Dude Abides
Banned
Is this Obama ad with Big Dog talking about sticking with Obama's plan new?
-
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 |OT3| If it's not a legitimate OT the mods have ways to shut it down
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
More: I think his speech should be analyzed on what his goals were. Are we assuming he's already placated his base by selecting that vile worm Paul Ryan? Did he need to touch foreign affairs? I think the reason the speech worked, even if I'm being as forgiving as possible, is because his only goal had to be to get people to see him as a genuine earthling, rather than the cutthroat executive that lays you off. I think that worked.
I think the real problem, and I've read this several places like Taibbi and some headline tonight, his party is the problem. If they weren't completely nuts and Romney could be the socially centrist businessman that he was in MA, Obama would have an actual fight here.
I think the real problem, and I've read this several places like Taibbi and some headline tonight, his party is the problem. If they weren't completely nuts and Romney could be the socially centrist businessman that he was in MA, Obama would have an actual fight here.
Going assume that there were still no details at all from Romney? More war mongering? I expect there was even something for the birthers since Romney is adding that to his his speeches now? More bs lies about how President Obama has don't anything and no record while ignoring every single thing he's done?
speculawyer
Member
Holo-Reagan totally would have upstaged Mitt. I listened while I assembled some children's furniture. It was pretty dull . . . . assembling the furniture was more interesting and less predictable.Clevinger said:
Avatar quote
Optics!
And people complain the RNC was a palace of lies.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Yeah. Did you catch his son's wives?
According to PD he solved his negatives and was incredibly presidential.
(that picture isn't real)
NullPointer
Member
8 out of 11. Not bad I guess.My guesses said:
Rubio gave the best speech of the convention, with Romney having the worst, out of the big speakers. Romney is a person, but he's still hiding everything that actually matters. And Repubs have zero problems falling back on lies even after they've been exposed.
Can't call any of these guys authentic.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
What have Republicans proposed more or less every election since you've been alive? Let's see:
Domestic oil production, school choice, cut spending, reduce taxes/regulations, blah blah blah. No, no specifics.
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/romneys-job-plan-same-mccains-2008-and-bush-2006-and-2004
The Chosen One
Member
Do you think a multi-million dollar trust-fund kid would do any less?
Is the logo real? Not moving the goalposts. Just curious.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Quick question: do you think Romney's disregard for our planet has anything to do with him getting to rule his own planet after elohim breaks him off something?
Probably. I'm not sure. I just remember Buzzfeed saying it was a fake/shop.
NullPointer
Member
Some thoughts on the convention, now that the dust is settling.
Still baffled by the sheer balls for an entire convention to be built around a verbal gaffe. We Built It. Seriously? Refer to it in each speech? Trot out some country singer nobody to sing a song about it? How anyone can believe that this party are the adults in Washington is beyond me. I would love to see the reaction if the dems built their convention around I like to fire people.
I hated the sheer amount of snark and vitriol in some of the speeches. In completely undermines the great personal stories that people in the party have. I think thats why Rubios speech is getting considered as the best. Heavy on the personal story, sets out a vision, whilst keeping the snark and the petty insults to a minimum.
I dont know what the prospective candidate lineup for future elections on the dem side is, but the repubs showed that their have contenders for 2016/2020. Christie and Rubio, Haley and Martinez. Even Mia Love could be an attractive VP pick a couple cycles down the line.
I only heard the Eastwood speech (didnt watch the video) but goddam, either that was the best troll in history, or the guy is losing his mind.
Still baffled by the sheer balls for an entire convention to be built around a verbal gaffe. We Built It. Seriously? Refer to it in each speech? Trot out some country singer nobody to sing a song about it? How anyone can believe that this party are the adults in Washington is beyond me. I would love to see the reaction if the dems built their convention around I like to fire people.
I hated the sheer amount of snark and vitriol in some of the speeches. In completely undermines the great personal stories that people in the party have. I think thats why Rubios speech is getting considered as the best. Heavy on the personal story, sets out a vision, whilst keeping the snark and the petty insults to a minimum.
I dont know what the prospective candidate lineup for future elections on the dem side is, but the repubs showed that their have contenders for 2016/2020. Christie and Rubio, Haley and Martinez. Even Mia Love could be an attractive VP pick a couple cycles down the line.
I only heard the Eastwood speech (didnt watch the video) but goddam, either that was the best troll in history, or the guy is losing his mind.
The Chosen One
Member
I think the person who hates Clint the most tonight isn't Romney, but Marco Rubio.
Rubio delivered his speech extremely well and probably would have been the headline story or a strong highlight if things went to plan. Instead Clint overshadowed Rubio's 2016 pre-campaign speech. People who saw Rubio's speech may remember it, but it won't get much traction beyond the viewing audience because the only two stories being played in the media right now is Eastwood's senility and Romney somewhat humanizing himself. Rubio is now a 3rd tier story below the fold.
That said, Rubio seems much more polished than Christie. Heck, Rubio looks much better than any upcoming Dem candidate for 2016 in terms of rising stars. What Rubio needs to do now is actually get immigration reform going in Obama's second term. If he can attach his name to whatever immigration reform Obama ends up doing, then that will give Rubio some street cred with hispanics beyond the Cuban community.
Rubio delivered his speech extremely well and probably would have been the headline story or a strong highlight if things went to plan. Instead Clint overshadowed Rubio's 2016 pre-campaign speech. People who saw Rubio's speech may remember it, but it won't get much traction beyond the viewing audience because the only two stories being played in the media right now is Eastwood's senility and Romney somewhat humanizing himself. Rubio is now a 3rd tier story below the fold.
That said, Rubio seems much more polished than Christie. Heck, Rubio looks much better than any upcoming Dem candidate for 2016 in terms of rising stars. What Rubio needs to do now is actually get immigration reform going in Obama's second term. If he can attach his name to whatever immigration reform Obama ends up doing, then that will give Rubio some street cred with hispanics beyond the Cuban community.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Agreed on all points.
I think comparing Rubios and Christies speeches is not the right way to go. Rubios was about the power of the personal, whereas Christie was all about throwing out the red meat for the base. Both were effective at what they set out to do.
Either way, they were the premier speeches at the convention
Either way, they were the premier speeches at the convention
behind Eastwoods
speculawyer
Member
It is as real as the whole 'We built this' meme. They both just edited reality a bit to make a distorted point.
Just watched Huntsman on Colbert and I have to say if by some miraculous reason the republican party dropped the crazy by 2016 and nominated this guy I would have a hard time not voting for him.
The few things that bothered me about him during his campaign seem like obvious pandering that wouldn't reflect his governing style.
Reminds me of an Eisnehower republican and I can get behind that.
The few things that bothered me about him during his campaign seem like obvious pandering that wouldn't reflect his governing style.
Reminds me of an Eisnehower republican and I can get behind that.
Black Mamba
Member
Yup, I pretty much agree with this. I felt bad for Rubio cuz he got disregarded in all this.
The Clint decision was really an unmitigated disaster. I wonder what the fallout might be. Never seen anything like that in politics, before.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
he's a clown and you should feel bad. Obama is to the right of Eisenhower.
The decision to trot out Eastwood for that disastrous stunt is a direct result of the GOP higher-ups feeling that they have to placate their rabid, tea party base. That stunt was on no way an attempt to wooh independents; it was purely meant as a partisan red meat performance.
ErasureAcer
Banned
If the GOP wants to keep nominating Mormons and alienating their base. Go for it!
Explain?
He seemed pretty open in admitting that their is certainly a role for government: advocating infastructure spending and education spending along with healthy regulations, a scathing critique of citizens united and a pragmatic approach to governing.
He seemed about one or two sentences away from saying he is a democrat.
And regardless of what you think, a movement of his party toward his positions and style is a win for everyone.
adamsappel
Member
The elite of Hollywood--freakin' Hollywood--booed Michael Moore when he spoke out against the Iraq War during the Oscars. These same people who gave Roman Polanski a standing ovation and made a show of sitting on their hands for Elia Kazan. Not that I'm agreeing with Moore here. I'm sure he's just trying to keep his name in the news, and praising Obama won't do that.
Came out for the Ryan plan. Wants to elim cap gains tax and "broaden the base".
He's for some of the things that liberals want, and that prohibits people from looking into his positions in detail
And my point was that I feel a lot of that is window dressing he said to be relevant. Same way Obama spoke of free trade agreements in Ohio to appeal to unions or bush senior with his no new taxes pledge.
Of course I have issues with him and was being a bit hyperbolic(for instance his Utah flat tax) but I still feel the man has a pragmatic approach to government that would be a breathe of fresh air for the party.
Aaron Strife
Banned
He also came out for Simpson-Bowles, which still isn't perfect but leagues better than the Ryan plan.
I think a lot of the support for the Ryan plan is just predicated on "Finally, someone's getting serious about the deficit!" because the media has taught us that the only "serious" deficit plans are the ones that gut the hell out of entitlement programs and domestic spending. It's all predicated on voodoo economics but Paul Ryan is unfairly painted by the media as a Very Serious Person dealing with the Very Serious Issue of deficit spending.
I'm not saying that any of that reflects well on Huntsman's judgment, but I get it.
http://dailycurrant.com/2012/08/30/bill-nye-blasts-todd-akin-challenges-debate/
In a day filled with hilarious stuff this takes the cake!
Separate normal storks and rape storks!
Please tell me there is a video of that somewhere!
I rarely if ever laugh hard out loud reading something....I have tears forming from that.
I got onioned
Sorry not intentional :/ I got played tooDammit I was played
The Chosen One
Member
I'm a registered Independent, but the last 5 minutes of Romney's speech on foreign policy is primarily why I've voted Democratic the last two Presidential cycles.
Presidents can try to set the agenda, but domestically the party that controls Congress and holds more state governorships tends to have a bigger sway on domestic policy. However when it comes to foreign policy, the President pretty much runs the entire show and can start foreign and/or secret wars with little to no congressional oversight or approval. This means if we vote for a President who's controlled by a bunch ideologues, we can end up chasing around bunch of middle eastern dictators while stuck trying to terraform the Arabian sub-continent for the next half century. All the while sowing the seeds for terrorism for even more generations to come.
So when Mitt Romney started sabor-rattling about Iran, it just confirmed my belief that this guy needs to be nowhere near the steering wheel of our military.
In terms of domestic policy, I actually liked the concept of compassionate conservatism that Bush originally espoused. Or at the very least it was a legitimate alternative to choose from. But in the mid 2000s, Republican base just became extremely xenophobic. They became openly anti-muslim, anti-immigrants, and etc. And it's only got worse the last several years.
But if in 2016, a Republican candidate shows up who has a sane worldview and foreign policy outlook, and rejects the politics of anger, division and "othering", then I might be able to get behind the Republican ticket. Honestly, Obama pretty much already governs as a moderate conservative circa '80s. Our country has swung so much to the right that pretty much any moderate from either party is almost indistinguishable. So if the Republicans fielded a candidate who was based in reality, then I might actually have to make a real choice in the presidential election.
As it stands, Mittens is basically just a neo-con marionette like Bush. And Ryan proved he's not serious at all by the countless lies and half-truths in his speech. If he had any integrity he would have rejected that draft when the speechwriters handed it to him.
Presidents can try to set the agenda, but domestically the party that controls Congress and holds more state governorships tends to have a bigger sway on domestic policy. However when it comes to foreign policy, the President pretty much runs the entire show and can start foreign and/or secret wars with little to no congressional oversight or approval. This means if we vote for a President who's controlled by a bunch ideologues, we can end up chasing around bunch of middle eastern dictators while stuck trying to terraform the Arabian sub-continent for the next half century. All the while sowing the seeds for terrorism for even more generations to come.
So when Mitt Romney started sabor-rattling about Iran, it just confirmed my belief that this guy needs to be nowhere near the steering wheel of our military.
In terms of domestic policy, I actually liked the concept of compassionate conservatism that Bush originally espoused. Or at the very least it was a legitimate alternative to choose from. But in the mid 2000s, Republican base just became extremely xenophobic. They became openly anti-muslim, anti-immigrants, and etc. And it's only got worse the last several years.
But if in 2016, a Republican candidate shows up who has a sane worldview and foreign policy outlook, and rejects the politics of anger, division and "othering", then I might be able to get behind the Republican ticket. Honestly, Obama pretty much already governs as a moderate conservative circa '80s. Our country has swung so much to the right that pretty much any moderate from either party is almost indistinguishable. So if the Republicans fielded a candidate who was based in reality, then I might actually have to make a real choice in the presidential election.
As it stands, Mittens is basically just a neo-con marionette like Bush. And Ryan proved he's not serious at all by the countless lies and half-truths in his speech. If he had any integrity he would have rejected that draft when the speechwriters handed it to him.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't think Republicans are at all capable of acting like the adults in the room when it comes to foreign relations. They can cry all they want about Obama going on an "apology tour" or whatever, but how the rest of the world sees us DOES matter if we need trade partners or allies for war.
Obama's been very firm in dealing with terrorism. He doesn't keep them alive long enough to prop them up as boogeymen for the next election.
speculawyer
Member
Someone should put side by side clips together of all thing things Romney is mentioning with comparable clips of George W Bush mentioning. End with "You want 4 more years of Bush?"
eBay Huckster
Member
So then more or less Bush's second term ad infinitum.
Bauer Action Hour
Member
It shouldn't be that difficult to put together for the Obama campaign or his PAC and would be very effective.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
I enjoyed Romney's speech, but I am a sucker for long political speeches.
eBay Huckster
Member
Provide the conditions that allow him to easily catch a fish and remind him of as much, and he'll spend untold millions of dollars taking you out of context for the sake of cheap political points with a base of Neanderthals (and two thousand PD troll attempts).
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
Wow, you guys are a lot saltier than normal. Geez, hopefully the DNC convention begins soon so you guys can get some serotonin flowing through your veins ASAP.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Pretty sure no one cares about the Eastwood stuff outside of the left...the RNC had a decent show, and Romney will get a nice bounce. Now he can spend his massive war chest too...
Actually the media is covering the Eastwood thing pretty heavily.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...-invisible-obama-rnc-023242832--election.html
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/08/31/us-usa-campaign-eastwood-idINBRE87T1BX20120831
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/08/31/clint-eastwood-republican-national-convention-speech-twitter/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...5170dc-f312-11e1-b74c-84ed55e0300b_story.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/30/clint-eastwood-offers-off-script-moment/
And there's loads more....
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll