U.S. politics isolation tank

[DeepGreenEyes]

My favorite tweet from this saga: "Romney had his first intelligence briefing today. It didn't take."

Hehehe.

Nice.

 

[gypsy*seer]

Amazing how many ways Romney can find to fit his feet in his mouth...


BaaaHaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

I knew I wasn't the only one who knew.....



TOOL

 

[midwestyankee]

Amazing how many ways Romney can find to fit his feet in his mouth...


BaaaHaaaaaaaaaaa!!!

I knew I wasn't the only one who knew.....



TOOL

I wonder if someone screwed around with the water supply in Massachusetts sometime after the sixties. After JFK, the state has produced three truly terrible presidential candidates.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

I'm disappointed. I thought the *good* line in that post was:

... it seems that Romney only opens his mouth to jam yet another foot in it. The man's a centipede!

 

[gypsy*seer]

I wonder if someone screwed around with the water supply in Massachusetts sometime after the sixties. After JFK, the state has produced three truly terrible presidential candidates.

Funny....that's kind of what we thought back then, too! Wouldn't suprise me.

I'm disappointed. I thought the *good* line in that post was:

Don't be disappointed, SW. That IS the best line ~ I was just "reply challenged" last night!

See, I did it again....

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I wonder if someone screwed around with the water supply in Massachusetts sometime after the sixties. After JFK, the state has produced three truly terrible presidential candidates.

Yeah, but this time, think of the losers. How bad would Obama be beating Newt? Or Santorum? Or Bachmann? Herman Cain? It would be uglier, though even more entertaining.

Among those actually running, Huntsman had the best chance to beat Obama, and fizzled on the launchpad.

If Mitt DOES get pounded, I'm excited for the bloodletting and knife fights about the GOP's direction. The four moderates left in the party will argue the GOP was too rightwing in a country that isn't going there; the Tea Party will froth that had they nominated a "real" conservative, the heavens would have opened, and angels whisked the nominee to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Okay, I'm quite aware that TPM is a left-oriented publication, but ye gods/desses and little fishies, what the HELL are they feedin' 'em down there in TexasS?

Three TPM headlines (stories linked through each):

Rick Perry Blames Separation Of Church And State On Satan (9/20/12)

Texas Judge Warns Of ‘Civil War, Maybe’ If Obama Wins (8/22/12)

Court: GOP’s Texas Redistricting Plan Intentionally Discriminated Against Hispanics (8/28/12)​

Ya know, I *lived* in Texas the best part of four years total: San Antonio, Corpus Christi, Houston, Austin... and it was a good place to live! Of course, that was the late 60s, early 70s, and even by that time, you didn't fuck with the Houston Police, but other than that, it was overall a good place to live. Now it seems as if the inmates have completely taken over the asylum.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Yeah... this one deserves a cross-post from Smile/Laugh:

What a great start to my day! I *did* LOL.

Jill Biden’s Long, Unintentional Description of Joe Biden’s Penis Earns Cheers from Crowd​

Thank you, Gawker!

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Huh, what?

Why Plane Windows Don't Roll Down, as Romney Would Like
By Life's Little Mysteries Staff | LiveScience.com

In his latest gaffe, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lamented the fact that airplane windows don't roll down.

Romney's wife Ann's plane had to make an emergency landing Friday (Sept. 21) because of an electrical malfunction. Discussing the incident at a fundraiser the next day, he said: "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no — and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem. So it's very dangerous."​

There's more - mostly an explanation WHY airplane windows don't roll down - in the article linked through the headline.

 

[CamRew]

Why Plane Windows Don't Roll Down, as Romney Would Like[/SIZE]
By Life's Little Mysteries Staff | LiveScience.com

::howling with laughter::

 

[Netzach]

Stop it! This is hard! /Ann

 

[Stella_Omega]

Why would a woman get an abortion?

 

[gypsy*seer]

Huh, what?

I know!
This one's just too easy.....

 

[Stella_Omega]

Huh, what?

