthy. His wife's attempt to relate to the American people was piss-poor.
------------------
Funny how this class envy warfare was not used when Al Gore, John Kerry, Howard Dean (of the Park Ave Deans), Bill Richardson were running...all from wealthy families.
Obama went to posh schools paid for in large part by his evil capitalist grandmother. Throughout his life, he and Michelle have had their respective skinny and copious backsides schmootched be wealthy mentors culminating in the series of "minimal effort" jobs created for them at U of Chicago by the billionaire progressive Jewish Crown, Klutznik, and Pritzker Families...who control the U of CHicago's Board.
The Obamas were their pets.
This "white privilege shit" from the people in critical race theory that want to divide America and hopefully lead to social justice that supresses the evil Whitey...was also never applied to FDR, the Kennedys.
And just as J Robert Oppenheimer was credited with being a bright physicist scientist and organizer on his own talents despite his family's great Jewish wealth and privilege as a Family deep into trade and banking since medieval times....
Romney didn't take a dime from his parents to get him started in his business career. He picked a field and locale far away from where George Romney had any influence. What he inherited from his Dad and Mom he gave away to Church and Charity.
What he made of himself is just as much his own doing as Oppenheimers, or what a recent Republican did outside the "white privilege" of the son and grandson of Admirals....McCain.
The Professor wrote "I cried when he talked about Bella."
That moment got me too. I have a son with Down syndrome. To know him is to love him, and the world would be worse off if he weren't alive.
gregq: Thanks. That applies to both (DOMA/S-CHIP) parties, btw.
LoafingOaf said...
Starting out from nothing? Wasn't his father the CEO of an auto company who sent Mitt to a ritzy all boys school?
Bill said...
This idea that Mitt Romney started out "from nothing" is the most absurd thing that I've ever heard.
When George Romney died, Mitt donated his entire inheritance to BYU
Of course, no one "starts from nothing". Someone changed your diapers and stuffed pureed peas in your mouth. But once Mitt and Ann were out of college, they were pretty much on their own financially.
Jake Diamond said: "... his inheritance was passed to his children, presumably for tax avoidance purposes."
And I'm sure with your liberal values you would prefer to give that money to congress to use, as they do, so wisely. To criticize someone for doing what you know damned well you would do yourself, is pretty indicative of bad faith, unless I'm giving you too much credit and you are stupid enough to give it to the treasury. If so then please accept my apologies and sympathy.
What idiot would prefer going down to defeat with a leader "who feels your pain," than an aloof aristocrat stiff who brings you victory?
I want a leader who will work to make the pain go away, not a blathering idiot who promises to feel it with me.
That George H.W. Bush video I mentioned -- "Family/Children" Ad Campaign
The video emphasizes truth in a good way, as well as highlighting the value of love, rather than setting respect against love or saying that there are things more important than love.
Why the hell do you even make such distinctions?? I suppose if you are Machiavelli advising a Prince you might say that it is better to be respected than loved, but how the hell is that a campaign slogan? Christie and the party would have been better off if he had just stayed home.
So, will the simpletons who keep voting for the fiscal child abuse perpetrated by Democrats be remembered as "The Foolish Generation," "The Selfish Generation," or "The Foolish, Selfish Generation?"
Also: Isn't Romney having the opportunity to go to school part of the American dream? Romney and Obama both were given opportunities that their parents may never have had, through dint of their parent/guardians work and effort on their behalf. Remember when wanting to ensure your children have a better life than you was a good thing that we celebrated?
Of course, no one "starts from nothing"
'cept for all those businesses that built it themselves, of course....
Jake Diamond said: "... his inheritance was passed to his children, presumably for tax avoidance purposes."
Well, yes.
That's precisely what a sensible, prudent man does.
Whereas Isaac may not literally be raining on the Rep party in Tampa, it is figuratively as it's getting almost as much coverage as the convention.
Bottom line, another distraction mittens doesn't need.
carry on w/empathy, Romney's tax shelters, defining privileged backgrounds, yada yada yada
Indeed as this thread has veered in many directions, much like mittens on a good day lol.
I'm planning on putting my house into trust for my children.
Would it be better if the government took half their inheritance?
I don't think you listened to Christie's speech, Bender. Or you are deliberately mischaracterizing it.
