Ghost_Protocol
Member
Why are people saying Ann Romney's speech was good? Did we watch the same thing?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Aaron Strife
Banned
Right now I think they'll lose a seat but there's still plenty of time for other candidates to implode!
If they ran the tables they'd probably net 3 - pickup MA, NV, IN, ME while only losing Nebraska. I'm not sure about Arizona but there hasn't been too much polling there.
Nevada is probably the next best pick-up opportunity besides Maine.
makingmusic476
Member
My mom rarely pays attention to politics, but walked in on Christie's speech and was like "why isn't he running for president?!" The speech really grabbed her.
Then I pointed out that, contrary to what he might be claiming, our healthcare system isn't hands down the best in the world and our national debt isn't about to bring the country to its knees. What he's selling is bullshit, he's just really damn good at selling it.
Then my family got mad at me and I bailed.
Then I pointed out that, contrary to what he might be claiming, our healthcare system isn't hands down the best in the world and our national debt isn't about to bring the country to its knees. What he's selling is bullshit, he's just really damn good at selling it.
Then my family got mad at me and I bailed.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Because then he'd have to run against this man:
These chicken-shits (Christie, Rubio, Jeb Bush, Huckabee etc.) don't want to get spanked by Obama in the debates or the campaign trail, so they're waiting until 2016, hoping they get to run against a wet noodle like Cuomo.
polyh3dron
Banned
It's got nothing do to with the Puerto Rican woman, it's people trying to shout down Ron Paul nuts.
cartoon_soldier
Member
So, from what I am reading. Short take on the big speeches today:
Christie: Respect, not love Romney
Ann: Love Romney
Oh, and "I Love You Women" Really? What in the fuck was that?
Christie: Respect, not love Romney
Ann: Love Romney
Oh, and "I Love You Women" Really? What in the fuck was that?
ClassyPenguin
Banned
War on Women? But Ann Romney said she loves women.
ErasureAcer
Banned
I think she was trying to channel Oprah. Who at times makes those big bombastic, elongated phrases. There was no depth to her speech though. I learned nothing new about Romney. She didn't share any fun stories, just boring generalities. And the whole conflicting message between her and Christie will probably turn off casual politics people from tuning in again to the the next 2 nights.
Who is on Wednesday night with Paul Ryan?
Black Mamba
Member
Every speaker also talked about their parents coming from nothing.
Although, almost nothing was spoken about Mitt's upbringing.
Too bad Ann didn't mention about how they paid their rent in that basement apartment with Mitt's stocks.
"We know what it's like to struggle, having to sell our just risen in price stocks given by Mitt's father to sell our way to paying for Harvard."
yes, i was so disappointed. I was waiting to learn about Mittens, but we got nothing other than he makes her laugh and he met her at a dance. 100 times.
It seemed like she was trying to pander to women votes more than explain who Mitt was.
And the few tidbits were lame. Oh, he stayed up late on the phone with a member of the church going through a tough time? Really? That's it? How about a story how the guy's mother was sick in the hospital and Mitt, I dunno, baked a cake and cheered her up. Something with substance.
What about a story about him being a father and how he raised the children? nothing? Or how he fucking took care of you when you were sick? For a man who is about love, she gave no actual stories about love.
It was almost a "He's human and not a robot, trust me" deal. Ugh. Who wrote that?
She could have also told the story of how, just a few years ago, they were struggling and had to live in their son's unfinished basement.
:lol :lol
I would vote for Christie in 2016 if:
-he hadn't canceled the ARC tunnel for political posturing
-he didn't keep the toll increases that were made to pay for the ARC tunnel so that he could...
-cut taxes for the wealthy
-he hadn't endorsed Romney
Other than that, I don't have a lot of problems with what he has done in NJ. That said, fuck Christie
edit: well, maybe not 2016, but 2013
Also, as someone who spent a significant amount of time in Newark under Sharp James and Booker, Booker is Great. I actually thought his popularity had waned significantly though -- primarily due to his showboating.
The Chosen One
Member
Yeah this is why I didn't like Ann's speech either. But then again I guess I wasn't the target audience. But it was disappointing she didn't really have any interesting stories to clearly "humanize" Mitt. My guess though is that all the really interesting stories are related somehow to a life of wealth, so it would have been unrelate-able to most people watching. As it was I had a hard time buying her struggles with marrying a young multi-millionaire trust fund guy in college. Sounds like the "jackpot" that most women dream about it... So I think their wealth disqualified a bunch of stories from being told.
I did like Christie's speech though. It was like a giant 2/3 juicy hamburger. Filled with a bunch of empty fat calories, but it was tasty and tantalized the senses. Christie basically said FU to the Romney campaign and decided to make his own nomination speech for 2016. I had problems with the contents of the speech, but stylistically it was engaging.
