Convention junkies can obsess details here!

[joecct]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Looks like The Man With No Name is going to be a speaker.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Looks like The Man With No Name is going to be a speaker.

Squint with Clint?

(Better actor than Reagan, anyway.)

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Looks like The Man With No Name is going to be a speaker.

Is he Thursday's "TBA"? That was my speculation on who it would be; haven't seen anything to give it away however.

Sarah Palin seems to be the consensus pick but I'd think she'd be too polarizing for Mitt.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Still mulling over Chris Christie's speech. It was quite different than what I expected.

First of all, it was really thoughtful. He addressed a Big Idea.

Also an interesting bookend to Mrs. Romney. She said "I want to talk about love" then Mr. Christie shares a life lesson from his mother: "It's better to be respected than to be loved. Love without respect will fade; if you have respect you might also develop love over time."

He wandered a bit too far into the "sacrifice / hard times" territory though. What the Republicans are still failing to do is emphasize the importance of economic growth.

Martin Feldstein has a thought-provoking article in today's Wall St. Journal in which he takes IRS data on revenues collected and shows how Romney's tax plan could indeed remain revenue-neutral while also promoting more economic growth.

that is the single key issue we face, more than cutting spending, more than any other concern: if we can increase the rate of growth of the economy, then many of the other related problems become far less pressing.

The Republicans have always done well as the party of opportunity and optimism; they've not done well when they act like nagging scolds.*

Anyway, Christie did emphasize how Republican governors have promoted teachers while fighting teachers' unions, which was really well done rhetorically. Merit pay for teachers is something most of them want, yet it is also poisonous anathema to the teachers' union leaders. Interesting that the teachers can't shed their leaders, no?


Overall, the first night of the convention was off-key to me. Missed notes left and right. Some great moments, not strung together very effectively.

Won't be able to watch Ms Rice or Mr. Ryan tonight though. The former speech could be interesting for its content, the latter for its homespun humor.




* That's probably the secret as to why regular people vote for them even though they aren't "rich": because they intend to be rich some day. Charles Barkley told that story once.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Oh man, it looks like the Paulistas got rolled on procedure. Tampa actually had its own mini-Chicago '68, but they were able to contain it.

You're supposed to do your jack-boot stuff in conference rooms the way Ford and Reagan knifed each other in '76, guys.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Great speech by Condoleeza Rice last night. She put our educational crisis into a perspective of national defense and global prominence.

"Self-esteeem comes from achievement, not from lax standards and false praise."

Very powerful, coming from a woman raised in Jim Crow Birmingham who couldn't get a hamburger at the counter in Woolworth's as a child, yet whose parents convinced her she could grow up to be President someday, who did grow up to be Secretary of State (and the first female member of Augusta National Golf Club).

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Looks like The Man With No Name is going to be a speaker.

Another theory: Zombie Reagan.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Meanwhile, somebody fact-checked Ryan's speech. It isn't really surprising that it had so many outright falsehoods. What was surprising was they are apparently not even bothering anymore -- they have moved completely into alt-reality mode.

The outright lies:

1. Ryan blamed the US credit rating downgrade on President Obama. But it was caused by the Republican Congress’s threat not to raise the debt ceiling.

2. Ryan continues to claim that President Obama said business owners did not build their own businesses. Obama said that business owners benefit from government infrastructure and programs, which they did not build.

3. Ryan depicted Obamacare as virtually a turn to Soviet-style totalitarianism, as incompatible with liberal freedoms for the individual. But the logical conclusion is that Ryan’s running mate, Mitt Romney, turned Massachusetts into a Gulag.

4. Ryan slammed President Obama for not implementing the deficit-cutting measures recommended by the Simpson-Bowles commission. But he himself voted against Simpson-Bowles.

5. Ryan keeps attacking Prsident Obama’s stimulus program now. But in 2002 when then President George W. Bush proposed stimulus spending, Ryan supported it.

6. Even more embarrassing, in 2010, Ryan asked for $20 million in stimulus money from Obama for companies in his district, then repeatedly denied requesting stimulus funds.

7. Ryan slammed President Obama for the closure of an auto plant that closed in late 2008 under George W. Bush.

8. Ryan charges that Barack Obama has ‘stolen’ $700 billion from medicare for his Obamacare. In fact, these expense reductions do not cut Medicare benefits, and, moreover, Romney and Ryan supported these reductions!


Two others are listed but I don't count them as lies, just creepiness:

9. Ryan continues to push his longstanding plans for a steal-from-the-elderly-and-give-to-the-rich medicare plan, which President Obama warned would cost ordinary recipients over $6000 a year extra. Politifact checked and rated Obama’s charge as correct

10. Ryan neglected to note that under the tax plan he favors, Gov. Mitt Romney would pay less than 1% in annual federal taxes

[Rover]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

From what I've heard of Ryan's speech, I have these thoughts:

1) It was a great speech if the point is to bring conservatives home to the GOP ticket. If it was meant to reach out to the middle? Not so much.

2) Kep brought up something I've seen a bit today which is a bunch of half truths and outright falsehoods in Ryan's speech. I keep coming back to a theme I see time and time again, which is the Republicans are running a campaign from a bygone era. 20+ years ago you could make a speech, and by the time the media got around to fact checking it you could be on to the next point of attack. Nowadays its instant verification.

3) I have no idea who's going to show up at the polls come November, but "whities" have made up less of a % of the voters every election for decades now. In order to get to 50% +1 Mittens will need to outperform George HW Bush's #'s vs the hapless Dukakis amongst these voters. That's a tall order. Not sure a token Condi Rice appearance is going to change that, and its getting a little late in the game to start an outreach now.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Time to fact check you (or is it the dude on the website and you're just a robot?):

1. Ryan blamed the US credit rating downgrade on President Obama. But it was caused by the Republican Congress’s threat not to raise the debt ceiling.

The debt ceiling was raised on August 2nd, and the downgrade was made on August 5th. Right after the debt ceiling was raised, Obama signed more spending into place.

2. Ryan continues to claim that President Obama said business owners did not build their own businesses. Obama said that business owners benefit from government infrastructure and programs, which they did not build.

The government itself does not build the infrastructure. They place a private construction company under contract to build the infrastructure. The only thing the government ever does is tell them where to put it. The businesses then determine the best location not only from the infrastructure placed, but also zoning ordinances.

3. Ryan depicted Obamacare as virtually a turn to Soviet-style totalitarianism, as incompatible with liberal freedoms for the individual. But the logical conclusion is that Ryan’s running mate, Mitt Romney, turned Massachusetts into a Gulag.

Obamacare requires health organizations to cover specific things at cost to the organization, whether or not it is within their beliefs. This means that it gives the government the power to ban those same things, which is then passed to the individual.

4. Ryan slammed President Obama for not implementing the deficit-cutting measures recommended by the Simpson-Bowles commission. But he himself voted against Simpson-Bowles.

If Simpson-Bowles passed, regardless of Ryan's vote, the President still has the duty, under the Presidential oath, to defend the Constitution, which states that it is the executive branch's job to enforce legislation created by the Congress.

5. Ryan keeps attacking Prsident Obama’s stimulus program now. But in 2002 when then President George W. Bush proposed stimulus spending, Ryan supported it.

Perhaps he doesn't support it because of certain things that take place as part of Obama's stimulus, such as handouts instead of true reform.

6. Even more embarrassing, in 2010, Ryan asked for $20 million in stimulus money from Obama for companies in his district, then repeatedly denied requesting stimulus funds.

If it has already been provided, there's nothing that Ryan can do about that. He might as well get a piece of the pie.

7. Ryan slammed President Obama for the closure of an auto plant that closed in late 2008 under George W. Bush.

Which plant?

8. Ryan charges that Barack Obama has ‘stolen’ $700 billion from medicare for his Obamacare. In fact, these expense reductions do not cut Medicare benefits, and, moreover, Romney and Ryan supported these reductions!

Cutting money from Medicare does in fact cut the quantity of benefits. According to Medicare law, not only does the government provide funding for the coverages, but they are the sole provider, under risk of felony, for the coverages.

9. Ryan continues to push his longstanding plans for a steal-from-the-elderly-and-give-to-the-rich medicare plan, which President Obama warned would cost ordinary recipients over $6000 a year extra. Politifact checked and rated Obama’s charge as correct

Is there a clause within there that states that those wishing to receive a service covered by Medicare may pay out of pocket? If so, that actually significantly helps what you consider "the elderly", because it would take what you consider to be "the rich" out of the equation for medicare money provisions.

10. Ryan neglected to note that under the tax plan he favors, Gov. Mitt Romney would pay less than 1% in annual federal taxes

Which, in terms of monetary amounts, is still much more than most people pay.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Meanwhile, somebody fact-checked Ryan's speech.

Um, in my dictionary, the word "fact" does not mean "opinion" yet the list you gave is high on opinion and short on actual data.

[ericredaxe]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

Which plant?

The GM plant in Janesville, WI. It closed in 2008 when GW was in office but Ryan seemed to insiuate that it somehow closed because of Obamas policys.

[Kepler]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

20+ years ago you could make a speech, and by the time the media got around to fact checking it you could be on to the next point of attack. Nowadays its instant verification.

It doesn't matter, though. To pick on FNC for example, but true of any Echo Chamber outlet, the people who get their news from those media (plural) will never encounter any cognitive dissonance because either (1) they will never be exposed to a fact check of the speech, or (2) even if they are, their "double-down in the case of being challenged" aversion to facts will insulate them.

A GOP candidate can say, literally, anything he wants in the post-Ailes world of the all-compassing conservative zeitgeist. The followers can check their talk radio or Conservapedia for verification. The other conservatives they talk to will all have identical sources and opinions. It is a perfect closed circle.

[FreshFish]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The GM plant in Janesville, WI. It closed in 2008 when GW was in office but Ryan seemed to insiuate that it somehow closed because of Obamas policys.

Not so. Ryan said that, during the 2008 campaign, Obama came to the plant, which was already closed, on a campaign stop, and promised that, if he were elected, the plant would be re-opened. Here we are nearly four years later and the plant is still closed.

Now those are all facts:
> Ryan did say these things:
> the plant was closed in 2008
> Obama did visit the plant during the 2008 campaign
> Obama did say during that visit that the plant would be reopened
> the plant is still closed


Now, one can then have an opinion that it's not "fair" to Obama, since he has no direct control over the decisions involved; one can have an opinion that not every campaign promise can be honored, etc. However, to describe something as a "fact"-check and then include in the list things that cannot objectively be verified one way or the other is disingenuous (for example, how can anyone verify what the consequences of a proposed tax law change will be? that cannot possibly be "factual" since it rests upon a hypothesis contrary to fact!!)

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Convention junkies can obsess details here!

The GM plant in Janesville, WI. It closed in 2008 when GW was in office but Ryan seemed to insiuate that it somehow closed because of Obamas policys.

Indirectly, it could still very well be true, especially if Congress had a hand in legislating that decision. Remember, