What madness! What dream world is Axelrod living in? "Elmer Gantry" is a novel from 1927. It was made into a film in 1960 — half a century ago. I'm 61 years old and the movie pre-dates my movie-going days. Normal Americans are supposed to be conversant with this character? I mean, I know it's a fictional character who was played by Burt Lancaster in the movie that had something to do with religion, but I have to look it up in Wikipedia to try to see what Axelrod was driving at:
The novel tells the story of a young, narcissistic, womanizing college athlete who abandons his early ambition to become a lawyer. The legal profession does not suit the unethical Gantry, who then becomes a notorious and cynical alcoholic. Gantry is mistakenly ordained as a Baptist minister, briefly acts as a "New Thought" evangelist, and eventually becomes a Methodist minister. He acts as manager for Sharon Falconer, an itinerant evangelist. Gantry becomes her lover....Sounds more like Obama than Mitt Romney. New Thought, eh? That made me buy the book, downloaded in Kindle:
... a vicious satire of preachers and those they fool. Gantry has no redeeming features but is seen by the gullible public as a man who speaks the truth about God. Of course he could just as easily have been a lawyer or a politician and the heart of Lewis’s satire is how easily people believe what they want to believe.That really does sound like Obama. Interesting that the character is fixed in the Mind of Axelrod! Wish I could trace that thought-path back to its origin.
NOTE: I corrected a couple errors in the transcript text, based on watching the recorded show.
ADDED: A passage from the book that made me think of how Obama might have felt on debate day:
Now that he often had as many as a thousand in the audience, as he peeped out at them from the study he had stage-fright. Could he hold them? What the deuce had he intended to say about communion? He couldn't remember a word of it. It was not easy to keep on urging the unsaved to come forward as though he really thought they would and as though he cared a hang whether they did or not.
It was not easy, on communion Sundays, when they knelt round the altar rail, to keep from laughing at the sanctimonious eyes and prim mouths of brethren whom he knew to be crooks in private business. It was not easy to go on saying with proper conviction that whosoever looked on a woman to lust after her would go booming down to hell when there was a pretty and admiring girl in the front row. And it was hardest of all, when he had done his public job, when he was tired and wanted to let down, to stand about after the sermon and be hand-shaken by aged spinster saints who expected
him to listen without grinning while they quavered that he was a silver-plated angel and that they were just like him.
Posts
179 comments:
Quite simple Axelrod shorthand:
Religion = Lie, therefore Romney = Gantry.
Didn't Shirley Jones win an Oscar in that film (that is almost older than I am, and I've never seen it).
Ann,
Interesting that your first thought was of the movie. Mine wasn't.
But then I have this annoying habit of reading books before seeing the movies based on them. The latter are apparently the real thing, the books themselves being only really long, over-wordy, inept attempted film scripts.
I thought Liz Warren's performance at the convention was Gantry-esque.
She's a complete fraud and snake oil saleswoman.
The analogy is becoming increasingly compelling as the history of her role as an attorney representing the very corporations she professes to hate has been revealed.
And, of course, Rev. Wright might well have been cast as Elmer Gantry, too.
Amazing because
1) To use a reference from a 60 year old movie that few people now have seen or remember.
2) Ignoring the fact that if anyone is cynical and manipulative about and of the public it's Obama.
3) 'Reeks of desperation' is becoming a cliche' but it certainly is an apt description of every hoary excuse the Dem/Left as pulled out this past week.
The public is finally seeing that Obama is truly an empty suit/empty chair/big hat, no cattle/naked emperor and the Dems want to blame everyone/thing but themselves.
Well I'm almost 69--and back in the day we had to read a lot of Sinclair Lewis novels. Teachers loved to assign Main Street. Even in those days teachers loved to be snarky about the middle class and small town values.
And I got to Elmer Gantry, Babbitt and Arrowsmith and Dodsworth on my own.
But Axelrod is kinda frantic these days. Poor little slob is spinnng so fast that he's lost his mental moorings.
I'd suspect that he was partaking of the choom gang's weed, but he's so far out with this that he must be dropping peyote or swallowing a tab of acid or two. (All that crap was popular back in my days at Berkeley in the late 60's. Never touched the stuff myself, and it was dangerous to "inhale" in a room at a party.)
That really does sound like Obama.
Obama and his minions do a lot of projection like that. Watch out when they accuse others of something because you can pretty much take it to the bank that that is what they are doing. Is there some kind of great strategy manual that tells them to do that?
Blogger is a piece of shit.
My lost comment mentioned that the movie had Burt Lancaster chewing the carpet and Jean Simmons playing an Aimee Semple McPherson character. It was a good move but has nothing to do with Romney or Obama.
I'm wondering if Axelrod had meant "Gatsby-esque". I've certainly heard that more often.
I had to read that book in high school. Chicago Catholic high school. I think Shirley Jones won that Oscar because she transformed into a harlot after playing the sweetheart on "Oklahoma."
The story is very familiar to me. I can see how Axelrod, seeking to paint Romney as a cartoonish outburst, makes the comparison. In terms of the era of the film, it's not unlike the far right's use of "The Manchurian Candidate" to smear Obama during the 2008 race.
Angela Lansbury, meet Shirley Jones.
My lefty FB friends are still struggling to overturn the results of the last debate.
Strange obsession.
Why do you suppose they are so obsessed with that?
What Axelrod meant to say is "Romney is a big bad meanie not to let Obama win and allow all of our lies to stand unchallenged." He actually could have said exactly that and the MSM would have all nodded in agreement.
Someone said Obama could have killed a kitten onstage at the debate and the MSM would have found a way to blame it on Romney and Bush.
Mormonism IS a form of New Thought, coming out of the Burned Over District, and has much more in common with it than Christianity. I've said as much many times. The whole "This is Christianity" line is just a ploy - a con the rest of you fell for.
And Romney lies fairly regularly, which you give him a pass on, as though you're repeatedly struck by amnesia. It's truly a wonder to behold, when it's not ugly.
One point we - or I - keep coming back to, this election, is "how easily people believe what they want to believe." They're actually getting pissed at me for not joining them in their delusions (or not leaving them alone with them) but I know "you can believe what you want to believe" is bullshit - and not warning them would make me cruel - so they'll get no let-up from me:
And the I-told-you-so's are going to be brutal,...
I think Axelrod is confusing Gantry with A Face In The Crowd's main character Lonesome Rhodes.
That also better fits Obama, but makes a little more sense.
It's also a literate way of calling Romney a bully. That's all the talk on Facebook. It's nice timing with the "stop bullying" meme.
Obama needs to lose so these deluded sickos like Axelrod can disappear. Unfortunately Axel-prick probably will end up on ABC as a non-biased political observer.
Barf.
"Interesting that your first thought was of the movie. Mine wasn't."
The movie was often talked about back in the 60s. To me, it was in the set of movies that people 10 years older than I had seen and had as their frame of reference. Burt Lancaster seems to have made a big impression on people of that time. In the pre-video days, you'd have to go see it in a revival house to catch up, and though I did catch up on many movies that were before my time, I never got around to it.
As for books, I do read, and I prefer to read. I just downloaded that book, as I said. But I've never been interested in reading Sinclair Lewis and have never read any of his books. They were never assigned in my high school, and from what I heard, he wasn't a particularly highly respected writer from a literary standpoint.
But I don't agree with your attitude elevating books over movies. It depends on the book and the movie. "The Shining" is a better movie than the book, etc. Just 2 different formats, both used to put out great, medium, and terrible stuff.
Shouting Thomas,
My lefty FB friends are still struggling to overturn the results of the last debate.
Strange obsession.
Why do you suppose they are so obsessed with that?
Two reasons:
1) Anytime you see a man off his game, it makes you wonder. Mike Tyson used to do it and everybody was like "How'd that happen?"
2) Despite the lie conservatives are telling - that Romney won on substance - nothing of the kind happened, so it feels like a fake win.
Truth is the real loser, affecting both sides.
"I think Axelrod is confusing Gantry with A Face In The Crowd's main character Lonesome Rhodes."
Now, there's a movie I took the trouble to catch up on recently.
From Elmer Gantry:
Lulu Bains: Oh, he gave me special instructions back of the pulpit Christmas Eve. He got to howlin' "Repent! Repent!" and I got to moanin' "Save me! Save me!" and the first thing I know he rammed the fear of God into me so fast I never heard my old man's footsteps!
So, not Mitt or Obungle, but Bill Clinton.
I don't know why he reffed Elmer Gantry but it is a part of our so-called cultural literacy. Educated people should recognize who it is and have an idea what EG represents.
Axelrod is merely a mouthpiece. He says what he says to make things spin in a way to help Obama.
Sadly Obama's plight is past the spin stage. Almost to the drying stage and then it will be consigned to the junk with all the has-beens.
And that explains his strange remarks.
Axe is end up like Stephanopoulos, a TV 'journalist' hack while Obama gets Jimmy Carter's worst president award.
It's not just conservatives that labeled Romney the winner in the debate.
Liberal media exploded in an uproar the day after the debate, deriding Obama.
About two days after the debate, the concerted rescue effort began, focused on the "Romney's lying" theme.
Crack gushed about Obama: Mike Tyson used to do it and everybody was like 'How'd that happen?'
Obama should chew Romney's ear off next round in the debate.
Could it be that David Axelrod is thinking of this scene in Elmer Gantry:
http://youtu.be/eVysgIqPSO8
And, if he is, is that evidence that Axelrod is racist?
So many DC Journolists put that movie on their Netflix queue that it got "long wait" listed.
What it really means is that Romney had an aggressive, manly presence on the stage. And he's good looking.
That's the way Lancaster came off in practically all his movies.
Nah, not really. The 1920s small town WASP world that Sinclair Lewis satirized is as dead as the Dodo.
It's not the small town, it's Elmer Gantry's character that is so timeless. Very relevant for anyone who can remember Swaggart and Bakker, et al.
Lancaster was a great great actor IMHO. One of the very best. I'd see him in anything, so I wait in line.
Who?
Okay, Romney.
I'm a bit younger than you, but I am in my 50s. I immediately knew what "Gantryesque" referred to and what it meant when I read your reference to Axelrod's use of it.
He means he sees Romney as presenting an artificial persona, hiding his real self from the public, pretending to a concern for and understanding of the working people in America that he doesn't even comprehend, much less really care about.
One can argue whether this is an accurate characterization of Romney--I have seen no reason to doubt it, myself--but I took the meaning immediately.
I've never read the book or seen the movie, BTW. It's just one of those things that I'm aware of. I'd guess most "normal Americans" aren't watching Axelrod or the Sunday morning political chat shows, so those who do view them are probably likely to have a particular or general idea of Axelrod's meaning.
I really hope this next election sends Axelrod back to his job in the adult book store.
Shouting Thomas,
It's not just conservatives that labeled Romney the winner in the debate.
Liberal media exploded in an uproar the day after the debate, deriding Obama.
See, this is what I'm talking about:
That statement of yours doesn't address what I just said to you. Romney did win - just not on substance - so the Right's lie, repeated ad nauseum, that he somehow outclassed or outsmarted Obama is surreal and delusional. Merely a silly narrative. Of course the Left's going to fight that - it's a lie.
About two days after the debate, the concerted rescue effort began, focused on the "Romney's lying" theme.
That's delusional, too - Romney's lies didn't win the day, his manner did.
And you're saying he didn't lie?
That's just as delusional,...
I've worked for people just like Romney, Cookie.
I don't know Romney personally, but I've been friends with and worked for men who occupied a very similar position.
They are far better people than you.
You are "pretending to a concern for and understanding of the working people of America."
But, in fact, you're just a dumb commie thug.
Really, Crack? What did Romney lie about in this debate? Be specific.
NB Mormonism didn't come up, so I don't see how your pathetic anti-Mormon paranoid obsession will come into play. I don't doubt you'll find a way, though.
"I think Axelrod is confusing Gantry with A Face In The Crowd's main character Lonesome Rhodes."
I think he knew very well what he meant. These two characters are not dissimilar, btw.
As often as such characters come along--typically in the fields of finance, politics, and religion--we repeatedly fall for the conman who can fake sincerity well.
Can Romney start talking especially in the next debate, how he left a successful career as a CEO of a company he started to take over the failing Olympic 's for his country , to make then suceeful and PROFITABLE, first time Olympic's actually made money, and worked 3 1/2 years for FREE without taking a salary and then after didn't go back into busniess especially when all his partners that didn't leave Bain where becoming Billionaires, instead became Governor of Mass, and again didn't take a salary and worked 4 years to balance the budget, pass a healthcare plan that most of the citizens and political parties were happy with, brought the school system to number one in the country and left with the state at 4.7 % unemployment ... All the while worked four years for FREE
That's over 7 years that Romney worked in public service without getting one dime in salary... Especially when those fu-Kers on the left keep harping about Romney taxes or he's some heartless business man.....
Shit if Romney doesn't inform the public the press won't ... Who works for free for almost a decade, especially when they could have been making billions instead or gives away their inheritance , and his father wasn't the Kennedy's he was dirt poor and made money starting from nothing working his way up.
The next debate is Town Hall... He has to work this information in the discussions... Up end the 150 million in ads Axelrod as spend to make Ronmney into evil , money hunger capitalist .
"I really hope this next election sends Axelrod back to his job in the adult book store. "
LMAO.
Let us analyze what is going on here: They lie and lie about what he is and what he says on the campaign trail and otherwise. The media accentuates it 100 fold. Then we get to see the real Romney unfiltered in the debate. Then these Obama creatures come out and say he is lying and he is not who he is. Fuck these mindfucking SoBs. If the voters are gullible enough to fall for any of this, they deserve every bit of these minions.
You are the con man, Cookie.
You're too fucking stupid to know.
The way you became a con man is by falling for one of the oldest cons in existence.
Cookie, it's damned good thing that you are just an ankle biter looking in from the outside.
You'd be extremely dangerous if you had any power.