Why Plane Windows Don't Roll Down, as Romney Would Like[/COLOR]​

Update: Romney was joking. The New York Times' Ashley Parker, who wrote the original report about the Beverly Hills fundraiser that quickly got spread around the Web, told New York Magazine today that Romney had been joking. Parker said that while her report didn’t explicitly indicate Romney was joking, “it was clear from the context” that he was.

But how can anyone tell for sure? It's only a LITTLE bit stupider than MOST of what he says.​

 

[BiBunny]

But how can anyone tell for sure? It's only a LITTLE bit stupider than MOST of what he says.

I thought surely he had to be. But I suppose you can never really tell.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I thought surely he had to be. But I suppose you can never really tell.

And really-- not knowing could be fucking dangerous to all of our wellbeing.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

I think David Brooks offered an accurate critique of Mitt:

"New York Times columnist David Brooks... advised Romney take an “extremely wonky” approach.

“Mitt Romney does not have the passion for the stuff he’s talking about,” Brooks said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” roundtable. “He’s a problem solver. I think he’s a non-ideological person running in an extremely ideological age, and he’s faking it.”

Brooks argued that Obama’s greatest weakness is a lack of a second-term agenda and that Romney can exploit that fact. “So if I were him, I’d go to what he’s been for the last several decades of his life: be a PowerPoint guy. Say ‘I’m making a sales pitch to the country. Here are the four things I’m going to reform. You don’t have to love me but I’m going to do these four things for you.’ And so I’d do a much more wonky and detailed thing than he’s done so far.”"

This whole business of "the economy is puttering along, and so that invalidates Obama, even if I won't get specific (and if I did I'd get crucified by the teabaggers anyway, or you'd realize it's bullshit)" is not working. So what has he got to lose?

I have never seen a major party upticket candidate less comfortable in his own skin. He makes GHWB look like Jimmy Buffett.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's not that he's a problem solver. I don't mind problem solvers. It's that I don't trust him to solve them for the citizenry, I expect him to solve them for the ultra rich. Because that, in fact, is his ideology.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

It's not that he's a problem solver. I don't mind problem solvers. It's that I don't trust him to solve them for the citizenry, I expect him to solve them for the ultra rich.

Absolutely. I think his skill set is being brought in to deal with the sinking ship. And he's told us that. But his preferred method for "dealing" usually seems to involve pushing the crew overboard, and selling the ship for scrap.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Absolutely. I think his skill set is being brought in to deal with the sinking ship. And he's told us that. But his preferred method for "dealing" usually seems to involve pushing the crew overboard, and selling the ship for scrap.

There are a whole bunch of corporation bigwigs that love those skills of his, and a lot of corporate employees who are still paying off the bigwig's lifeboats.

 

[gypsy*seer]

I thought surely he had to be. But I suppose you can never really tell.

And really-- not knowing could be fucking dangerous to all of our wellbeing.

I think that's the big thing - we really don't know if he's "kidding" or not...

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

There are a whole bunch of corporation bigwigs that love those skills of his, and a lot of corporate employees who are still paying off the bigwig's lifeboats.

I'd hire him to ruthlessly put things in the black!

But it's creepy to hear him slip up and refer to the U.S. as a "company." I can't remember where I heard him say that, but the comment stuck with me.

 

[midwestyankee]

Absolutely. I think his skill set is being brought in to deal with the sinking ship. And he's told us that. But his preferred method for "dealing" usually seems to involve pushing the crew overboard, and selling the ship for scrap.

There are a whole bunch of corporation bigwigs that love those skills of his, and a lot of corporate employees who are still paying off the bigwig's lifeboats.

Here's the thing: Romney is not really a businessman in the old-fashioned we-make-stuff-and-our-workers-help-grow-the-economy mold. He's a financier-accountant who made enough money that he can pretend he's a business guy like the Fords and the Watsons (IBM) who went before him. Romney made his money in the same way that Tony Soprano did, but he had better lawyers and used fewer guns. He's a loan shark with an MBA. He doesn't really have the skills that most people think he has - the skills of running a large enterprise that employs thousands and thousands of workers and that makes stuff or does important things in the economy. He's an illusion of business-ness.

