Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread

You watching the Republican Convention? I'm not. Reading legal documents. I think I have the better deal.

Open Thread.

< Christie: Romney Wishes He Could Take Back Birther Joke | Isaac Makes Landfall, Perilous Time for New Orleans >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm not going to waste my time. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 06:02:37 PM EST
    I figure that if anyone in Tampa says anything amazingly ignorant and stupid -- which is hardly out of the realm of possibilities, given this bunch -- we'll be hearing about it soon enough.

    Donald, it will be more (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 07:06:09 PM EST
    time efficient to look for anyone in Tampa that says anything that is not amazingly ignorant and stupid.

    Not watching either (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 06:11:59 PM EST
    Why encourage them?

    Looking for a positive reason to vote (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 06:25:02 PM EST
    for Obama? Here is one:

    New MPG rules announced today. This is actually a huge step forward for energy independence and reducing the impact on climate. Two areas where I still think the Dems are clearly superior to the GOP.  So close your eyes and think of the polar bears as you go to the polls.

    sometimes I just don't get it... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by fishcamp on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 09:31:27 PM EST
    how and why do they, the R's, go through all the BS and still have Hope and Faith?  

    I just (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by lentinel on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 09:50:13 PM EST
    watched Ann Romney.

    She's likable.
    A lot of pablum of course. New Dreams etc.
    Mitt taking her home from the dance. What is this? "Archie" comics?
    Should we vote for Archie and Veronica?

    But - here I go - I couldn't help but be reminded of the Democratic convention of 2004. That campaign.;. I had momentary hopes for Howard Dean. At the top of his game, I think he would have destroyed W. No contest.

    Anyway, we wound up with Kerry. I didn't have much respect for him because of his vote for the war in Iraq. But I had some hope because of his outspoken opposition to the War in Vietnam.
    I was crossing my fingers because I desperately wanted Bush to be thrown out of office.

    Then comes the convention. Ooof. I won't go into Obama's speech. Suffice it to say that I wanted to hear someone decrying the war in Iraq and placing the blame squarely at the feet of Bush and Cheney and their mob. Forget it. Didn't happen. God Bless America. Goodnight.

    Then comes what Ann Romney reminded me about: Teresa Heinz Kerry addressing the convention. On and on and on she went about.... HEINZ! Her deceased hubby. By the time she got to John, I was exhausted and frustrated. Frustrated because I was really hoping for something - even though the writing on the wall was quite evident.

    About Archie and Veronica (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by EL seattle on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 10:32:48 PM EST
    I think that Ann Romney's speech handled this image pretty well -

    'I read somewhere that Mitt and I have a "storybook marriage." Well, in the storybooks I read, there were never long, long, rainy winter afternoons in a house with five boys screaming at once. And those storybooks never seemed to have chapters called MS or breast cancer. A storybook marriage? No, not at all. What Mitt Romney and I have is a real marriage.'

    Ann Romney's speech probably won't make much impact in the presidential campaign between her husband and Obama, but I think it sure managed to remind folks of the failings of past would-be-presidents like Newt Gingrich and John Edwards.


    It Was A.... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:13:06 AM EST
    ...get women back into the fold speech, or so I am told.  

    She is likeable, but it so clear she had no idea about normalcy.  She speaks of MS and cancer with an almost... not sure of the word, but all I could think is there are millions facing those battles who have the added challenges of not being being filthy rich.  It's like the thought that people struggle financially, has never really sunk in more than a passing thought, if that.

    The last thing I want to hear is a rich person trying to relate to me without at least acknowledging how much easier it is to face when you are rich.  She has grade A insurance, she doesn't work, he kids will never go hungry because insurance doesn't cover this and that.  I'm not faulting her for having that luxury, just for not acknowledging just how much easier her fight is.  I don't like that she seems to believe that somehow makes her just like the rest of us.  It's not the same struggle, not even close.

    The thing I really hate about the convention, is when they pan to the crowd to find those people who are acting like Jesus is speaking.  I see them, you can tell they aren't people of means, but they are eating it up.  Too brainwashed or too dumb to realize the very people they plan on screwing are them.


    It is a wonder... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:32:56 AM EST
    what a strange scene at a political convention...I was thinking the parties, booze & dope, and fornicating had better be seriously kick-arse to justify sitting through the speeches and the awarding of delegates...looks painfully boring, yet there the delegates and such are, screaming and cheering like it's the Stones on stage.  F*ckin' weirdos man, I tell ya.

    When did "real marriages" ever (4.25 / 4) (#30)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:54:20 AM EST
    include a staff of personal assistants, valets, butlers, maids, nannies, cooks, wine stewards, chauffeurs, landscape designers, gardeners, etc. - for each of the happy family's six estates?

    Hey! (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:07:37 AM EST

    My beautiful bride has all that plus a shoe polisher, body guard, dishwasher, painter, et al.  It all depends on which hat I'm wearing at the moment.




    So if someone has those (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 10:18:49 AM EST
    thing, then by definition they cannot also have a "real marriage"?  

    Please.  Stop putting me in the position of defending the Romneys.


    Mrs. Romney was describing her married life as (4.25 / 4) (#45)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 11:01:47 AM EST
    as "long, long, rainy winter afternoons in a house with five boys screaming at once." Why can't us people see that she's just like every other working mother?

    The reality is that she lives a life of social privilege and financial advantage that "real" working mothers could only dream of. That's her "real" marriage. Yes, she has had personal health issues that I wouldn't wish on any one. What I would wish is that everyone who suffered from those issues had the same opportunities for care as she has.

    But equating her and Mitt's household experiences with that of regular, working-class families? I don't buy it. Your opinion may vary.

    Oh, and if you don't like defending the wealthy and powerful, then stop making up straw men and putting words in my mouth. I obviously wasn't making a judgement as to whether the Romneys are "really" married, or "really" in love, or have a "real marriage." I was referring to the all too "real" nature of the Romney's financial advantages over 99.9999999999% of all other married couples as context to Mrs. Romney's claims of being just folks.


    huh. Oddly enough (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 11:09:38 AM EST
    I find your comment more elitist than hers.  Your continuing efforts to conflate financial benefits with the "real-ness" of a marriage or married life reeks of the idea that somehow the very wealthy are not quite as human as the rest of us.  Unfortunately, I think often the very wealthy all too human and -- like you -- are unable to empathize with those who don't have the same problems they do.

    The Realness... (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 11:52:23 AM EST
    ...is real to her and it is to everyone, but what she is trying to claim is that she is just like the rest of us because she had real health issues.  And it's so obvious she has no idea what others go through as far as the financial burden or the conveniences her wealth provides.

    How does one make a speech about serious diseases and how that makes her 'real' when throughout all of it, one of the biggest burdens is financial.  How does her struggle compare to the many Americans without insurance, and the many more with bare bones insurance.  Emotionally she can relate, but that is where it stops.  She will never experience the frustrations of insurance and deciding if a necessary test not covered can be afforded or losing an income on an already thin budget while gaining medical bills.  She will never know what a person who has to go to work or get fired and not only lose the income, but the very insurance treating them, when the disease is making it nearly impossible.  She pays people to do the stuff you and I would have to continue to do with the same prognosis.  From getting groceries, to doing the laundry, to paying the bills, to the other BS the rest of the world has to do every day.

    I don't fault her for her means, but for the love of god, she needs to stop acting like she really understands what a prognosis like that means to most Americans.  For many it means financial stress that could be as emotionally crippling as the disease itself.

    And add in the fact that her party is cool with letting poor folks fend for themselves from the very diseases she thinks makes her one of us, and I just wanna puke at her contempt to actually believe she understand our struggles.

    It's like me telling homeless people I know their struggles because I had to beg for change one day when I lost my wallet and needed gas to get home.  Not the best analogy, but I will never know the struggles of the homeless and she will never know the struggles of the average American.


    Sorry, I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 12:50:10 PM EST
    IMO there is lots to criticize in a Romney style world, but judging someone else's problems against my problems is a non-starter for me.  Criticism or analysis of values?  I'm with you.  And surely there are times when I would love to trade problems.  As I perceive the problems of another, that is.  But my perception will be limited.  Always.  

    I guess what I'm saying is that just as she hasn't walked in my shoes, neither have I walked in hers.  Nor has anyone else here.  That's all I'm going to say on the subject.  Frankly, there's too much of an "ewww" factor to this discussion for me to take it any further.

    Well, maybe I'll say one more thing.  If wealth automatically made one unable to empathize with others -- those who have less, and those who may have nothing -- the Kennedys would probably all be Republicans.


    Wealth does not equal (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:38:19 PM EST
    Inability to empathize, sj.  I do not believe that Farmboy & Anne have said that...at most I see from the various commentary a conclusion that Ann Romney did not herself acknowledge the many advantages she has been handed throughout life.  She may have been trying so hard to illustrate that (as she has referenced) everyone "has a bag of rocks to carry,"  that her significant $$$ advantage part & the humility one would expect to come from that understanding, got lost in the delivery.  For people suffering medical & other large crises without the financial wherewithal that the Romney family has enjoyed in this life, that omission of open understanding (of the important support that $$$ allow) is probably significant.

    Her speech was well delivered; but, IMO, it did not evidence the kind of appreciation for the ravages of poverty or the stresses occasioned by the lack of $$$ that most people experience in life.  The definition of "empathy"--in an everyday sense--may have a "you know it when you see/hear it."

    Don't be so hard on Farmboy...his points are quite persuasive.


    Not really (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:24:06 PM EST
    Don't be so hard on Farmboy...his points are quite persuasive.
    While what he said was absolutely true, all the things money can buy are only one factor (albeit multifaceted) in determining quality of life.

    This, however, was well said:

    Her speech was well delivered; but, IMO, it did not evidence the kind of appreciation for the ravages of poverty or the stresses occasioned by the lack of $$$ that most people experience in life.  

    For me, this isn't about (none / 0) (#63)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    Ann Romney's quality of life, it's about how our individual and collective quality of life will be affected by the policy decisions and priorities of Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and the Republican Party.

    Those policies will repress freedoms and rights, impose hardship, deny dominion and autonomy, decrease access to the voting booth, handcuff the economy, harm the environment, send millions deeper into poverty, so whatever bumps in the road Ann Romney has faced, and however important they are to her, it would seem that she has been unable, as has her husband, to draw any lessons from them that would serve the greater good.

    She says she sees poverty and hardship and pain, but she doesn't seem to get that her nice, funny, loving husband will only perpetuate it, not end it.  


    I understand that, Anne (none / 0) (#66)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 05:14:16 PM EST
    and agree with that perspective.  I have a issue with being dismissive of another's problems simply because financial problems aren't on the list.

    If I can add my two cents here, (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 12:00:42 PM EST
    I don't have the sense that Farmboy is conflating the Romneys' financial advantages with the "realness" of their marriage.

    Everyone's life is their respective reality; Ann Romney's life is as real as yours or mine or Farmboy's.  Sure, there are commonalities: married people can relate to her being married, people with children can relate to her being a mother.  

    But there are great differences, as well.

     While she has had the stress of two significant health events, that stress was not compounded by the stress of wondering if she could afford to be treated for them, what would happen if she couldn't afford her health insurance, how she would manage to take care of her children or maintain her household while she was dealing with them, whether she could keep working or afford to take medical leave from her job..  Those are stressors that test other people's marriages and lives in ways that don't always end happily.  

    Even in the early years of her marriage, when they were living seemingly ordinary lives, both of them had families that could backstop them if they needed it.  Ann Romney can have sympathy for those not as fortunate, but to a fairly significant extent, she doesn't "know" how those without her advantages feel; she can sympathize, but she can't empathize.

    And while Ann Romney's reality may include the stress of problems with the household staff, or managing the logistics of maintaining their various real estate holdings, or coordinating their social schedule or board meetings, it isn't the reality of most Americans.  I would hope that Ann Romney not only wouldn't expect most Americans to feel the pain that comes with her wealthy life, but that she would exhibit some fair amount of humility knowing what great advantages her wealth provides her.

    As I said in an earlier comment, it isn't for me to judge the quality of Ann Romney's - or anyone's - marriage, but if she's going to put her marriage out there as a launching pad for a discussion about  her husband's aspirations for the country and his ability to fulfill them, I - we all - at least have the right to make some judgments about whether she has even a clue what her party's positions will do to the lives of the millions of people who aren't living the same kind of reality she is.


    Anne: Excellent statement. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:56:18 PM EST
    Not only did I nod yes with each succinctly stated point, I read it to my husband (who also nodded yes.). 'must go find the next person to pass along your words....

    Now you're just being condescending and (none / 0) (#49)
    by Farmboy on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 11:32:41 AM EST
    continuing to put words in my mouth rather than read what I've written.

    I've lost friends and family to cancer. My father-in-law has MS. My wife is very concerned about her genetic markers. So tell me, since you're such an expert in my life, which of those situations do you see as me being unable to empathize with?


    I know exactly where you're coming from... (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 11:51:01 AM EST
    "Real marriage"...first of all Anne Romney brought it up, in a lame attempt to humanize the man behind inhumane policies.  To distract from the issues.  It's a bullsh*t sales pitch below the slimiest of used car salesmen.  Nobody gives a f*ck about their marriage.

    You called a spade a spade....in empathy with all the married people (and single people, and gay people who would like the right to marry) who Mitt Romney is fixing to lay the smackdown on, if elected.  


    Yes, this: (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:11:32 PM EST
    Nobody gives a f*ck about their marriage.

    I know I don't. But I don't ever give a f*ck about the marriage of any politician.


    Everyone's marriage is different (5.00 / 7) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 11:12:48 AM EST
    I do understand a bit of where you are coming from though.  It is very hard for me to listen to Ann Romney talk about her MS or her cancer while she advocates for the repeal of what is called Obamacare.  If her insurance ever denied her anything, she never had to do without it then and watch her own death approach more swiftly.  She has no clue what most women struggle with financially when their lives in are in danger due to health issues.  Ann Romney wants me to understand that she has had hardships too, just like me.  But the things she would do to our country in order to in her mind save it almost got my son killed once.  As we look at retiring and trying to figure out what it does to Josh's insurance we once again are visited with anxiety, and we wouldn't be feeling this way if we didn't have to deal with all these people arguing to do away with healthcare reform.  But we have a whole party of people trying to get rid of healthcare reform and we have no clue how that will affect our son and what he needs.  Without healthcare reform though, never a day of rest fighting with the insurance company.  But Ann Romney will likely never feel this life and death anxiety squared when a family member's life is in jeopardy and the insurance company tells you to go screw off.

    Would you feel better (1.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:43:05 PM EST

    If her insurance ever denied her anything, she never had to do without it then and watch her own death approach more swiftly.

    Would you feel better if Obama's Independent Payment Advisory Board denied her coverage?  

    An insurance company you can sue and win.  If Obama's death panel says no coverage, tough noogies.



    You're an embarrassment (5.00 / 6) (#60)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:48:50 PM EST
    Bingo.....you win the $64,000 question (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:53:04 PM EST
    Who saved my son's life you idiot?  It was what you people keep calling Obama's death panel.  Those are the people who told insurance companies that when a child's life is in danger THE DOCTORS will decide what must happen and they will not need to get an approval from you...and you (insurance companies) will pay that phucking bill.  Obama's "death panel" has been a "life panel" in this house and returned a bit of sanity and quality of life to us.  So piss off you whack job.

    Wrong (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 11:12:22 PM EST

    The Independent Payment Advisory Board is yet to be staffed.  

    They received monies for their creation this year (none / 0) (#70)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 01:40:32 PM EST
    And physicians will make up some of those on this "board", you know...people who have taken the Hippocratic oath vs. only those who have taken the corporate profits big bonuses oath.  I will never get over people like you who demand to return to a form of healthcare delivery that was killing the most needy children in this nation for profit.  You are sick IMO, in need of some serious therapy.

    Bean counters in the majority (none / 0) (#71)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 02:49:08 PM EST
    Make up SOME!!!

    Bean counters in the majority with a few token health care professional to gull the rubes.  Big deal.

    Use your brain, can you think of why they decided that just a few members for window dressing rather than the entire board will have taken the Hippocratic oath?  The answer is obvious.


    The Independent Payment Advisory Board is all about payments (as it what to pay and what not to pay). It is not about ensuring appropriate care.



    Bean counters with no other oversight (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 05:01:42 PM EST
    were killing people in this country for profit.  We need bean counters incentivized for ethical accountability alongside healthcare professionals who are accountable to the hiccopcratic oath to run things.  You act like bean counters haven't already been involved in all of this.  They have been and what they were incentivized to do WAS TO KILL PEOPLE FOR CORPORATE PROFIT!  You are a part of the grand lie about Obama's health care reform.  But I know who tried to kill my son and who keeps him alive now, I'm living it.  I'm not making strawman arguments, I'm a living testament to the already experienced success of Obamacare.

    Point Really Missed (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Aug 30, 2012 at 10:18:35 AM EST
    I would feel better if her party realized how much easier that diagnosis is with great health coverage.

    But truth be told, if there was a machine in which she could actually feel, emotionally, what most Americans feel with those diagnosis, I would love to put every anti-ACA idiot in it and let them experience it that kind of mental anguish with the financial aspect.  

    I would never wish a diagnosis like that to anyone, and shame on you for suggesting it.  Just when you think a R can't stoop any lower, they always exceed your expectations with a low blow right to the peaches.

    The fact is I can't relate to you, or to a homeless guy, or to Ann Romney, and I would never pretend to.   But there she is, telling us she gets it, pleaZe.


    That's kind of the point (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:48:15 AM EST
    It's supposed to "humanize" the candidate.

    Just like Michelle Obama's speech did in 2008.


    So, I read the transcript of the (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:17:42 AM EST
    Ann Romney speech, and I'm just not going to judge someone else's marriage, even though, by painting us a Norman Rockwell portrait of her marriage and family, she pretty much invited people to do just that.

    No, what I'm going to judge is whether someone whose husband and running mate and party are built on a platform of repression, austerity, exclusion, and all-around mean-spiritedness has any business invoking "love" as a theme for her remarks.

    Maybe it sounded different as it was delivered than it struck me reading it, but for me it just didn't add up.  She said this man she loves has spent his whole life working to lift others up, but what she didn't say is that he has an agenda that isn't going to do that, an agenda that looks to pretty much kill all aspects of government that are designed to backstop the least among us, and will use government to make sure women are prevented from making their own decisions about reproductive health, the LGBT community is denied the rights everyone else has and people of color or who are "foreign" face higher hurdles to voting than the rest of us do.  This is not lifting people up, unless Ann Romney meant to explain that the segment of society that is already "up" can be further elevated by standing on the bodies of those who will clearly suffer under Republican rule.

    Ann Romney's speech last night was a slap in the face to all those people she tried to appeal to and connect with, because they are the ones who are going to suffer the most in a Romney/Ryan administration; not only are Romney/Ryan not going to ease the burden on working families, they aren't going to be able to create jobs for those who don't have them.  Her husband would have people working longer before they could collect SS or be covered under Medicare, would privatize Medicare and make costs to beneficiaries increase.  They would block-grant Medicaid, which would severely undercut its ability to assist  the poor.  They will continue to work to eradicate unions, de-regulate industry and business to make it harder for workers to have any protection or recourse against employers, and for food, drugs and consumer good to be safe.  

    Sadly, I could go on, that's how long the list is of ways Ann Romney's husband will fail to "lift people up" if he is elected.

    I'm sure Ann Romney lover her husband and her family; I don't question that she loves her country.  But she is stone-crazy if she believes that her husband, his running mate and the GOP are the answer to fixing what's wrong with this country.  As far as I'm concerned, the only way "the GOP" is the answer is if the question is, "What's wrong with America?"

    And for the constant defenders of Mitt Romney - yes, I'm looking at you, jb - please note that I'm more than aware that the Democrats, and Barack Obama in particular, have contributed a great deal to what's wrong, and I'm not confident that if they continue on their current path, they will be able to move us in a better direction; I see many things that trouble me on the Democratic horizon, and I've been quite vocal about what those things are.  That hasn't changed.

    Ann Romney seems like a pleasant-enough person, but I don't want her husband or her husband's party anywhere near the seat of power; that's a bridge too far - way too far.


    Of course it's all cr@p (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:33:44 AM EST
    I have no doubt the cognitive dissonance could break glass.  But that's not why she was put up there.  She was put up there because she comes across as likeable and real.  

    Oh, i know why they put her up there... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:42:06 AM EST
    she was there to make people think that if Ann Romney can love the pod-person that Mitt is, he must not be too bad.  She was there to make the Romneys sound like an episode of Father Knows Best, to take the silver spoon out of Mitt's mouth.  

    My hope is that if Michelle Obama has a speaking role at the Dem convention, she will expose the hypocrisy that Ann Romney did a bang-up job exemplifying.

    And if not Michelle, someone.


    I've watched both women speak (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 10:08:59 AM EST
    Frankly, I think Ann Romney comes across alot better.  A reading of the speech transcript(s) might present a different picture.  No.  A reading of the speech transcript would present a different picture.  But most people aren't going to read the transcript or analyze the content.  They're going to get an impression.

    Both wives are about comparable (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    in terms of public speaking effectiveness and appeal.

    If anything, MO has been underutilized these past 3.5 years by the Obama WH.  And they and the DNC would be criminally negligent if they dont give Michelle a primetime speaking slot in Charlotte.

    As for Mrs Romney, she still looks to me like Walter Mondale's younger sister.


    I agree about Ann Romney (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:28:40 AM EST
    I didn't watch her speech, but I had the same impression that you did based on her appearance on one of the morning shows (I forget which one).  At the time the TL discussion was centered around her horse in the Olympics and her inherent elitism.  

    The consensus in that thread seemed to be that America would be put off by her use of "you people".  She was mockingly referred to "Ann-toinette" and it appeared to me that people thought she had hurt Mitt and the Republicans in general.  I disagreed.  I think she's an asset to the Romney campaign.  She projects a "real person-ness" that Mitt is incapable of, and she humanizes him in the process.  It doesn't matter if that "real person-ness" is "real" or not.  She projects it.  


    Criminy (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by shoephone on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 10:08:17 PM EST
    I caught three minutes of the ugly, hate-filled bully from New Jersey on my car radio going home. That was all I could handle. And I have news for him: He's neither loved nor respected.

    The Republican message is so mean-spirited and negative. If all the Dems do next week is put forth a strong message about working for a positive future where all Americans are treated equally and given a chance to get out from under, that may be enough. But right now the race is a virtual tie, so Obama and all the other speakers have to hit it out of the park. How likely is that?


    Honestly (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:00:46 AM EST
    if they can't hit it out of the park, I don't know how much slower the GOP can throw the ball.  They're this close to setting up a tee.

    Well, the Dems are the party (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by shoephone on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:40:11 AM EST
    that continually snatches defeat from the jaws of victory, so it could end up a home run, or it could be a batter caught looking at a third strike, leaving the winning run on base.

    Not that I needed an excuse not to watch, (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 06:32:57 AM EST
    but I decided, since yesterday was my birthday, to give myself the gift of not watching, listening, reading or otherwise having any contact with, anything that was going on at the RNC.

    Older daughter and her husband, younger daughter and her fiance, my husband and I, enjoyed a lovely late-summer evening on the deck with an assortment of Chinese dishes and sushi, birthday cake and presents, followed by the last couple innings of the Orioles blanking the White Sox...all in all, a really nice evening that left me feeling relaxed, and happy - and - the TV was in no danger of having anything thrown at it...

    It doesn't have to be your birthday to give yourself that gift, so I highly recommend it!


    Happy Belated Birthday (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by sj on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:29:41 AM EST
    Thanks, sj! (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:34:42 AM EST
    I will extend my gift to myself by not watching the coverage - I'll read some transcripts to see what I think about what's being said by the major players, but that's as involved as I want to get...

    I probably won't watch the Democratic convention, either - for all the same reasons.


    One reason I'm glad I switched coasts (none / 0) (#19)
    by nycstray on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 10:55:47 PM EST
    less of that a-hole showing up on my local news!! :D

    I find him so offensive.


    Go Ducks (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by fishcamp on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:00:43 AM EST

    I'm watchin Morning Joe (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:24:30 AM EST
    try to make a silk purse out of all the sow ears.  I'm getting the highlights.  Ann Romney spoke about how love gets us through, and then Christie said love makes you pathetic and holds you hostage or something like that, so screw love.  We must all shoot for respected so we won't be such losers.

    This morning (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 08:26:27 AM EST
    on Facebook, a friend of mine put up a post wanting people to advocate FOR their candidate. The rules were you cannot advocate against Romney or Obama as a reason to vote for your candidate and you can't mention social issues. Guess what? Crickets. Nobody can seem to advocate for a candidate this election.

    Caught of Ricky Santorum lowlight... (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 09:07:46 AM EST
    on the news this morning...dude was waxing nostalgic about 1923, when his immigrant parents landed...when there was no such thing as social security, medicare, workplace safety, etc, etc, etc.

    Glad I didn't see anymore than that...unintentional comedy only goes so far.

    I'll read the coverage (none / 0) (#1)
    by cal1942 on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 05:23:52 PM EST

    Don't have the energy to withhold urge to throw something through the TV.

    Me either (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 05:25:46 PM EST
    Later on this week everything is going to be on You Tube anyway if you want to watch it.

    And no doubt... (none / 0) (#3)
    by unitron on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 05:27:41 PM EST
    ...your screen thanks you as well.

    David Schuster on Current TV (none / 0) (#7)
    by brodie on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    reporting that the Romney camp is considering sending the Mittster to NO tomorrow "to show solidarity."

    Al Gore, sitting on the Current pundit panel, doubts in the end this will occur -- takes away from needed local police storm duties, and might remind people of Dubya's terrible Katrina response.

    Boehner seemed kinda drunk today. (none / 0) (#8)
    by magster on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 06:54:53 PM EST
    Here's his youtube of his convention speech from earlier today.

    That "bar bouncer," (none / 0) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 07:11:19 PM EST
     analogy was the wrong one for Boehner.  His speech seemed to be something he cranked out at the nineteenth hole--enough to make us all cry.  

    Nice little discriminatory... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by magster on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    "we don't serve your kind" kind of subtext.

    Boehner (none / 0) (#20)
    by Politalkix on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 11:34:50 PM EST
    thinks that the White House is a bar. Not surprised at all! He must think that Congress is a bar, too. That is why this do nothing Republican controlled House does not do any work but only creates drama. Throw this bum out (along with the rest of his bar fly friends)!

    Ohio State fans... (none / 0) (#12)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 08:09:19 PM EST
    Upon further review... (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 10:17:36 PM EST
    this is a thing now.

    Words fail.


    Not watching... (none / 0) (#13)
    by desertswine on Tue Aug 28, 2012 at 08:10:04 PM EST
    I can't watch that stuff without becoming enraged. Might watch Jon Stewart tho, don't know yet.

    LAT football rankings: (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:13:00 AM EST
    Michigan, no. 7;
    OSU, no. 9;
    no FL.  

    In the AP preseason rankings, Oregon is at 5, (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:46:35 AM EST
    while Michigan comes in at 8.

    We've got a new QB this season, Marcus Marriota, a freshman from Hawaii (hey, Donald, have you ever seen this guy play?)

    As usual, the Ducks are chock-full of guys with pure athletic abilities, not just football players, but athletes.

    Still, our road to the championship runs through USC at least once and probably twice. Now that USC is eligible for post-season play again, I expect they will be very tough to beat. Not impossible, but still tough.


    Encouraging that USC is rated (none / 0) (#48)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 11:30:10 AM EST
    so high and is now Bowl eligible once again.

    On the downside, b/c the Pac12 is underrated compared to their true value and compared to wildly overrated conferences like the SEC, teams like SoCal and Oregon will fall farther and faster in the rankings if they get upset by a conference foe.  Teams from the SEC by contrast have far more room to suffer one or even two intraconference losses, even from middling teams, and still be positioned for a title shot.

    Have I mentioned lately how sick I am of the overpaid, overrated and ratings-privileged SEC?


    I know (none / 0) (#54)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:11:07 PM EST
    you hate to be reminded of this, but the SEC has won 6 straight BCS Titles. They've won 8 overall and that's more than all other conferences combined. The Pac 10 has won one in 14 years (which has since been vacated due to NCAA sanctions against USC), and the Pac 10 lost in their other two appearances.

    The SEC can't be overrated if they keep winning.


    They are overrated, (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 01:59:24 PM EST
    and b/c of the early high ratings for several SEC teams in the BCS era, and thus a high rating for the conference overall, the top league teams are more likely to stay highly rated at or near the top of the polls since a loss in league play by definition means a "quality loss", whereas b/c the other leagues, including the P-12, are relatively underrated, the individual conference losses by non-SEC teams are downgraded in the polls much more severely -- the quality of competition factor.  

    Moreover this system tends to almost ensure at least one SEC team competing for the BCS Championship -- and sometimes two.

    This is not to say the SEC is lousy or doesn't have quality teams. I'm saying the system -- heavily dependent on suspect, subjective pre-season ratings -- is biased and is structured to favor the SEC.  


    Okay (none / 0) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 02:11:54 PM EST
    point taken it it helps get a team in. They've played in the game 8 of the 14 years. They won all 8 times. To be overerated they should have lost at least half.

    The Pac(now)12 has officially never won a BCS Title. That's not underrated. To consider the Pac12 elite when they haven't won would make them the most overrated Conference. as they are the only major conference without a Title.


    Not unimpressive their (none / 0) (#62)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    BCS championship record, but a little less so when you consider that game is (almost?) always played on their home turf -- ie some stadium in the South.  And the biased system is more than just a "help" -- it serves as a major leg up vs the non SEC schools in virtually assuring one SEC team makes it through to the finale, even a team that doesn't win the conference.

    I also understand that the SEC only has a .500 (or slightly worse) record vs the P-12 in regular season games in the BCS era.  Probably would be worse since the top tier SEC squads tend not to schedule any games outside their home region.

    That's true again this year, btw.  The top rated 3 SEC teams -- Alabammy, LSU and Georgia -- will play all their games in their own region (counting Missouri, essentially the south).  What a bunch of overfed wimps.


    And Cruz was their rockstar? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 07:27:18 AM EST

    Magic & Larry on Letterman (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dadler on Wed Aug 29, 2012 at 04:24:01 PM EST
    Classic appearance, and three segments long.  My favorite line, even though I am a lifelong Forum Blue & Gold fan, belongs to Bird: "Everyone loved Ervin...he had that big smile. But y'see my goal was to take three of them teeth home with me every night."

    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3