The literary character that comes to mind when I think of Obama is Chance the gardener. Like others have said, if any politician is akin to Elmer Gantry, it's Slick Willie. And Carter? It's "Mr. Snopes Goes to Washington." Faulkner would have had a field day with the whole Carter clan.
Romney makes me think of Ward Cheaver. Come to think of it, the young Clinton would have been a great Eddie Haskell.
"And Carter? It's 'Mr. Snopes Goes to Washington.'"
I'd hardly compare Jimmy Carter to Flem Snopes.
@Sammy, I completely agree. Call them out on it face to face. Say how they have spent 100s of million on distortion and deception but here is the plain truth.
@Irene said:
In terms of the era of the film, it's not unlike the far right's use of "The Manchurian Candidate" to smear Obama during the 2008 race.
There is, of course, a real difference between Obama as the Manchurian Candidate and Romney as Elmer Gantry. Obama is and will continue to be the Manchurian Candidate until such time that he releases all of his records that he has deliberately and at great cost secreted away from the public.
It is indeed strange that one of his favorite TV shows is "Homeland."
I inferred a sort of backhanded insult directed at Romney's religion and charm. I'm not sure they'll go after Mormonism directly though (but I'm sure Crack would love that). I guess it depends how desperate they get.
Opps, " Ward Cleaver," of course.
The Cleavers are definitely not to be confused with the Cheevers.
yashu,
Really, Crack? What did Romney lie about in this debate? Be specific.
For you? Get out of here:
You've never conceded a point since we've spoken, and even manage to argue with facts - I can't be bothered because you have no credibility left.
NB Mormonism didn't come up, so I don't see how your pathetic anti-Mormon paranoid obsession will come into play. I don't doubt you'll find a way, though.
Since you brought that up - here's a video of Romney shocking the Mormons of Utah with a lie.
Now, if you want to talk, explain how you can doubt he'll lie to you now - or that the Mormons aren't lying to you, since this is also evidence they're backing a man they know is a proven liar.
I watched a movie entitled "Shooter" last night.
It was just an average movie.
But, it caught the ferocious anger that has taken hold of the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11 and the ensuing mortgage/banking scam.
I recommend the movie.
I see a bad moon on the rise.
During the debate live blog post, in the comments section I remarked a couple of times that Romney was very excited and speaking very quickly. Robert Cook, you're correct, it was very Gantryesque. That's how I saw it, but of course no one else here did.
"Romney makes me think of Ward Cheaver. Come to think of it, the young Clinton would have been a great Eddie Haskell."
Not at all. Clinton's fictional analog is Eric Stratton in ANIMAL HOUSE. Eddie Haskel grew up to be George W. Bush.
Sammy,
Can Romney start talking especially in the next debate, how he left a successful career as a CEO of a company he started to take over the failing Olympic 's for his country , to make then suceeful and PROFITABLE, first time Olympic's actually made money, and worked 3 1/2 years for FREE without taking a salary and then after didn't go back into busniess especially when all his partners that didn't leave Bain where becoming Billionaires, instead became Governor of Mass, and again didn't take a salary and worked 4 years to balance the budget, pass a healthcare plan that most of the citizens and political parties were happy with, brought the school system to number one in the country and left with the state at 4.7 % unemployment ... All the while worked four years for FREE
Man, you are gullible,...
I suspect it was meant to be an obscure reference. Had he said a “Professor” Harold Hill-esque performance—i.e. the smooth talking, self-assured act of a charlatan—it would have been much more accessible to the general public.
But the last thing Axelrod wants is for a significant % of viewers to recognize his characterization as idiotic. Better that they say “Huh?” and wonder just a bit what nasty thing Axelrod has picked up on about Romney.
This hurts my head.
BTW, is there anyone even remotely like the increasingly clownish Axelrod in the Romney camp?
Maybe not too crazy of an analogy, given Face The Nation's rather, uh, mature audience demographics. If nothing else, most of their viewers are probably aware that Elmer Gantry was some kind of religious snakeoil salesman.
As for the substance of it, it seems like pure projection. Has there ever been a campaign that resembled a travelling evangelist show more than Obama's in 2008? He was going to stop the rise of the oceans, heal the planet and redeem us all!
David Axelrod's official title is R.F.B.*
*Rat-faced bastard.
I coined it; you can use it. See if you can look at his beady eyes and chinless head and twitchy nose and not think how much he resembles a big, ugly rodent.
Inga, that's bullshit.
But, that's also your one size fits all comment about anybody who disagrees with you.
Everybody who disagrees with you is excited, raving, hysterical, etc.
Same old, same old.
Then, it's on to the whining.
Essentially when people think of Elmer Gantry they are referencing Lancaster's portrayal of him. The portrait of Gantry in that movie was of a man's man with all the appetites and strengths therein. It is a story of a fall from grace and redemption. A compelling and sympathetic character. This is more similar to the portrait the Obama campaign has tried to paint of their empty suit than anything having to do with Romney.
Bottom line, Ax is more than a little jealous of how he saw Romney Wed. night. He may also be resentfully aware he is developing a leg-thrilling man-crush on the Mittster.
"I'd hardly compare Jimmy Carter to Flem Snopes."
Jimmy would certainly never drive Rosanne to suicide, I'll grant you.
The specific accusation against Gantry is that he talks fast or interrupts people.
The entire point of the novel and the movie is that Gantry is in fact a liar who does not live according to what he preaches.
Romney, from what I can see, walks the walk and talks the talk.
This should go without saying (but some people here apparently need a clue): there was nothing "Gantryesque" about Romney in this debate, at all. Neither in his style or his substance. It's one of the most absurd political comparisons I've ever heard. It's a completely disingenuous and mendacius charge-- like, ridiculously, ludicrously, absurdly so.
But I've come to expect completely disingenous and mendacious claims from the Obama campaign and Obama supporters... So, I'm not surprised.
They say things-- completely absurd, off the wall, are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes things-- and hope/ expect they will gain traction; hope/ expect people will believe because they want to believe the "authorities" that they want to believe in. The more absurd, the better.
The Crack Emcee lectures yashu and concludes:
I can't be bothered because you have no credibility left.
LOL! Really, Crack?
Shouting Thomas,
Romney, from what I can see, walks the walk and talks the talk.
How can you say that? Didn't you see I just posted a video showing he doesn't?
I take you as a straight shooter - what's wrong with you?
“Professor” Harold Hill-esque
And who, pray tell, is Professor Harold Hill? Or maybe I don't want to know.
It's been a three day attempt to win back a debate Obama lost by re-launching the character assassination attack on Romney.
Bizarre.
But, apparently, it's all Obama's got.
Previously, the attack was that Romney deliberately threw guys out of their factory jobs and infected their wives with cancer. Same strategy, different angle.
chickelit,
The Crack Emcee lectures yashu and concludes:
I can't be bothered because you have no credibility left.
LOL! Really, Crack?
Yes, for the same reason I'm lecturing ST now:
There's evidence in this video Romney DOESN'T "walk the walk and talk the talk" so how can any of you keep acting like he does?
To do so says you have no credibility,...
What's wrong with me, Crack, is that I still hold the view that this election features only Obama vs. Romney.