The Romney reaction shots were hilarious though. It was like he was experiencing a BSOD and was unable to launch his facial expressions subroutine. Or maybe he was in the middle of a firmware upgrade during Christie's speech. Either way, he was completely checked out.
I had to watch the RNC convention on MSNBC last night for the sheer hilarity - the only thing missing from the talking heads were Obama T-shirts. Take Ann Romney's speech for example, which I didn't think was great or memorable, but was certainly fine for what it was - humanizing Romney a bit and basically pointing out one of the reasons he sometimes seems awkward is that when he helps people out or does good deeds he thinks that is just part of what you are supposed to do in life and not something you're supposed to go seek glory for. So the speech ends and they cut to Maddow:
Maddow: (A few niceties, Ann is a good speaker, etc.) and then "She talked about the struggles many women are having around the country making ends meet, etc. Of course, that's nothing she has ever had to deal with. Chris, over to you."
Mathews: "What I took away from that was that when Mitt came out he looked like a robot. Like he was literally wheeled on stage, not even looking like someone from this Earth...."
Bravo MSNBC.
Arrowgigantic
Member
Actually, the best was when Mitt's brother delivered the delegate count for Michigan and someone on Facebook said, "Wow, Mitt's human brother looks really old."
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
You couldn't buy a clue on clearance.
If giving is suppose to be something you do and don't seek glory for why does Mitt add his tithe to his taxes to try and make it seem like he paid so much?
So you don't mind when people are fake and pretend to go through normal people stuff to pander? ... Something something Lysol wipes
Chris is a dumbass I'll give you that and he was being a bit hypocritical railing on the othering of Obama and then calling Romney not human. Romney did look awkward though.
This makes him perfectly suited to be president.
Pretty sure he's taking a jab at the United States.
I'm sure this is racist but I haven't worked out how yet.
It's one thing to say someone is lacking emotion or isn't acting in a natural manner. It's something completely different to try and make it seem like a person wasn't born in the country and isn't American, that they are working for some foreign entity. That's what all the "He doesn't understand America." crap is about. Matthews has commented on President Obama's lack of emotion at times (as he would for him to appear more animated not so so calm all the time) as well so that isn't limited to Romney though it does seem to be worse with Romney. Matthews talks so much about race because he sees past the coded language, and isn't afraid to actually call people on it. He's been in politics for such a long time that he's seen the tactics employed over and over again and I think he's really sick of it.
On another note I don't know how the republican party is going to exist come the next election cycle. It was a sea of white and many of the hardcore want to keep it that way and they are the ones that vote in primaries. They will never allow that party to change in order to attract a wider range of voters. The moderates and intellectuals and or anyone that simply doesn't embrace stupid and doesn't think being educated is a bad thing would be better off just creating a new party. There has to be a few wealthy donors in that group that would be willing to put down the money to make that happen. I dont think the republican party as brand can be saved.
I'm sure one day you'll make this joke funny and not trite, but I haven't worked out how yet.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
"That rich guy has never worked a normal job like normal Americans! That's why you should vote for OUR rich guy that has never worked a normal job like normal Americans!"
*Plays national anthem*
*Crowd erupts in cheers*
You'd think one republican would understand the meaning of hypocrisy but I guess not.
Fixed that last line for you to accurately portray the GOP
they do, but they werent invited
LegendofJoe
Member
I eagerly await this day, it needs to happen.
another "positive". I have a hard time getting all frothed up at a "this shit is terrible! but hey, its not quite as terrible as we expected!"
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
Romney was probably thinking:
"man, this is a great speech, I really wish I could have gotten him to say yes to being my VP. He would have really boosted my numbers. Why didn't he say yes to me? That fucker. He's been talking for 15 minutes now, when is he going to mention me? Am I being punked here? Is he mad at me? Man, what a great speech, he's making me want to vote for him. The crowd is loving him. Wait, I want them to love ME, this sucks, son of a ....YES! HE SAID MY NAME! YES!!!!"
Bloomberg has been trying for years.
This is kind of bizarre and narrow minded. It's not like Republicans are getting destroyed across the country. This bleak "the Republican party is doomed" is pure wishful thinking.
Sirpopopop
Member
Link?
I don't buy Booker having a high 60s/low 70s approval ratings in Newark at all.
Not really, the more demographics shift and the old and white die off the party will start to get strangled.
They have already started losing the West over the past 2 cycles, they have no claim to the North or East and the Midwest is currently turning.
Another cycle or two at their current pace and they will lose the South, when Texas flips Blue they will be relegated to a tiny set of Southern States that can't really do much in the electoral map.
Frank the Great
Banned
you guys are crazy if you think the republican brand will disappear or become insignificant
people were saying the same shit in 2008 and then 2010 happened. we have a two-party system, get used to it.
people were saying the same shit in 2008 and then 2010 happened. we have a two-party system, get used to it.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Don't think the party will disappear, but the current brand will have to evolve to broaden their base and take guys like Jon Huntsman more seriously as a candidate.