Is this a clever comment?
After all, I've given it all kinds of space, and I intend to put extra space at the end of it. Clever, no?
Garage. Name a Democrat governor with a great jobs record. Modern era.
Bender asked...
Why the hell do you even make such distinctions?? [Respect v. Love]
The "likeability gap". "Europeans like Obama more than Romney!" Yes, they do. But they don't respect Obama, and they don't respect America, and that hurts us. They will Respect America when Romney's President.
Also: Entitlements. The Democrats are running on "don't worry, be happy, nothing needs to change." The Republicans, thanks to the Ryan plan, are running on "we're screwed if we don't do something, now." Christie was, first of all, talking to the Nervous Nellies in the Republican Party, who don't want to risk telling voters the truth. Second, he's talking to the voters: "Hey we respect you, and we think you're capable of handling the truth."
Which, BTW, is a great way to get people to like you, even if you're peddling complete BS. Since we're not peddling complete BS, it's the right way to go.
I don't think you listened to Christie's speech, Bender.
You're right. I didn't listen to it. I read the transcript.
Bryan C: Because that's generally how adults deal with such things. By trying to be tolerant and respectful of each other's differences....
Ann Romney's parents were apparently not permitted to attend the ceremony for her wedding in a Mormon church. Not very tolerant. Also, at this time, Mormons still considered black people inferior souls, no?
I was just wondering what her parents thought about the Mormons taking over their daughter's life. Maybe they were cool with it because Mitt was from big money?
Wait! I have a clever comment: mittens! I'm so Maureen Dowd over here! She's pretty and has red hair.
http://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=david%20brooks%20&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDQQqQIwAg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mercurynews.com%2Fopinion%2Fci_21419170%2Fdavid-brooks-real-romney&ei=uT0-UIXODYfzmAWCtICADQ&usg=AFQjCNEyWLpXGmETi9MJ6cRg_PVrpM7yDA
Bender,
Love without respect is pity. It's unhealthy, the fact that liberal policy seems to me motivated by pity instead of respect is the primary problem with it. It's THE distinction with conservatives.
Conservatives feel that if you help someone without expecting them to do anything for it, assuming they are able, then you are harming them, disabling them, possibly ruining their entire lives, and hurting other is the process. It's a selfish motivation. To hurt people, and to do it so you feel better, or so people love you. It's not a minor point. Beside simple math, it's the whole point of this election. That's the truth. If it loses, then bad math and selfishness narcissism is what this nation deserves. I'm impressed that anyone is even bold enough to lay it out there.
We're doing table talk here. I was taken by Ann Romney's talk of early grad school days. I started at Boalt Hall Law School 9 days after we got married. We didn't have to eat off an ironing board as a dining room table--but we weren't much better off. We built our lives together.
This mornng Rosenthal over at the NYT said that Ann Romney gave a diva performance and "slipped a knife into President Obama". My my my--such tough talk! Rosenthal goofed up. Mrs. Romney was using a fork as in "Stick a fork in this turkey, he's done".
She's pretty and has red hair.
Wrong thread, dude. You want this one.
@Bender
Okay. You read. And you are freaking out about respect before love? Did you read this?
The greatest lesson Mom ever taught me, though, was this one: she told me there would be times in your life when you have to choose between being loved and being respected. She said to always pick being respected, that love without respect was always fleeting -- but that respect could grow into real, lasting love.
Now, of course, she was talking about women.
But I have learned over time that it applies just as much to leadership. In fact, I think that advice applies to America today more than ever.
I believe we have become paralyzed by our desire to be loved.
You think that is something unreasonable and unloving? I don't get it. It makes perfect sense to me and I don't think it is attackable at all in the way you've suggested.
But maybe it's my comprehension skills.
I though Christie's speech was very good and delivered quite well.
Loafing Oaf,
Anne's parents were permitted to attend their daughter's wedding, as it was in her parent's home:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Romney#Marriage_and_children
She and Mitt were later married in the Salt Lake temple, which her parents were unable to attend.
"You're right. I didn't listen to it. I read the transcript."
Interesting many pundits say you can easily tell who won the "debate" just by watching the video w/the sound off. I agree as it was definitely true in 2008.