You're fighting a larger war that just doesn't interest or involve me.
Wasn't Axelrod clearly referencing the fact (as was even acknowledged by Romney's own campaign, re the coverage of uninsured folks w/ preexisting conditions) that Romney was spewing a lot of BS during the debate?
Are we supposed to believe that Althouse (self appointed BS detector) can't ID BS when it's coming from Romney?
Instead she repeats winger talking points re BHO's magic negroness, at the same time she's oblivious to the campaign that describes itself as an Etch A Sketch that is not bound by fact checking.
Odd.
It also proves the Mormon church has none either, BTW.
As the old saying goes, "somebody's lying and it's not me"....
Shouting Thomas,
What's wrong with me, Crack, is that I still hold the view that this election features only Obama vs. Romney.
That's changing the subject - but a fine excuse for your lying.
You still ought to be ashamed, though:
You're throwing away your integrity, which you can't get back whether Romney wins or loses.
I thought you were better than that,...
There are some references to the idea that Lenin is the author of the "Always accuse your victim of what you yourself are doing" meme.
As for Gantry? I thought Romney was stiff, wooden, no personality, no passion ....
Weird.
But I think it's the closest thing Axelrod could come up with to represent evil religious crowd manipulator. Because we all know slurs, ad hominems, innuendo and the like are the way to alientate the independents from the target, and ... wait for this ... it's a dog whistle for the dem dogs.
I'm a whore, Crack.
I get my hands dirty and do the best I can.
I don't share your concept of integrity at all.
Shouting Thomas,
You're fighting a larger war that just doesn't interest or involve me.
Fine. Then save your stories about Myrna, because obviously you learned nothing.
This cultist has turned you into a bullshit artist like all the rest,...
I read somewhere Axelrod was to be Obama's debate buddy now that they've kicked Kerry to the curb.
That's going to work out well. ..
...for Romney.
Sinclair Lewis was also the first American to win the Nobel for Literature.
I saw today someone had Dylan 10-1 for this year's.
Shouting Thomas,
I'm a whore, Crack.
Oh, that's clear now, asshole:
I'll be sure to cum on your face and toss you a buck for the privilege,...
"can't remember much about it, except that Shirley Jones was super-hot."
It was Jean Simmons. See "The Big Country" to see her again. She was married to Stewart Grainger, a British actor whose real name was Jimmy Stewart. It was changed for obvious reasons. He was good in "King Solomon's Mines."
Yes, it was a pretty obscure reference, but I got it. And while I can see why people admire Mr. Romney, his repeated flip-flops make the accusation not-ridiculous.
Gantryesque? (Stroking my chin...)
By the way, thanks for the video link; that led to another, and another, now listening to Mahalia Jackson singing, "I'm on my way to Canaanland."
Crack, I thought Mormons were allowed lie about church doctrine.
One of the best moments in the debate was Romney's explanation of what others have called "flip flops."
He explained quite well that he saw his role as a manager to be that of a negotiator between parties, not as a person who hands down edicts.
He revealed himself in that moment, to me, to be a man of very considerable substance.
Crack claimed that Romney lied in this debate.
Challenged to specify what Romney lied about in this debate-- he didn't.
Instead, as I predicted, it's back to evil Mormon squirrels.
But it's my credibility that's shot and ST who's changing the subject. Sure.
Chickelit, it's OK. I'd be much harsher on Crack (and in fact have deleted quite a few blistering comments reacting to Crack), but I don't think it's worth it or advisable. For reasons that I won't go into.
I prefer to limit my responses to Crack to late night commentary, when a thread is almost dead. So as not to (further) derail a conversation in progress.
Here, Inga, is a moment for you learn to stop being a whiner.
I won't even both to whine about Cracks' crack brained remark about my late wife.
What difference would it make if I did?
deborah,
Crack, I thought Mormons were allowed lie about church doctrine.
They are - it's a scam - but that doesn't explain why anyone else would go along,...
"And who, pray tell, is Professor Harold Hill?"
The Music Man!
A movie that also featured Shirley Jones. And Ron Howard as Opie. the bullied kid.
ST:
Oh come on, Mr. Romney's flip-flops belong in the record books. These are not "so called" or close calls.
He was pro-life...then pro-abortion...then pro-life again...and since the convention (!!!) he's backed away from his prolife conversion.
He was pro-gun control, now against.
He tried to out-gay-rights Ted Kennedy.
He distanced himself from Reagan back in the day, you think he'd ever say that today?
And so it goes.
Fr Martin,
Anything in your doctrine say you can do wrong and God will bless you for it?
Oh yeah, yeah, Irene. Great movie! Thanks, I forgot.
Shaboopie, shaboopie.
yashu,
Crack claimed that Romney lied in this debate.
Challenged to specify what Romney lied about in this debate-- he didn't.
And I explained why. You somehow left the part about your lack of credibility out.
Revealing a further lack of credibility - lies of omission.
Give it up, yashu:
You're scum.
Fr. Fox,
Those issues don't really concern me much.
Obama's even worse.
My main interest in Romney is that he is a competent executive with in-depth business experience.
Thank you Fr. Fox! Your status as man of God will protect you from the likes of Shouting Thomas.
BOB SCHIEFFER: Best-- best hitters always have to take batting practice, and maybe he needed some batting practice. John, do you think Mitt Romney has gone to the etch-a-sketch here?
Pick-a-little-talk-a-little-pick, pick, pick-talk-a-little-more-pick-a-little-more.
Crack:
No.
Shouting Thomas,
Here, Inga, is a moment for you learn to stop being a whiner.
I won't even both to whine about Cracks' crack brained remark about my late wife.
What difference would it make if I did?
It wouldn't - if you'll lie about Romney, you've probably been lying about Myrna:
That's how integrity works,...
He explained quite well that he saw his role as a manager to be that of a negotiator between parties, not as a person who hands down edicts.
He revealed himself in that moment, to me, to be a man of very considerable substance.
This is my own view of what others mundanely label as his flip-flops. Instead I think it is the mindset of certain people who seek consensus, are secure in their mind and have no ego, that they are open to new ideas, and seek best ideas from where ever and try and make it whole. I think all admirable qualities for running a democratic country like ours.
If all of you would like me to agree with you that we are in the midst of a crisis of corruption that is tearing apart the political fabric of the U.S., I'll be glad to do that.
That issue is not going to be resolved or even addressed in the upcoming presidential election.
All that is going to be resolved is whether Obama or Romney is president in January.
I think that it will be better if Romney is the guy.
Crack, doesn't work on me.
That shit only works on weaklings.
I'm not weak.
I know who it was. Do I get a candy? Some right-wing knuckle-dragging cave site mentioned it and I'm all wtf? so I made a card for it and put it in words. On this laptop. To me Elmer Gantry is a word explained by Wiki as a famous movie. And I understood instantly because there are so many of those guys around. Their hair. What's up with that dead giveaway? My brother went to one of those churches. The guy had a tv show too. He's all big church and oddly styled clothes and buy me an airplane. Wut? That's when James realized and left.