Because tithing (or any charitable giving, for that matter) is a legal tax write-off and actually results in you having less money than if you had just paid taxes on that money and kept the rest? Are you making the argument that we would be better off not allowing that, or is it that you just don't like the optics?
Fake and pretend what? Raising five kids, dealing with MS and breast cancer? Romney's kids were born from 1970 to 1981. He didn't found Bain until 1984, it was going poorly in 1985 and didn't really start hitting its stride until 1989-90.
His reactions were that of a man who is in the race to work and get things done, not seek glory. Should he have stood up and applauded himself?
Also, didn't even know this until this morning: http://redalertpolitics.com/2012/08...-made-by-a-minority-from-rnc-speech-coverage/
EDIT: It did see two minority speeches - Nikki Haley and the guy who used to be an Obama campaign organizer (or whatever). Not sure if that was on Fox or MSNBC.
Cut taxes for individuals and businesses, privatize health care reform, drill baby drill, eliminate capital gains taxes altogether, supports Right to Life amendments...
I will never understand why you have such a boner for Huntsman. Most of his policies are probably fine to the base GOP, he was dismissed out of hand because he took a job with Obama and he is atrocious on the stump.
"Guys like John Huntsman" are exactly the guys running the party.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
After watching Chris Christie's speech, I'd say he has a good shot at the next election (ceteris political paribus). However, knowing America's aversion to electing a non Harvard/Yale grad, I'm not terribly sure.
I hope not.
CharlieDigital
Banned
I'm socially liberal, but on the fiscal side, I'm open to ideas and experimentation to see what works and what doesn't (we already know that trickle down doesn't work).
I liked the principles behind Simpson-Bowles, which Huntsman embraced as a solid blueprint. Sure, it would have lowered marginal tax rates, but would have traded it for elminating deductions and loopholes -- simplifying the tax code while resulting in theoretically a net zero change in revenue.
I'm also open to experimentation on the healthcare side. I'm for public option or single payer, but I can't ignore the success that Switzerland has had, for example, with a private healthcare system built around an individual mandate.
Among Republicans, Huntsman is also one of the few that gets it and I would not agree that he is part of the leadership driving the current party dynamics because his beliefs are fundamentally opposed to what we've seen from the Republican candidates he's been campaigning against.
The party needs to be more intellectually rigorous, and to compete for the votes of the young, the elites and minorities, he said in an interview with POLITICO. To do so, the GOP needs to tack toward the middle on environment, gay rights and immigration. And, yes, Ronald Reagan is to be admired – but as much for his oft-overlooked pragmatism as for his conservative principles.
To become viable again to the 40-and-under bloc that went overwhelmingly for President Obama and will comprise the future voting majority in the country, Huntsman argued the GOP must shift on two issues as generational as they are political: gay rights and the environment.
On the environment, Huntsman was just as outspoken and tied the issue to broader problems his party is encountering with educated voters.
“We cannot become the anti-science party and succeed,” he said. “We have to be intellectually honest as a party, and I think we’ve drifted a little bit from intellectual honesty in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, for example, where they would use rigorous science to back up many of their policies, and in this case many of their environmental policies. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency... .A lot of intellectual rigor went into the policies of those days, and we’ve drifted a little bit from taking seriously the importance of science to buttress much of what we’re doing today, whether it’s basic research and development [or] whether it’s looking at climate science.”
To become viable again to the 40-and-under bloc that went overwhelmingly for President Obama and will comprise the future voting majority in the country, Huntsman argued the GOP must shift on two issues as generational as they are political: gay rights and the environment.
On the environment, Huntsman was just as outspoken and tied the issue to broader problems his party is encountering with educated voters.
“We cannot become the anti-science party and succeed,” he said. “We have to be intellectually honest as a party, and I think we’ve drifted a little bit from intellectual honesty in the tradition of Theodore Roosevelt, for example, where they would use rigorous science to back up many of their policies, and in this case many of their environmental policies. Richard Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency... .A lot of intellectual rigor went into the policies of those days, and we’ve drifted a little bit from taking seriously the importance of science to buttress much of what we’re doing today, whether it’s basic research and development [or] whether it’s looking at climate science.”
This is not the same Republican party that Romney and Ryan represents, I can say that for sure.
reggieandTFE
Member
He's probably got a better shot winning the Republican nom in 2016 than he does in getting re-elected.
Mostly saying the optics didn't work as well for me. It's hard to say he's not in charity for the glory when A) that charity is practically mandatory for him B) it's the Mormon church, and C) he goes and inflates his tax numbers by adding it and saying he pays over 20% because of it
I was referring to the part where she talks about coming home from work and then having to help her kids, which is something she hasn't had to do because as far as I know she hasn't ever had to have an outside job.
- Status