Linda Richmond ~ I'll give you a topic.
People who have empathy/compassion towards their fellow man are just more likable in general
Discuss!
or
"For Those Who Honor Me, I Will Honor"
Then base the entire convention behind a a clipped line? It's just bizarre. It would be like basing a convention based off of "What can your country do for you!"
Funny, the video(s) played between speeches ran a significant portion of the 'You didn't build that' speech- no clips, no clever edits. Ran them as they were in the speech.
I've listened to that speech in it's entirety several times and I'm still waiting to hear the 'context' that makes those words acceptable. I recall the whole 'he was referring to roads and bridges' thing, but if that was his intention- that the middle and lower class contributed the tax base to make those things- the facts just don't support that contention. In fact, the CBO tells us the bottom 60% of households by income were in fact net takers from government. So not only did the top 2/5 'build that', they contributed their share of taxes and the taxes for the bottom 3/5 as well.
I keep hearing how this 'out of context' sound bite will be explained, but I'm still waiting. Though I won't hold my breath for a plausible explanation...
I watched between 7 and 11. Overall, it was a cohesive night. The early speeches talking about people building their own businesses coupled with many attractive female politicians and people with business stories was counterpointed with Christie's, Santorum's, and Ann Romney's 'love' themes. Very nicely orchestrated.
I took Christie's ending, 'choose love over respect,' to mean choose Mitt for the right reasons, not for touchy, feely emotional reasons.
As far as what Ann's parents thought about her joining the LDS church, her brothers also joined, as did her mom.
So I'm pretty sure that they were cool with it.
...and I'd say last night's videos were very effective. Not sure if they'll run as ads, but the 'bump in the road' theme was an instant classic..
Quick comments: I always listen hard for the presentation of a concrete plan, with some attempt at persuasion -- convince me why yours and not theirs! None of this general nonsense, like "too much government, too much regulation." Explain which regulation stands in the way of your growth, which aspect of government specifically kept you from expanding. And explain how things that *are* government, like public education, like highways and infrastructure are somehow not to be counted as the positive aspects of government, facilitating your success. Balance it for me. I like listening for that. I heard very little of it last night.
As for tax avoidance -- it's silly to criticize those who use the Tax Code to their advantage. It's the law! You don't like the provision, get rid of it, but don't blame the person who applies it to her or his own circumstance.
My understanding is that Obama went to a privileged high school in Hawaii with the help of a scholarship as well as the help of his grandma. Didn't say Obama was from poverty and went from nothing to something. But Ann Romney and Mitt always had the help and security of BIG MONEY. WHile they were eating cans of tuna fish and slumming it for a bit, they did not know the economic stresses that normal people do. When the Obama's got married they obviously had lots of opportunities because of their educations but they were also in total debt. The Obamas were more of the real world that most people can relate to than the Romneys were.
I wouldn't even mention this if Ann Romney had not chosen to bullshit us around last night. She's the one who made it an issue by being a phoney.
So if I have this straight, the liberal objection to Romney is:
1) Smartly uses money and follows the tax laws.
2) He doesn't sufficiently respect the good works of government.
3) He inherited 1 million dollars and gave it to charity instead of burning it or buying well-off sluts a lifetime supply of birth control.
Yep, you got him there, the selfish bastard.
purplepenquin, good points.
The average citizen didn't watch this, but many Independent political junkies did. I wonder how this will contrast to them when they watch the Democratic convention. Of course, watching last night on MSNBC would have yielded a skewed picture.
I'm keeping it short today:
They are obviously not listening, so what are they doing — other than getting in the way?
I feel the same way about the people here, regarding the current failings of the conservatives, and cultism. Groupthink's a motherfucker, and not only do they have it bad but - as you pointed out - it's not very helpful.
Chris Christie, the keynote speaker, was the main speaker who had his own distinctive theme: Truth.
Not true - his theme was "Respect" and how you get that by acknowledging the truth - the same message I've stressed for years. I'll let jr565 explain why that's not true:
I'm sure the rest of you will listen attentively.
Who was the best speaker last night? Maybe it wasn't Christie. Maybe it was Rick Santorum. What am I saying? All that hands-touching-hands business. It got to me, and I am not a social conservative. I cried when he talked about Bella. Santorum was off the "we built it" theme. He was the one speaker — as I remember it — who talked about caring for people. But who votes based on caring? Don't those people vote Democrat?