If I were casting Babbitt I would recruit Axelrod. This is a man who is truly banal retentive. He doesn't just spout them. He lives them. He'd be good as Willy Loman also. He's got the sag of failure about him even when he's successful.....Romney is a good looking guy, but he's good looking in a non-contemporary way. I think Ronald Colman in Mister Chips projects some of his plummy sincerity. I suppose a reference to Ronald Colman dates me, but they don't make movies like Random Harvest anymoe.
I'm surprised Axelrod didn't say Romney was Reganesque.
Barry has problems. BIG problems, if that comment in my daughter's class was any indication.
They learn an A.C.T. word a day. That day's word was "obsequious," teacher used the synonym "butt kisser."
The recent transferee from the south side of Chicago explained why Barry was a butt kisser, promised everything, delivered nothing.
Out of the mouths of babes.....
"He revealed himself in that moment, to me, to be a man of very considerable substance."
How did you like his answer re the dollar amount his "plan" specified re a maximum allowable deduction? You know, this is the maximum amount rich folks (or any folks) can deduct. This limit is what is supposed to replace loopholes and deductions such that income tax rates can be lowered. So obviously, this is a very important number because it determines if Romney's tax plan is or is not deficit neutral.
Do you remember what he said?
Fr Martin Fox,
Crack:
No.
I didn't think so. But that's Mormon doctrine.
One more:
Would you trust a man who you knew took an oath to lie to you?
Uh oh.
I have a pretty swanky church, built in 1868. Not that big.
I probably do have oddly styled clothes. Mass vestments are stylized versions of what Romans wore 1500 years ago (true!). Even the cassock, I'm told--which some priests still wear.
I'd love to have an airplane! Who will buy me one?
No president in my lifetime has given a detailed account of how he would handle taxation during his presidential campaign.
Obama didn't in 2008, and he isn't again in 2012.
Legislation related to taxation originates in Congress anyway.
So, Romney is no different than any other candidate in my lifetime in regard to not setting forth a detailed plan re taxation.
Shouting Thomas,
Crack, doesn't work on me.
That shit only works on weaklings.
I'm not weak.
Pffft. You've revealed yourself tonight to be the weakest of the weak:
You're a whore, remember?
You'll be pimped as sure as the sun rises,...
Father, have you heard about the priest who went missing in Greece?
Hillary's crew strikes again, it's on Instapundit.
Crack:
One more:
Would you trust a man who you knew took an oath to lie to you?
Nope.
"When I was a child, I understood as a child and spake as a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things." Vote for Romney.
Seeing Red:
I saw a little about it.
"How did you like his answer re the dollar amount his "plan" specified re a maximum allowable deduction? You know, this is the maximum amount rich folks (or any folks) can deduct. This limit is what is supposed to replace loopholes and deductions such that income tax rates can be lowered. So obviously, this is a very important number because it determines if Romney's tax plan is or is not deficit neutral. "'
I try to explain it to the dimwits here. Try not to look stupid discussing it.
Romney will inspire confidence in the biz community.
The biz community will know what it's getting and how to deal with it.
Obama is confused and incompetent.
That's it.
"When I was a child, I understood as a child and spake as a child. When I became a man, I put away childish things." last line in the movie, by the way.
I'm much tougher than you, Crack.
You're wasting your time... but be my guest.
I thought we already got clipped on the mortgage deduction, but I can't remember the taxable amount. I thought that was put in a few years ago?
A guy in religious garb who does not call out Crack's indecent level of conversation -- who goes around calling other commenters 'you are scum'-- here is suspicious and does not evoke any godly feelings. Got to exhibit that decorum! and seriousness and substance.
Shouting Thomas,
I'm much tougher than you, Crack.
You're wasting your time... but be my guest.
Sure - you called me, remember?
You're about as fruity and NewAge as they come - that's where this lack of integrity comes from. It's translated as "I don't care," a common theme now that Romney's on the scene. Well, I've got news for you:
"I don't care" wasn't a compelling argument before he arrived and it never will be.
And the best part is, if he loses, you've thrown away your integrity for nothing.
I know - you're a whore - you don't care.
But the opposite side of that coin is exactly what you're getting from me now:
Nobody has to care about you either,...
PM317:
I'm sorry, is that directed at me? Did you have a question for me?
Did I say that somebody has to care about me, Crack?
Some people do.
Some people don't.
That's life.
Commentary reports that Mitt Romney mentioned the issue of religious freedom during last week's presidential debate - so maybe Axe didn't like the favorable uptick reaction that came from the audience.
I wish someone would try to slander me by saying that I come across like Burt Lancaster. Way to dig the knife in, David.
ST,
Can you quote another presidential candidate who, re the key to making his plan deficit neutral, said "25,000" or "$50,000" or "pick a number?"
WTF? Your tax plan is based on "pick a number?"
And, that sort of BS makes you a master debater!?
Sheesh.
Michael K, followed your link. Thank you for that explanation. I have no brains for economics but the way Obama minions are going after Romney's tax plan, I think there may be some really good ideas there and Obama thugs are worried that it might catch on.
I tend to look more at performance.
Romney inherited a big deficit in MA, and left office with a big surplus.
Sheesh yourself.
Presidents don't have the power to set tax policy. Congress does. The next president's ability to affect tax policy is entirely dependent on whether or not he has a cooperative Congress.
Try thinking this through. Neither Romney nor Obama can promise that they will set any kind of tax policy. The can only recommend legislation to Congress. Obama's history is that he doesn't even bother to set forth a legislative agenda. He delegates even that to Congress.
...and since the convention (!!!) he's backed away from his prolife conversion.
Huh, how? Because he believes (at least politically) in exceptions for rape and incest? Because he's a "moderate"? Because he mostly confines himself or focuses on (as a politician running for an *executive* position) to the domain of public policy issues in which he effectively might make a difference, and finds most important at the present time (e.g. economics)?
Fr Martin Fox, it seems to me you're conflating a public individual's own views and what an elected official (constrained by and forced to act in reaction to and in combination with presently instituted laws and other elected politicians with different views, e.g. a legislature, and with a certain view e.g. of federalism, and the limits of his own power) does and may compromise on or reach deals on politically, to further his own views of the good as far as possible, by means of politics. And we are talking politics, not philosophical treatises.
It's all very well to judge a politician as if he were a philosopher.
And by the way, even as a politician, IMO Romney has been more consistent than most (and his shifts have been unidirectional (rightward), and IMO as conservative as possible given the political context in which he had to maneuver)-- compared to his own primary rivals, and especially (by far, by far) compared to Obama. Bear in mind that Romney was elected as governor of effing MA. It's all very well to expect an elected Republican governor of MA to have always manifested perfect conservative ideological consistency...
But that's utterly foolish.
There are various fallacies involved here. For example. Just because e.g. Newt Gingrich and Santorum painted themselves as "true conservatives" doesn't make them more "true" or in all respects more "conservative" (take a good look at their records and public pronouncements, please). Second, perfect ideological consistency is very different from (1) ideological honesty/ sincerity (one can honestly change and develop one's views) and (2) ideological/political efficacy.
It's exceedingly foolish to look for the politician that appears to be the most perfect ideologue, when what you're electing is a politician that you hope will be as efficacious as possible (given your ideological values, concerns, and goals) in actual reality.
pm317,
A guy in religious garb who does not call out Crack's indecent level of conversation -- who goes around calling other commenters 'you are scum'-- here is suspicious and does not evoke any godly feelings. Got to exhibit that decorum! and seriousness and substance.
I can't speak for the Father, but I'm always amazed at how little you guys know about religion. Or haven't noticed that, even though I'm an atheist, I get along fine with those who believe and live it - Traditionalguy being a main example, though we disagree from time-to-time. I've even spoken on Christian radio about cultism, and they invited me back for a second day, saying I was one of the best guests they'd ever had. I was - and am - proud of that.
My language is here nor there. I called yashu scum because he acts like it. ST wants to be a whore, so I'll regard him as one. I call most of you morons because that's what you want to act like. (I notice not one of my attackers took on the video directly - all of them have disappeared without a trace, as though their weasely behavior won't be noticed. Just dumb.)
The Father says he is a man of God, and - whether God exists or not - he carries himself with that intention, which is good enough for me. We are allies, somewhat, as far as I'm concerned - definitely on the same side. The side of good.
We just conduct ourselves differently, like one of us is the other's spy, which is no crime,...
Yashu:
During the primaries, Mr. Romney was hammered by the other candidates--most of whom had always voted 100% prolife--precisely for his flip-flopping.
He had campaigned--and governed--as a "pro-choice" Republican. When he ran in a liberal state, he tacked liberal. Now he was running in national primaries, and he had, by then, had what I called a "change of heart."
Well, in the face of that hammering, Mr. Romney went OUT OF HIS WAY to convey how very, very, very, very prolife he was, now. He really meant it.
I promise, he said, I really mean it.
Fast-forward to a few days after the convention.
Mr. Romney is interviewed by CBS and he says, he favors exceptions for rape, incest, life and...wait for it..."health."
Sounds innocuous, doesn't it? But first, in context, it's the sort of thing that would have cost him the nomination had he said it during the primaries. He did NOT say it; he said, oh I'm really, really, prolife, I've changed, promise!
Second, this business of a "health" exception--that gives it away. That's what Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and lots of "moderate," DLC type Democrats say. It amounts to leaving existing laws almost untouched.
It's not a "prolife" position.
rcocean,
The althouse comment section would be great - if it had an ignore function.
It does:
You see a name and, if you choose to do so, ignore it.
ST,
So, what do you think happens if we have House Rs and an R POTUS?
Taking your advice, i.e. looking at past performance (e.g. Romney having a record of being rolled by the legislature in MA and Congressional Rs loving military spending, loving tax cuts, hating closing loopholes/deductions, and believing that growth fueled by tax cuts make offsets unnecessary), I have zero reason to expect anything but even bigger deficits if Romney and the house Rs were only restrained by the Ds in the Senate.
You can hate the so-called porkulus and bank bailouts as much as you want, but that money is not reoccurring, so there are no budget savings there. Ironically, getting rid of Obamacare actually increases the deficit, because its costs are less than its tax revenue from rich folks and savings from reducing the growth of spending in Medicare (previously seen as good government, but now known as a cut, according to Rs).
That you cons are already walking away from fiscal reality is sickening.
Usually you talk a good game until the election is over. But, y'all are so spun around re BHO hate such that nothing matters. Nothing matters!
I guess what Axelrod says is what I couldn't bring myself to see. That bad man took advantage of punkin.
Yashu, it is a joy to read your comments. My own view of Romney's so called flip-flops on social issues is that he does not particularly care about them. The issue now is economy, people are hurting and that is what needs to be addressed and fixed. I can very well see the nerd in Romney not interested in engaging in discussions of pro-life, contraception, or whatever. Those are distractions. As an individual I see that he lives his life in a principled way. He seems more of a good Samaritan than most people. That is enough for me.
pm317,
Yashu, it is a joy to read your comments. My own view of Romney's so called flip-flops is that he does not care,...
If I hadn't already done a post on this Romney-inspired phenomena, boy, I'd sure be ready to do one now! I might have to do another:
How a lack of caring proves you care so much!
As I always say - trampling right over Godwin's Law - Hitler would be so proud,...
Crack:
Thanks for your kind words.
My own view of Romney's so called flip-flops on social issues is that he does not particularly care about them. The issue now is economy, people are hurting and that is what needs to be addressed and fixed. I can very well see the nerd in Romney not interested in engaging in discussions of pro-life, contraception, or whatever. Those are distractions. As an individual I see that he lives his life in a principled way. He seems more of a good Samaritan than most people. That is enough for me.
pm317, I very much agree.
So, what do you think happens if we have House Rs and an R POTUS?
I've stated repeatedly that my view is that divided government is best.
I've stated repeatedly that my view is that divided government is best.
Normally, I'm sympathetic to this point of view.
But post Obama, so much needs to be undone-- starting with Obamacare, above all!-- that divided government, for at least the first term after Obama, won't be enough. IMO.
(If Obama is elected for a second term, then IMO nothing will be enough, at least when it comes to Obamacare. We'll be stuck with Obamacare for good.)
The Crack Emcee said...
Romney won - hands down - no question about it.
My crazy liberal roommate is, still, trying to call it a draw.
Nasty reality check coming for him tomorrow,...
10/3/12 10:35 PM
The Crack Emcee said...
Christopher,
Obama can't be as bad in the remaining tow as he was here.
I agree - he kinda came alive during the final three minute section - but I think he'll flub them, too:
He's exposed - no teleprompter, no crowd to play off of, no record of accomplishment.
This is probably the beginning of the end - finally.
10/3/12 10:46 PM
You know, I was very surprised when Crack didn't go into his normal Mormon/Romney bashing during that thread on "Lot's of talk about Romney winning". Gotta wonder if the glow wore off (and if so, how did that happen?).
Michael K -- followed your link.
Like pm317 -- Thanks. Not an economics person so that helped a lot.
Fr Martin Fox,
Crack:
Thanks for your kind words.
Anytime, Father. You're cool with me:
I'll cut these immoral and unethical scallywags off at the knees.
You pray for 'em,...
@ Crack
Dude , like Romney said to Obama your entitled to a house, a car and a plane as President but to your own facts
Everything I wrote is factual, which means there are records and can be proven without doubt, unlike most of Obama's life and unlike all of Obama's past , that he has sealed any and alll records, even something as small as his college grades are sealed, for which his campaign has spent over 2 million dollars to make sure they don't become public consumption.
Scary that a triple AAA student , the smartest man in the room, wouldn't even allow his measly college grades to become public knowledge , it's almost as if he has something to hide.
Geoff Matthews,
You know, I was very surprised when Crack didn't go into his normal Mormon/Romney bashing during that thread on "Lot's of talk about Romney winning". Gotta wonder if the glow wore off (and if so, how did that happen?).
It's called being honest and fair. I know the trend around here, now, is to paint me as a goofball, but - you have to remember - this comes after years of being everybody's darling as a black conservative willing to bash Obama. My point is, I haven't changed - these other folks have. They are now desperate, morphing into The "I Don't Care" Coalition, willing to lie, cheat, steal, slander - anything - no better than liberals and I refuse to stand with them because they're, literally, standing for nothing.
Romney won the debate. Has that changed my views on him or his cult one iota? Not at all. But, unlike my critics, I also refuse to live in a world of delusion. I live in reality. When Romney does good, I'll say so, but when he and his cult do bad I'll say "I told you so." I live in Utah with the Mormons:
I'll have many occasions to say it, I'm sure,...
Sammy,
Everything I wrote is factual,...
I never said it wasn't factual - I said you're gullible. The evidence isn't in what you said but what you left out. It's like you've read a campaign brochure and decided there's no need to look further. That's not good citizenship.
It's also not anything resembling the truth,....
Sammy,
Scary that a triple AAA student , the smartest man in the room, wouldn't even allow his measly college grades to become public knowledge , it's almost as if he has something to hide.
Every criminal who served prison time for the 2002 Olympics bribery scandal has given as much as the law allows to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Why would convicted criminals do that? Why would he accept it?
And why did you leave a little detail like that out of your synopsis of the man?
That's scary - especially if you're enthusiastically supporting someone you've got no clue about, and spreading a whitewashed version of them that's nothing less than propaganda.
Not exactly "the smartest guy in the room" yourself, are you?
--Every criminal who served prison time for the 2002 Olympics bribery scandal has given as much as the law allows to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. Why would convicted criminals do that? Why would he accept it?---
Ummm, they paid their debt to society, didn't they?
I read some of the last comments and was reminded of the personal agendas on display at this blog no matter the topic. So allow me to opine about the topic.
Liberals on a daily basis construct false memes to knock the competition. Really, they are bad salespeople if you will.
This latest silliness from Mr. Axelrod just highlights the depths of depravity. You can bet that tomorrow, he may compare Paul Ryan to Citizen Kane. Connection? Wait for it...
In any event, if nothing else the liberals entertain us with their insanity. Sad and pathetic, they resist any desire to face REALITY. Hence, they create alternate visions that simply don't hold up.
That Axelrod is still trying to explain away the debate says something about how badly Zero did and its effect.
And, yes, Shirley Jones did win a Best Supporting Actress Oscar, largely because she went against type. She was the bad girl and Jean Simmons was the good girl (what she always described as one of her "poker up the behind" parts). I agree, though, she's a bit more appealing in "The Big Country".
Ann Althouse said...
I'm 61 years old and the movie pre-dates my movie-going days.
You never went to the movies until after you were 10?
PS That you have to explain who Elmer Gantry is says something spooky about the state of education and literature in this country.
Who here thinks that P.G. Wodehouse could have had some fun with Obama? He seems to have some of the Bertie about him, without the Jeeves.
For those who think Romney is concerned about the unemployed and economically distressed in this country or has any sort of plan or even intention to remedy the situation
Robert Cook said...
For those who think Romney is concerned about the unemployed and economically distressed in this country or has any sort of plan or even intention to remedy the situation
Yeah, Bob, I sort of thought your political philosophy was founded on the views of a comedian. it makes sense. Now don't forget to vote in November to keep your useless government job.
I would think likening Romney -- who took his ministerial duties seriously and did things like sitting with a dying boy to help him compose his will and come to peace with the last few days of his life -- to Elmer Gantry shows that Axelrod is an idiot.
of course Axelrod as a character would be unbelievable if Hollywood created him: a former journalist turned political mastermind who literally oozes oil and grease.
The Crack Emcee is a hateful bigot. It's difficult to get past that little fact.
Rusty,
I will vote in November, though not for Obama or Romney, and I don't work for the government, but in the private sector.
Sammy: The WaPo actually asked in an Op-Ed why Romney had so little money. They won't like the answer, but the media has covered his desire to not take a salary as governor/for the Olympics. They're just not shouting it from the rooftops.
Robert Cook, it's The American Dream, 'cause some are still asleep...truer words...
of course Axelrod as a character would be unbelievable if Hollywood created him: a former journalist turned political mastermind who literally oozes oil and grease.
Love that!
And it is indeed the Clintons that call to mind Elmer Gantry, A Face in the Crowd, and All the King's Maen!
"All the King's Men!"
And Obama is more like something out of Heinlein.
Birkel,
The Crack Emcee is a hateful bigot. It's difficult to get past that little fact.
Why get past it? Wallow in it. Take a bath in it. Put a little behind your ears for a nice romantic dinner.
I've got some in a little ring box in case I ever meet a nice girl,...
Ann,
But I don't agree with your attitude elevating books over movies. It depends on the book and the movie. "The Shining" is a better movie than the book, etc. Just 2 different formats, both used to put out great, medium, and terrible stuff.
I'm not trying to "elevate books over movies," exactly. But it's annoying when the existence of a movie effaces the book on which it's based. Of necessity, books get warped when turned into movies.
(Plays don't, usually, because all they are is dialogue, and it's already designed to occupy about the right amount of time. So Shakespeare makes for good movies. And A Man For All Seasons made for a great one -- you know, that "middlebrow" thing you were so proud of never having seen awhile back.)
Yes, sometimes movies are improvements over the books they were based on, and sometimes they are as good, but in different ways. I read (and reread) The Princess Bride many years before the movie. I like the movie very much, and there are delightful things in it that aren't in the book, indeed aren't available to a book. But I love the book, and there's a whole lot of stuff in there that isn't available to the film medium. So it's exasperating when people assume that The Princess Bride is a movie, and forget that there was first, and is still, a book.
I only wish to note your hatefulness and bigotry. I did so and am satisfied with accomplishing my goal. Meanwhile, questions spring to mind:
Why do you think yourself capable of telling me what to do?
Why would you amuse yourself at the thought I might care what you tell me to do?
And why are you so possessed of yourself that you believe none of the rest of us can possibly make it without your telling us about the bigotry and hatred you hold so dear?
Haha. Projection, they name is OFA.
The character of Elmer Gantry is fixed in the mind of Axelrod because it's his working mental template.
BTW, the character of Elmer Gantry was played on film by Andy Griffith, last seen (before he died) shilling for Obamacare.
Birkel,
I only wish to note your hatefulness and bigotry.
Because that would be an original thought,...
I did so and am satisfied with accomplishing my goal.
Retards are usually easily satisfied.
Meanwhile, questions spring to mind:
Ooh, like someone brushing up against my penis by accident, now you've got questions - go for it, Sherlock:
Why do you think yourself capable of telling me what to do?
I told you, you're a moron.
Why would you amuse yourself at the thought I might care what you tell me to do?
Morons are amusing.
And why are you so possessed of yourself that you believe none of the rest of us can possibly make it without your telling us about the bigotry and hatred you hold so dear?
Ahh, now we get to the crux of your problem - my being "so possessed" of myself:
You should make sure your jealousy is, also, "duly noted."
My Dear Lady I am glad that you agree that Mitt is no Elmer Gantry.
I would hope that you agree that the Crack Emcee is Babbitt.
Raymond Babbitt.
One last attempt to engage the topic without things devolving into name-calling yet again:
Rage against the dying of the light all you want, but the hard fact is that either Romney will be elected president on November 6, or Obama will be reelected. There are real life, practical considerations riding on the outcome. For most of us here, the perceived evil of Romney winning is much less than the actual debacle of the first (and hopefully only) Obama term. YMMV.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
God bless Neil Peart.
Vote or vote not. Note that if you do not vote, you make yourself irrelevant to the current discussion. You may have perfectly good reasons for this, but please realize the rest of us do not share your outlook or experiences.
Getting up on your soapbox and calling everyone morons is unpersuasive and counterproductive.
I have nothing against you, and I used to enjoy reading your unique and interesting commentary. But lately you have become as repetitive as Mick, with an ever-increasing amount of nastiness thrown in.
Dale Carnegie would not be pleased. I know you aren't in to win friends, but if you hope to influence people, you are not going about it the right way.
Crunchy Frog,
Vote or vote not. Note that if you do not vote, you make yourself irrelevant to the current discussion. You may have perfectly good reasons for this, but please realize the rest of us do not share your outlook or experiences.
Good - a new tone - though, I must say, this is also another example of your flawed thinking:
If I have "perfectly good reasons" for doing something, you shouldn't have to share my outlook or experiences to agree to them - the evidence should be enough. But, as I pointed out on my blog recently, you've fallen back on the completely childish and selfish "I don't care" as an argument, so what am I supposed to do with you? Think you're a fair player, accepting your critique of me as "unpersuasive," or see your immaturity for what it is and keep going?
You really leave me no choice.
My "unique and interesting commentary" hasn't changed - you have - in your desperation to unseat Obama. You've compromised your integrity in that effort, and I'm saying so, end of story.
Dale Carnegie would not be pleased.
Dale Carnegie wrote a stupid self-help book. Fuck him.
I know you aren't in to win friends, but if you hope to influence people, you are not going about it the right way.
And nominating a guy who, just a year ago, we were all calling a weirdo liar - while hoping he wouldn't win - is "the right way" to win over an ethicist like myself? Come on, Crunchy, you KNOW I can't do that. It's unseemly that you would even try to make it happen, like slipping the tongue to your grandmother or something.
The fact you guys can't accept my convictions graciously - while my opinion still matters to you - explains the nastiness. You're trying to push me. But, as the old negro spiritual says, I will not be moved. Mitt Romney is in a cult and I stand against cults, it's really as simple as that.
He also took an oath to lie to you, I didn't.
As far as I'm concerned, that's one of many "perfectly good reasons" why you guys should at least listen with a mind towards understanding what you're getting yourselves into - not trying to bring me in as well.
I simply can't, man....
TCE thinks anybody would be jealous of his hatred and his bigotry. I am saddened by your frailty, TCE. You shoulder such an immense burden of "truth" and "knowledge" that none of us has. How hard that must be.
Embrace the hatred. Love the bigotry.
If I have "perfectly good reasons" for doing something, you shouldn't have to share my outlook or experiences to agree to them - the evidence should be enough.
Not so. If we do not share the same outlook and experiences, how can we agree on what things are most important? There are things that push your buttons that don't push mine, and vice versa. Is it not possible that both of us can be operating in good faith, and yet still disagree?
And nominating a guy who, just a year ago, we were all calling a weirdo liar - while hoping he wouldn't win - is "the right way" to win over an ethicist like myself? Come on, Crunchy, you KNOW I can't do that. It's unseemly that you would even try to make it happen, like slipping the tongue to your grandmother or something.
Romney wasn't my first choice, but under the rules of the game, he's what we are stuck with. It still beats the alternative.
The fact you guys can't accept my convictions graciously - while my opinion still matters to you - explains the nastiness. You're trying to push me. But, as the old negro spiritual says, I will not be moved.
I hate to break it to you, but... Your opinion really doesn't matter to me. My opinion doesn't matter to you. Why should it? We are two commenters on a blog, who will never have anything to do with each other outside of its confines.
The only thing I ask is that you not nag me. (That goes for Althouse as well. I don't like it when she does it either.) I have not extended nagging privileges to anyone who is not my wife, mother, boss, doctor, or pastor.
Mitt Romney is in a cult and I stand against cults, it's really as simple as that.
I understand and respect that. My question still stands - what's the alternative? Another four years of Obama? Whom exactly would you have us vote for?
I intend to vote for Virgil. Goode, the Constitution Party candidate, because he does not-- to my knowledge --ask me to endorse intrinsic evil as both Mr Obama and Mr Romney do.
Some will say (a) I'm throwing away my vote and (b) helping Obama win. (Wait: if Romney is leading, then maybe I'm helping him win? Anyway...)
In response, I propose a bet. I will bet $1,000 that Ohio will not tip to either candidate on the basis of one vote. For one grand, I want odds, but I'll do a straight upbeat for $500.
I have offered this bet for many years, whenever anyone tried to claim the election of fill-in-the-blank baddie would be my fault. Very simply, if you believe that, then take the bet. To date, no one has; and thus far, I would have won each time.
Let me know.
Sorry about the misspellings, I hate auto correct...
here's a video of Romney shocking the Mormons of Utah with a lie.
For fuck's sake, Crack. The reporter is asking him the atheist bear trap question. "Should God speak to you..." It's a question about following God. The Bible has a story about a man who is told by God to kill his son in a sacrifice. (A sacrifice, by the way, that God made for us!) So religious people are well acquainted with the issue.
It's a "bear trap" because she wants to portray him as religious crazy. "Should God speak to you" is secular-speak for "Are you crazy?"
And Romney, who is a politican, answers the question with humor. "I don't recall God speaking to me." That's not a lie. Is it?
And then Romney says he doesn't recall God speaking to anyone since Moses at the burning bush. And "perhaps a few other people." He's not being dishonest, nor is he dismissing his Mormon faith. He's skillfully avoiding a trap.
Duh!
Mr. Romney is interviewed by CBS and he says, he favors exceptions for rape, incest, life and...wait for it..."health."
I believe he misspoke. His campaign clarified after he made the remark that he does not favor a health exception. See this for a pretty good discussion.
I favor emergency contraception, by the way. I think Romney's position on emergency contraception is quite stupid. He favors abortion in rape cases, but won't provide the day after pill to rape victims? Idiotic. Beyond stupid.
I dislike very much the idea of killing a baby because you were raped. Would we allow a rape victim to go through nine months of pregnancy, give birth, and then shoot her baby in the head? We would not. You can't blame the baby for the rape. The baby is innocent.
Far, far, far better to allow emergency birth control for rape victims. It's not abortion, and it's unbelievably stupid for pro-lifers to argue this point.
Too much of our abortion rhetoric is knee-jerk, from both the right and the left. If abortion is infanticide, then you wouldn't let a rape victim kill her baby. And if you want to help rape victims, you would figure out a way to get them emergency contraception. His position is infuriating in its stupdity. It's not evil, just thoughtless.
Post a Comment