The Politics Thread

[Max]

That's one of the nicer things I can say about him online. I have little hope of finding a decent job in large part because of this man's gross incompetence and failed promises. It would be one thing if he was truly trying his best, but he hasn't even met with his jobs council since January. He senses that Romney is a weak candidate, and he'll probably win re-election anyway, so why even bother trying to help those unemployed suckers find good-paying jobs? I think it is absolutely disgusting that the only job he really seems to care about is his own.

I agree that name-calling certainly is very immature, but I'm now so hopeless and depressed about the next four years of my life (due to the likely election results) that taking the high-road isn't my biggest concern. I can now understand why liberals call Romney such horrible names, since some of them honestly believe that their lives will go to hell in a handbasket if he wins. In that sense, I can totally relate to the intensity that they are feeling about this election.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Max

[quartermainefan]

Under Obama the stock market went from 8000 to 13000. Obama saved the auto industry over the objections of republicans who wanted to let it die. Obama wanted to return the tax levels to the Clinton era levels when the economy thrived but republicans insisted we keep the failed policies of GWB. No president can create a job market Max, and as someone who posts so often about politics you knew that before you made your post, right?

[DRW50]

A Romney superpac is running anti-gay ads. So much for this campaign being about the economy. If Romney wins look for the media to give these as a big reason why. It's an awful ad, with an Ellen Travolta lookalike as the wife and the Cowsills as the kids, but then crappy ads still get the job done.

http://politicker.com/2012/09/super-pac-targets-obama-with-gay-marriage-scare-campaign/

[Ann_SS]

Don't know why. You must have missed when he referred to the President as "Barry."

Eh, I think that these ads are becoming out dated and ineffective for a growing diverse population. They only work in the uneducated poorest backward southern states.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Ann_SS

[Wales2004]

I believe journalism died a long time ago. What passes for media today isn't anywhere close to actual news reporting. Every weekday morning when my radio alarm goes off, I am treated to one of the most unprofessional news radio anchorwomen. Since there is no other news radio station in my area, I'm stuck with her and her awful ways seems to have rubbed off on her old co-anchor. She seems to have gone to the TMZ school of reporting and makes everything sound like salacious gossip. Plus there's the annoying need to make up phrases such as "carmaggedon." I'm sure a traffic nightmare is equivalent to the end of the world.

Today's media not only wants to salivate over their designated stars but they also want to give out tons of advice on what all of these people should be doing. Does the media really want to hear concrete plans or would they rather just keep pointing out their lack of existence?

I am no fan of Barack Obama but I believe that people had extremely hight expectations of him and some seem to have projected their visions of what he should be onto him and now they're disappointed. Seriously, hope and change are such abstract concepts that I don't know how anyone truly believed he was going to bring hope anywhere or change the way business is done in D.C.

He's not a one man show so while certain things can be attributed to his administration, the blame needs to be spread around to that do nothing Congress. If they weren't so busy working on obstacles they might have been able to accomplish something but their single minded plan to get rid of him involved placing the entire nation in economic trouble.

And how is his pursuit of the Presidency any different than Mitt Romney's pursuit? Am I supposed to believe that Mitt Romney just wants to be President because he loves this nation (where he doesn't even keep all his money) so much? He cares about the little people so much that he believes the poor can be ignored because I guess they can call "211" when they have problems as well. The worst part about Presidential elections is that they spend millions of dollars in pursuit of a job while claiming to care about people who could be helped by those millions--or in this election billion.

[alphanguy74]

I think it depends on your individual circumstances. I admit, I've never been unemployed a day in my life, so I can't truly understand what your'e going through, but I also think that corporations WILL start hiring no matter who wins. Theyv'e been waiting and waiting, and raking in profits from downsizing, but I don't think they are going to hang around in limbo for four MORE years, hoping to get tax breaks form Republicans. Everyone is bandying about the "Are you better off than four years ago", I can say I am WAY better off than four years ago, I had my second best year ever this year. Everyone SHOULD be afraid of healthcare, cause no matter which way you slice it, insurance companies are going to rake in billions on your pain and suffering, and they've bought off every politician in washington to do it. No politician has the balls to do what REALLY needs to be done, and get insurance companies completely OUT of health care altogether. Max, what field of work are you trying to get a job in, if you don't mind my asking?

Edited September 5, 2012 by alphanguy74

[alphanguy74]

Oh, don't get me started on the downfall of quality radio. News radio is dead in most markets, it's all been replaced by corporate dictated "Infotainment". Most of that crap isn't even worthy of coming through the speakers of my 1979 soundesign flip clock radio.

[quartermainefan]

I thought it was funny how they had Ted Kennedy come back from the dead to clobber Romney

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fhzZmvmnS5M" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[GoldenDogs]

Max, I don't believe the media was the partisan beast you claim them to be back in 1980. I certainly don't think there was a "liberal" media then that intensely disliked Reagan, or hated that he got elected. The man had charisma and could work a crowd... the media then loved that aspect of Reagan. The media simply enjoys covering charismatic personalities. Clinton was dynamic in that one... Obama is a fantastic orator (teleprompter issues aside).

Neither Bush proved to be a dynamic speaker. Carter was as dull as a rusty razor.

I don't believe a biased hard news media (or so-called hard news media) got any real traction until the late 90's to 2000. Talk radio aside, I think the proliferation of choices presented by satellite and cable unleashed the media none of us care much for.

Hard news is dead... Infotainment rules the day now. Pundits are everywhere. Liberals watch MSNBC or listen to NPR, Conservatives watch FOX News or listen to Limbaugh or Beck. Moderates watch everything and are probably better informed than all of us!

And Max thinks another four years of Obama will doom us all.

[quartermainefan]

That's not true. Study after study finds people who get their news from FOX are the most ignorant when it comes to actual facts from the news. I watched Clint Eastwood mock Obama for not consulting the Russians about going into Afghanistan. I didn't see CNN or FOX ask Clint what the hell he was talking about and that it was GWB who went into Afghanistan, but I did see John Stewart ask. Clint said maybe we shouldn't have a lawyer as President, and maybe we shouldn't. The only one though that I saw say Obama was a Harvard lawyer but Mitt Romney was one too so therefore Clint Eastwood doesn't even know who he is supporting is once again John Stewart. I bet you the fine journalists at FOX did not address any of the inane and insane ramblings of Eastwood. Stewart also bluntly and in easy to understand pieces reminded people that the very same economic panel Ryan lambasted Obama for not listening to, was the selfsame panel he Ryan was on and that he himself voted against. So what was his complaint?

There is news to be had, just not on FOX, CNN or MSNBC unless we are talking natural disasters or something. Politico.com has interesting articles, fivethirtyeight offers sharp analysis and predictions on the election from poll wonk Nate Silver. Silver has a track record second to none and he feels Obama is something like a 70-30 chance to win.

Edited September 5, 2012 by quartermainefan

[Wales2004]

I stumbled upon this gem in the wee hours of the morning. Chuck Norris and his wife claim that if Barack Obama is re-elected it will lead to 1,000 years of darkness. I might be a tad bit troubled if I believed I was going to live forever but I don't so....

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7ud3pK5Wa90?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Edited September 5, 2012 by Wales2004

[DRW50]

If I have to look at that bad rug, give me darkness.

More from our liberal media friends.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/08/okay_thats_the_stupidest_thing_i_ever_heard_1.php?ref=fpblg

[Wales2004]

MSNBC hands out shows to people who should be limited to appearances (or not even be seen). Chuck Todd was good at moving things around on his fancy electoral college board super tablet, but he should not have his own show. I can come up with half the stuff he and his colleagues do without giving it much thought and without making much sense. Andrea Mitchell is the only one on that network that tries to be a journalist in terms of appearing objective but she should have opted for a news magazine type show.

[GoldenDogs]

Speaking of Politico, Jim VandeHei from Politico appeared on C-SPAN and offered the following regarding the coverage of Michelle Obama's speech:

"The mainstream media tends to be quite smitten with the Obamas so I don’t know if we should over interpret it but there’s no doubt that’s sort of how all the taste makers in media as we talk what it does have a way shaping certainly the coverage in the morning. So I think you can anticipate that tomorrow is going to be quite glowing.”

And to underscore his points, Politico posted a laundry list of comments from our beloved mainstream media critiquing the first lady's speech - including comments by FOX News commentators:

CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "The First Lady not hitting a home run, but probably a Grand Slam."

NBC's Chuck Todd: "Michelle Obama owned this convention in a way that no speaker owned the convention in Tampa."

CNN analyst David Gergen: "If they have two more nights like this, they can probably break this race open."

Fox News's Martha McCallum: "Very positive response here from the floor, and very enthusiastic from people listening to this."

Fox News' Brit Hume: "Extremely impressive woman."

MSNBC's Rachel Maddow: "Oh my god."

MSNBC's Ed Schultz: "Tonight we were reintroduced to a star."

CNN analyst Donna Brazille: "Love is in the air."

[DRW50]

Chris Cilizza, who is big in the Beltway, was more mixed. I'm still surprised he didn't fawn over his beloved T-Paw's speech (he spent years writing about how Tim Pawlenty was sure to be a superstar).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/09/04/democratic-national-convention-day-one-winners-and-losers/