Not all of them - and I'd be voting if he was the candidate. From what I can tell, he was the best candidate, and the fact he could talk from his heart, and reach yours, was just a bit of the proof of that. He's no cardboard cut-out candidate, but a real human being. Unfortunately, THAT's apparently not worth fighting for, since y'all prefer a cruise with Captain Groupthink on the U.S.S. Mormonism.
I say that to Meade, and he goes on about how fixing the economy is the best way for government to care for people. That's not my point.
They're missing it, all over, right now.
Of course, that's true. That's rational. But I'm talking about the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision. Those people vote Democratic, don't they?
These clowns aren't concerned about reaching those people - burying those people is the theme of the day. Love him or hate him, Rick Santorum had a much better chance of bringing blacks into the party - because he's authentic, in his cares and concerns and as a person overall - but these fools want "Daddy" without thinking about what kind. Meade's advocating a top-down, condescending, tell them-what's-good-for-them approach - not Santorum's bigger brother looking out for you - and, it's quite likely, it'll just bring us back to the chaotic street protests of the Bush years.
Ann Romney carried the main "We Built It" theme by portraying Mitt as building his own wealth, starting out from nothing... basement apartment... ate a lot of pasta and tuna.... And her grandfather was a coal miner. In Wales.
But did she humanize him? I read in the press about a thousand times that it was her job to humanize him. Isn't it racist and sexist to portray Mitt Romney as inhuman?
Racist? Sexist? I don't get that. Inhuman, I get. I mean, look at how he looks at Ann Romney, and then find pictures of him meeting other world leaders in photo ops - it's the same look. He probably looks at her horse the same way. It's all learned behavior with him - not a real bone in his body. He's playing on a dual track - what he's thinking vs. what he wants you to THINK he's thinking - and once that dam breaks, which separates the two, we'll be stuck with whoever it is that's really in there. My guess:
Joseph Smith, waving a pair of fucking golden plates,...
Yes the Obama's were indeed more of the real world because most Americans attend Ivy League Universities and write two autobiographies prior to any accomplishments.
"The Obamas were more of the real world that most people can relate to than the Romneys were."
-- Both had opportunities extended to them, both took them. Romney worked hard and had successes; Obama was promoted through politics by winning elections, which is also hard work.
The point of Ann Romney's story was to explain that Romney and her were not living the high life for years. They took risks, earned what they have and are not simply spoiled rich brats like you want them to appear.
I'm sorry if you didn't understand the point of her story was to defang lies.
One thing I can take away from this discussion is that everyone wants to succeed, they want their children to succeed but they certainly hate the other guy who succeeds.
Darcy wrote: But maybe it's my comprehension skills.
Your reading is perfect. Bender just sounds bent on destruction. ;)
"The Obamas were more of the real world that most people can relate to than the Romneys were. "
Holy shit is that blind! How many of us get get rich without ever having a job?, How many of us get handed 6 figure positions because our husband is a politician, again without ever running anything? How many of us get rich writing autobiographies full of bullshit, before we ever even did anything in our lives?
How many of us start out with a little and build a business, and struggle and fail and eventually overcome and earn our money by creating wealth for others. Answer: virtually all the net tax payers, the ones who actually did build it.
Geoff Matthews, from your wiki link:
Ann Davies and Mitt Romney were married in a civil ceremony on March 21, 1969, at her Bloomfield Hills home, with a reception afterward at the Bloomfield Hills Country Club.[4][16][18] It was presided over by Edwin B. Jones,[4] a banker and Romney family friend then serving as an LDS Church Regional representative of the Twelve.[19] Among the 250–300 guests were U.S. House Minority Leader Gerald Ford and automotive executives such as Semon Knudsen and Edward Cole, and President Richard Nixon sent congratulations.[4][20] The following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony inside the Salt Lake Temple; her parents could not attend since they were non-Mormons....
Attended by Gerald Ford and they got a congrats from the President. Yet Ann Romney got up on that podium and claimed they knew what it was like to be regular people after they married. LOL
So the parents were only barred from part of the wedding. What was the big secret?