Hiring Romney to run the country for his business skills is like hiring the comedian Gallagher to run a farmers' market because he's so fond of vegetables.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Exactly. And the thing people seem to not understand is that these guys are not business men. The don't earn the money they rake in.

I've probably linked to this article before;
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/07/peter-marx-excerpt-201007

In which the famous old pap artist Peter Max-- who likes to think of himself as a hustler-- learns the difference between a guy who, at least, offers something for the money-- and a financier who doesn't offer jack shit. The way they think about money and what money is for is alien beyond anything the rest of us can comprehend. It's kind of nauseating.

 

[Netzach]

I think David Brooks offered an accurate critique of Mitt:

"New York Times columnist David Brooks... advised Romney take an “extremely wonky” approach.

“Mitt Romney does not have the passion for the stuff he’s talking about,” Brooks said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” roundtable. “He’s a problem solver. I think he’s a non-ideological person running in an extremely ideological age, and he’s faking it.”

Brooks argued that Obama’s greatest weakness is a lack of a second-term agenda and that Romney can exploit that fact. “So if I were him, I’d go to what he’s been for the last several decades of his life: be a PowerPoint guy. Say ‘I’m making a sales pitch to the country. Here are the four things I’m going to reform. You don’t have to love me but I’m going to do these four things for you.’ And so I’d do a much more wonky and detailed thing than he’s done so far.”"

This whole business of "the economy is puttering along, and so that invalidates Obama, even if I won't get specific (and if I did I'd get crucified by the teabaggers anyway, or you'd realize it's bullshit)" is not working. So what has he got to lose?

I have never seen a major party upticket candidate less comfortable in his own skin. He makes GHWB look like Jimmy Buffett.

I actually agree with this completely. I think Romney is basically being programmed with a program he doesn't really know how to run. He may be a Mormon, but he's managed to rise in Mass. which is definitely a more moderate kind of climate than the tail that's wagging the republican dog at the moment - he obviously knows how to do the pragmatic necessities of government - even people on the left were pretty impressed with the health care solutions in the state before the polarization of a POTUS run.

I don't think he's a complete moron only concerned about the ultra rich any more than the Dems are at this point when it comes to policy, let's not get TOO carried away on fanfare for the common man and follow the money still eh? He is just a man who does NOT know how to give everyone a hug. You know if you hugged Mitt he'd be that guy barely doing it pulling his penis away from you uncomfortably at all costs first and foremost. So you get the 47 percent soundbite, which IS how I sound too when I'm being wonky and in problem solving mode, which is not the right context for a dinner. This guy just has NO social acumen, and all the awkwardness of a moderate who can compromise playing a part he's not typecast for. He's convinced his wife is charming, not terrifying, so he's trying to be like her.

It seriously amazes me how long the GOP is going to entertain the dumbass but loud segment of its base with rhetoric as everyone with a brain starts to defect or rise in spite of the climate. Paul Ryan is actually NOT a moron, he's just being made to play one. Marco Rubio makes fiscal conservatism almost sound reasonable for five minutes, he's totally dangerous, if only they were serious about solving their Latino enthusiasm gap he'd have a shot in the party, but he's too moderate and too exotic for whatever fantasy white rural buttpimple place they think they MUST carry at all costs still.

I think they're really sitting this one out. If they had thrown out some solutions involving numbers, as Ryan is more than capable of doing, we'd be in more trouble, or maybe less.

I've been considering lately if Obama's lackluster first term is marked by the characteristics of a person who never thought they had a chance of another term - I think that going for health care, much as I'm in favor personally, was a big "legacy" gamble - and should probably have been behind more immediate and more uncompromising kitchen sink jobs corps stuff right out the door. Hilary would not have gotten into the healthcare quagmire again, she knows that way lies madness. Oh well, just speculative fiction at this point.