|
|
On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote:I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention. On Obama: Show nested quote +Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice. On the tone of the convention and the delegates: Show nested quote +Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.
There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least to me.
The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream. On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn): Show nested quote +The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim? What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too. Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread: Show nested quote +Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme. And finally, on Slick Willy: Show nested quote +Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.
Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut? .... Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue. Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here.
The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
|
Booing God isn't extreme?
|
|
This just in: Democrats booed God. xDaunt reports, we roll our eyes.
The fact is some Democrats booed the inclusion of religious language into the platform. This was not universal, and they were obviously not booing the Supreme Being himself, but rather His inclusion in our political matters. Nothing extreme about that all, and isn't even representative of what most people were doing.
"Booing God" is offensive coming from you, xDaunt, because we all know you're not that stupid.
|
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim? What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
Republicans just refuse to understand that Ms. Fluke is their creation as much as anyone else's.
Even in this, she completely misrepresents Ms. Fluke's position.
The entire point of Ms. Fluke's testimony was that contraception is not just about birth control. It is a health issue that some women depend on, with or without sex, for their various needs.
She calls Rush Limbaugh a "bully" while simultaneously making the same stupid insinuation that Rush made, completely ignoring the basic fundamental point Ms. Fluke was making -- contraception is medicine in some cases.
Ridiculously stupid and dishonest of Peggy Noonan, but for her, about par.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
is peggy noonan a new star now or something. lol
|
Also, I have to admit that Obama's speech was a bit below his average, although I think Michelle and Bill more than made up for it. There wasn't much more for Obama to do than ask for more time, which he did.
Overall, I was very pleased with the Convention. I think we addressed the Republican talking-points directly, and with a better sense of maturity. We kept our slogans focused on our own message and ideas, instead of just making everything a childish mockery. In this basic regard, the RNC got stomped.
|
On September 08 2012 02:42 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote: Unless war with Iran breaks out, nothing is going to happen economy-wise until after the election. Businesses are going to sit on their capital reserves until then. This is just nonsense. It's a familiar Republican story though. But where's the evidence for it? Businesses don't just sit on their hands and do nothing leading up to a election. The amount of things that businesses produce is based on demand. Businesses also do not suddenly cease all investment in the face of policy uncertainty. There is always uncertainty. In fact, virtually all of the finance taught in university is about business decision making in the face of uncertainty, and there are a wide variety of methods to help businesses decide on project investments in the face of uncertainty: NPV, scenario analysis, sensitivity analysis, IRR, etc. Moreover, models used for investing on the financial markets, e.g. hedging strategies, risk neutral pricing, etc., are all about uncertainty. There is nothing more uncertain and harder to predict than the stock market, with so many of these kinds of math tools used widely by businesses for investment on the stock markets, you think they're spooked to the point of paralysis by policy uncertainty? You're right that businesses will sit on their capital reserves, but that's mainly because of a lack of aggregate demand, not because of uncertainty caused by an election. I'll try to write you a better response later. But the short answer is that uncertainty can be accounted for with something like NPV but not eliminated. An NPV analysis in an environment with low uncertainty may be positive (make the investment) while the same analysis in an environment with high uncertainty might be negative. Also, an NPV analysis would be more harmed by uncertainty for longer term projects than shorter term ones. Riskier projects would also be harmed as risk premiums (presumably) increase.
So you can certainly have projects that get dumped or scaled down because the added risk of policy uncertainty makes the reward not worth it.
|
On September 08 2012 03:30 xDaunt wrote: Booing God isn't extreme? God shouldn't have a place in politics to begin with.
|
On September 08 2012 03:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 02:42 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 08 2012 01:59 xDaunt wrote: Unless war with Iran breaks out, nothing is going to happen economy-wise until after the election. Businesses are going to sit on their capital reserves until then. This is just nonsense. It's a familiar Republican story though. But where's the evidence for it? Businesses don't just sit on their hands and do nothing leading up to a election. The amount of things that businesses produce is based on demand. Businesses also do not suddenly cease all investment in the face of policy uncertainty. There is always uncertainty. In fact, virtually all of the finance taught in university is about business decision making in the face of uncertainty, and there are a wide variety of methods to help businesses decide on project investments in the face of uncertainty: NPV, scenario analysis, sensitivity analysis, IRR, etc. Moreover, models used for investing on the financial markets, e.g. hedging strategies, risk neutral pricing, etc., are all about uncertainty. There is nothing more uncertain and harder to predict than the stock market, with so many of these kinds of math tools used widely by businesses for investment on the stock markets, you think they're spooked to the point of paralysis by policy uncertainty? You're right that businesses will sit on their capital reserves, but that's mainly because of a lack of aggregate demand, not because of uncertainty caused by an election. I'll try to write you a better response later. But the short answer is that uncertainty can be accounted for with something like NPV but not eliminated. An NPV analysis in an environment with low uncertainty may be positive (make the investment) while the same analysis in an environment with high uncertainty might be negative. Also, an NPV analysis would be more harmed by uncertainty for longer term projects than shorter term ones. Riskier projects would also be harmed as risk premiums (presumably) increase. So you can certainly have projects that get dumped or scaled down because the added risk of policy uncertainty makes the reward not worth it. Yes, the greater the uncertainty, the harder it is to approve an investment under NPV. But Fed rates are at the zero lower bound, so the rate at which businesses can borrow money is cheap, hence the hurdle rate to making an investment is low.
The point is that businesses have always had the tools and knowledge to make investment choices under uncertainty. I haven't seen evidence saying that policy uncertainty, to the extent that it's above its normal level, is having any significant impact on holding investments back.
|
The Democrats did something so EXTREME by trying to keep a separation of church and state... oh wait...
|
On September 08 2012 03:52 Leporello wrote: Also, I have to admit that Obama's speech was a bit below his average, although I think Michelle and Bill more than made up for it. There wasn't much more for Obama to do than ask for more time, which he did.
Overall, I was very pleased with the Convention. I think we addressed the Republican talking-points directly, and with a better sense of maturity. We kept our slogans focused on our own message and ideas, instead of just making everything a childish mockery. In this basic regard, the RNC got stomped. I'm not pleased at all with Obama's speech. I'm sure most people realized, I'm one of Obama's bigger supporters in this thread, but I found his speech quite pathetic: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=461#9215
Clinton was the highlight.
|
On September 08 2012 04:03 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 03:52 Leporello wrote: Also, I have to admit that Obama's speech was a bit below his average, although I think Michelle and Bill more than made up for it. There wasn't much more for Obama to do than ask for more time, which he did.
Overall, I was very pleased with the Convention. I think we addressed the Republican talking-points directly, and with a better sense of maturity. We kept our slogans focused on our own message and ideas, instead of just making everything a childish mockery. In this basic regard, the RNC got stomped. I'm not pleased at all with Obama's speech. I'm sure most people realized, I'm one of Obama's bigger supporters in this thread, but I found his speech quite pathetic: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=461#9215Clinton was the highlight. While I certainly think Clinton's speech was by far the best of the convention, I thought Obama's focus on this election being a choice as opposed to a referendum was a good piece of rhetoric. That does not totally excuse his lack of specificity, but I do not think the speech was utter crap.
|
On September 08 2012 04:08 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 04:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 08 2012 03:52 Leporello wrote: Also, I have to admit that Obama's speech was a bit below his average, although I think Michelle and Bill more than made up for it. There wasn't much more for Obama to do than ask for more time, which he did.
Overall, I was very pleased with the Convention. I think we addressed the Republican talking-points directly, and with a better sense of maturity. We kept our slogans focused on our own message and ideas, instead of just making everything a childish mockery. In this basic regard, the RNC got stomped. I'm not pleased at all with Obama's speech. I'm sure most people realized, I'm one of Obama's bigger supporters in this thread, but I found his speech quite pathetic: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=461#9215Clinton was the highlight. While I certainly think Clinton's speech was by far the best of the convention, I thought Obama's focus on this election being a choice as opposed to a referendum was a good piece of rhetoric. That does not totally excuse his lack of specificity, but I do not think the speech was utter crap. ahah, someone's reading 538 :p
|
Nothing particularly impressive about the DNC, but when their competition is the RNC... well, yeah.
|
On September 08 2012 03:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote:I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention. On Obama: Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice. On the tone of the convention and the delegates: Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.
There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least to me.
The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream. On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn): The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim? What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too. Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread: Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme. And finally, on Slick Willy: Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.
Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut? .... Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue. Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here. The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying.
Except for the platform's stance on abortion:
The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay
Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare".
Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances (Source).
By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
|
I'm one of the defenders of the speech. I'm trying to think of what other card he could have played.
While it didn't infuse the political discourse with details of his current or future policies --something which is desperately needed and Bill Clinton incredibly well -- it was still a solid convention speech, better than Romneys, and appropriate for the occasion. Whether this is a good idea tactically is a tough call -- Obama may be relying too much on the debates as a platform to scrutinize and justify his opponents and his own policies. But it did reinforce that Romney and Obama's economic plans are radically different.
Last week I said he had Obama would have to somehow inspire people, yet respond to the criticism and talking points of the RNC without appearing defensive, or like a whiner. I'm not sure how it would played to viewers at home or independent if Obama spend the bulk of his convention speech on wonkery. Would it have made him look weak? Cold? Technical? I mean, it's a huge coup to have Bill Clinton defend and validate your policies and ideas. Does he have to?
What impressed me was his ability to address the RNC stereotype of him as some kind of 'cold-blooded' (Ryan's words), out-of-touch, self-aggrandizing, blue sky bureaucrat, with an remarkably compelling and elegant transformation of the theme of Hope and Change, by turning it into a story about how Americans have been then true agents of hope and change, not him. It was like a half time speech -- "You're the reason we have saved the auto industry!" etc.
It's was obvious that those platitudes of Obama being grounded and caring about average Americans is not lip service. That he actually does read 10 letters from Americans everyday and takes their hardship seriously.
After that speech, I don't think anyone could accuse Obama of not understanding or empathizing average Americans, or taking extreme pride in middle-class achievement without looking extremely delusional or petty. If Romney or his surrogates attempt to assasinate Obama's character, they will lose (in fact, Karl Rove has admitted as much).
Obama is gambling that he can win a debate on the economy. That despite it's slow improvement, it's still way better than in Sept 2008 when the banking system collapsed and people were losing 40 to 50% of the net worth over the course of two months. And that his strategy to improve the economy simply is more comprehensive and less crazy than Romney's.
The debates will be interesting, that's for sure.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 08 2012 05:39 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 03:25 Stratos_speAr wrote:On September 07 2012 23:09 xDaunt wrote:I agree with Peggy Noonan's take on the convention. On Obama: Barack Obama is deeply overexposed and often boring. He never seems to be saying what he's thinking. His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There's too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal: We've done better than you think. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?
There were many straw men. There were phrases like "the shadow of a shuttered steel mill," which he considers writerly. But they sound empty and practiced now, like something you've heard in a commercial or an advertising campaign.
It was stale and empty. He's out of juice. On the tone of the convention and the delegates: Beneath the funny hats, the sweet-faced delegates, the handsome speakers and the babies waving flags there was something disquieting. All three days were marked by a kind of soft, distracted extremism. It was unshowy and unobnoxious but also unsettling.
There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole. But government isn't what you love if you're American, America is what you love. Government is what you have, need and hire. Its most essential duties—especially when it is bankrupt—involve defending rights and safety, not imposing views and values. We already have values. Democrats and Republicans don't see all this the same way, and that's fine—that's what national politics is, the working out of this dispute in one direction or another every few years. But the Democrats convened in Charlotte seemed more extreme on the point, more accepting of the idea of government as the center of national life, than ever, at least to me.
The fight over including a single mention of God in the platform—that was extreme. The original removal of the single mention by the platform committee—extreme. The huge "No!" vote on restoring the mention of God, and including the administration's own stand on Jerusalem—that wasn't liberal, it was extreme. Comparing the Republicans to Nazis—extreme. The almost complete absence of a call to help education by facing down the powers that throw our least defended children under the school bus—this was extreme, not mainstream. On Fluke (just because I don't think this woman can ever get enough scorn): The sheer strangeness of all the talk about abortion, abortion, contraception, contraception. I am old enough to know a wedge issue when I see one, but I've never seen a great party build its entire public persona around one. Big speeches from the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL, HHS Secretary and abortion enthusiast Kathleen Sebelius and, of course, Sandra Fluke.
"Republicans shut me out of a hearing on contraception," Ms. Fluke said. But why would anyone have included a Georgetown law student who never worked her way onto the national stage until she was plucked, by the left, as a personable victim? What a fabulously confident and ingenuous-seeming political narcissist Ms. Fluke is. She really does think—and her party apparently thinks—that in a spending crisis with trillions in debt and many in need, in a nation in existential doubt as to its standing and purpose, in a time when parents struggle to buy the good sneakers for the kids so they're not embarrassed at school . . . that in that nation the great issue of the day, and the appropriate focus of our concern, is making other people pay for her birth-control pills. That's not a stand, it's a non sequitur. She is not, as Rush Limbaugh oafishly, bullyingly said, a slut. She is a ninny, a narcissist and a fool.
And she was one of the great faces of the party in Charlotte. That is extreme. Childish, too. Here's the most important part that dovetails with the "poisoning the well" conversation that we have had on and off in this thread: Something else, and it had to do with tone. I remember the Republicans in Tampa bashing the president, hard, but not the entire Democratic Party. In Charlotte they bashed Mitt Romney, but they bashed the Republican Party harder. If this doesn't strike you as somewhat unsettling, then you must want another four years of all war all the time between the parties. I don't think the American people want that. Because, actually, they're not extreme. And finally, on Slick Willy: Bill Clinton is The Master. That is stipulated. Almost everyone in the media was over the moon about his speech. It was a shrewd and superb moment of political generosity, his hauling into town to make the case, but it was a hack speech. It was the speech of a highly gifted apparatchik. All great partisan speeches include some hard and uncomfortable truths, but Mr. Clinton offered none. He knows better than so much of what he said. In real life he makes insightful statements on the debt, the deficit and the real threat they pose. He knows more about the need for and impediments to public-school reform than half the reformers do. He knows exactly why both parties can't reach agreement in Washington, and what each has done wrong along the way. But Wednesday night he stuck to fluid fictions and clever cases. It was smaller than Bill Clinton is.
Still, he gave the president one great political gift: He put Medicaid on the table. He put it right there next to the pepper shaker and said Look at that! People talk Medicare and Social Security, but, as Mr. Clinton noted, more than half of Medicaid is spent on nursing-home care for seniors and on those with disabilities such as Down syndrome and autism. Will it be cut? .... Romney-Ryan take note: this will arrive as an issue. Ultimately, she predicts a dead-cat bounce for Obama just like the one that Romney got. Most of the article is above, but you can read the rest here. The fact that she considers anything in the Democratic party "extreme" or "extremism" questions the validity of anything she writes. There is nothing extreme about the Democratic party or anything they're doing or saying. Except for the platform's stance on abortion: Show nested quote +The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to make decisions regarding her pregnancy, including a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay Which means government funded abortion with no restrictions. A departure from previous DNC platforms that stated that abortion should be, "Legal, safe, and rare". Now let's look at the polling. 20% say abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, 25% legal under any circumstance and 52% legal under only certain circumstances ( Source). By definition, among the American electorate, BOTH parties platform stance on abortion is extreme.
Am I missing something? Where does it say 'no restrictions'?
|
On September 08 2012 04:59 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 04:08 farvacola wrote:On September 08 2012 04:03 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 08 2012 03:52 Leporello wrote: Also, I have to admit that Obama's speech was a bit below his average, although I think Michelle and Bill more than made up for it. There wasn't much more for Obama to do than ask for more time, which he did.
Overall, I was very pleased with the Convention. I think we addressed the Republican talking-points directly, and with a better sense of maturity. We kept our slogans focused on our own message and ideas, instead of just making everything a childish mockery. In this basic regard, the RNC got stomped. I'm not pleased at all with Obama's speech. I'm sure most people realized, I'm one of Obama's bigger supporters in this thread, but I found his speech quite pathetic: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=330491¤tpage=461#9215Clinton was the highlight. While I certainly think Clinton's speech was by far the best of the convention, I thought Obama's focus on this election being a choice as opposed to a referendum was a good piece of rhetoric. That does not totally excuse his lack of specificity, but I do not think the speech was utter crap. ahah, someone's reading 538 :p I so envy Nate Silver, I'd love to have his job. He basically gets paid to write exactly what I think, and it bothers me to no end lol.
|
Peggy Noonan is a moderate Republican. That's why she's allowed to write for the NYT. She's been critical of the Tea Party folks. Romney's more her speed.
Paul Krugman is a liberal liberal. You'll never catch him criticizing any liberals, because he's an unthinking loyal team player.
|
|
|
|