"The Obamas were more of the real world that most people can relate to than the Romneys were."
-- Because Mrs. Obama getting a plum assignment solely because of her husband's political connections helps her relate to the world more than Ann Romney's battles with M.S. Isn't it interesting that every humanizing element of the Romneys is ignored, while any potential thing that might make the Obamas seem different is ignored or deemed racist?
Where's all the claims of bigotry at the constant digs on Romney's religion? That's actual, obvious, clear bigotry and hate. Yet, it simply gets passed over. Read through Oaf's various comments: Ask yourself, would comments of that same tenor be accepted about Obama? How many of them would be deemed racist or dog-whistles?
I don't think Oaf is a bigot; I think he's just being intellectually lazy and falling into the trap designed by the people who created these talking points. The goal being to make outrageous, bigoted claims to stir up hatred against Romney with enough distance to claim "I didn't mean to!"
"So the parents were only barred from part of the wedding. What was the big secret?"
-- Just asking questions, right? No inherent bigotry here.
Ann wrote: "He was the one speaker — as I remember it — who talked about caring for people."
I beg to differ. Ann Romney talked about caring for people. She did so a number of times in her speech without using the word "care." She also did it once, using the word "care," when she spoke of her husband:
"He has tried to live his life with a set of values centered on family, faith, and love of one's fellow man. From the time we were first married, I've seen him spend countless hours helping others. I've seen him drop everything to help a friend in trouble, and been there when late-night calls of panic came from a member of our church whose child had been taken to the hospital.
"You may not agree with Mitt's positions on issues or his politics. Massachusetts is only 13% Republican, so it's not like that's a shock.
"But let me say this to every American who is thinking about who should be our next president:
"No one will work harder. No one will care more. No one will move heaven and earth like Mitt Romney to make this country a better place to live!"
@LoafingOaf: Why do you insist on meddling in marriage rites?
I thought you only cared about rights?
" but they certainly hate the other guy who succeeds."
Not here. I know that when the guy across the street is doing well, assuming he does by earning it legally, then I'm better off, I'm reminded how I can succeed, my town is better off, my kids are safer, my property values go up, he's paying more taxes, and my country is stronger. What's not to like?
So, here's what I've learned. Earning all of your money on your own, despite being willing to pass on a windfall where you would never have to work again if you so chose: Unworthy of respect.
Okay, Crack, I'll bite. You'd vote for Santorum? You don't think Christianity is a cult?
I don't think Ann Romney's speech pandered to moms or patted them on the head. I think she really knows that being a mom is both the greatest burden and the greatest joy a woman will ever experience. Why is that particular expression considered pandering? Why is it considered bad form to say moms are the most powerful force in the lives of their children and through that the lives of their children's fathers and ultimately the whole nation.
The democrats have decided to plant their flag on the rights of women. Ann very appropriately mentioned that women are about more than vaginas and abortions.
Oddly enough, if Mitt Romney were a character in a movie, the defining moment in his life would have been passing on his inheritance and saying defiantly to the camera: "I will do this on my own! I don't need my old man's money; I'm my own man." And we'd all think of him as a hero.
Anne Romney said:
He has tried to live his life with a set of values centered on family, faith, and love of one's fellow man. From the time we were first married, I've seen him spend countless hours helping others. I've seen him drop everything to help a friend in trouble, and been there when late-night calls of panic came from a member of our church whose child had been taken to the hospital.
A child was taken to the hospital? Probably because of something that happened because of the cult influence. Maybe he drank the homeopathic water. And what did they take give him as medicine, probably homeopathy and other cult things,like Reiki and acupuncture. Oh, and a lot of supplements.
I think Christie's "Love vs Respect" theme was to give permission for people who love Obama (or the idea of Obama) to vote against him.
Basically giving them a pre-formulated excuses to vote for Romney without fear of feeling like a racist or race-betrayer (depending on the race of the voter).
Who in the world, aside from his family, could love Obama?
I don't think the love/respect thing is that complicated.
You can't have real, true love without respect. Any love you get not founded on respect is ephemeral at best.
--Please reread my posts as I didn't try. And regardless, no need since it's obvious to anyone who can think there is a definite class difference ... except you.---
stop the presses, I agree w/Shiloh.
Romney has class, Obama doesn't.
Agree with Ann about the TV coverage - they were more interested in interviews than what was being said.
As for the Gray Lady's opinion of Ann Romney, keep in mind they have to humanize Moochelle.
Hey, don't blame me mittens is all about $$$ and has no personalty.
And the only personality Choom has is what is edited for him on the network news.
This is a guy who's supposed to be black, but acts whiter than the Romneys and Bushes put together.
And it's showing. All that likeability is going out the window.
Remember: Romney is the guy who closed down his business to find a missing girl. Anyone trying to say the man has no compassion is just uninformed about what he has really done with his life.
"...the voters who imagine suffering children and feel the importance of love as they arrive at an emotion-based decision. Those people vote Democratic, don't they?"
No. You do know that red state voters give more, per capita, to charity than blue states? That suggests Republicans make choices with immediate consequences to their own pocketbooks because they care. Democratic voters only talk big, that's all.
You seem to have confused senimentality for caring. Go reread Sense and Sensibility.
"'The best thing we can do for suffering children is to get America back to being the powerful economic engine it once was, which includes getting more Americans back to the American work ethic.'"
It's not that we're lacking an "American work ethic," we're lacking American work.
Our jobs are being sent overseas by the tens of thousands because it's cheaper to employ workers overseas. Lower labor costs means higher profit margins for the companies sending their jobs away.
How is Romney going to fix that?
So the parents were only barred from part of the wedding. What was the big secret?
It is a religious ceremony that is only attended by people OF the religion. Many religions do this. Have a civil ceremony or open ceremony and another one that is personal between the attendees and 'their god' and only attended by the faithful of that religion. Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism.
Nothing nefarious or sinister about it.
When my parents were getting married in the Catholic Church, my mother was a devout Roman Catholic and my father a not so devout Quaker. In order to EVEN allow a ceremony to be held physically in the church, my father had to take catechism lessons and promise to raise the children in the Catholic faith. He didn't have to convert, but he could have if he wanted to. Since he wasn't a Catholic and hadn't taken First Communion or been Confirmed, the wedding ceremony was held in a side apse and not at the main altar.
I imagine that things have changed since the 1940's.
Why are your panties in a wad about this?
Bottom line, did Ann convince anyone to vote for mittens? No.
Did Michelle convince anyone to vote for Obama in 2008? No.
Just another reason political conventions should go the way of the dinosaurs.
And it's a damn shame cons can't attack Obama re: his well adjusted, picture perfect family.
Oh wait!
My point bagoh is that to many if not all of the anti-Romney comments all seem to list his wealth as a disqualifier for the Presidency. I'm certain those folks would like to be wealthy and would like their children to become so yet for Romney, its a badge of dishonor.
I could accept it if they would just be honest about their class envy.
"Who in the world, aside from his family, could love Obama?"
That makes me think of how hard it must be for their kids to listen to what people say about both of these men. I wonder how often one asks: "Is that true what they said about you dad?" And, it goes on all day every day. You really got to want that job.
--and they got a congrats from the President---
I got a card from RR for my wedding. Even the little people can get something.
"Voting democrat supports putting more people on welfare and hurts ever more kids, in both the short and long terms."
I think you mean that voting Democat supports our maintaining economic assistance programs--welfare, if you will--that aids people and children in need...often because there are no jobs.
Of course, even that is no longer true; Big Dem Clinton eviscerated our welfare system 15 years ago, and what's left of our assistance programs are insufficient to serve the actual need.
It is a religious ceremony that is only attended by people OF the religion. Many religions do this. Have a civil ceremony or open ceremony and another one that is personal between the attendees and 'their god' and only attended by the faithful of that religion. Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism.
When I married my Catholic wife, I was of another faith, and I wasn't even allowed to be there.
"How is Romney going to fix that?"
-- That assumes that the government can and should fix these problems. It's a nefarious assumption that I don't think we should conceded so easily.
Can the government stop out sourcing in a way that is consistent with the sort of government we want? We could institute crippling tariffs for importing manufactured goods, even those produced by American companies. We could slash minimum wage laws.
Lots of ways government COULD do it, the question is whether government solutions would even be acceptable.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा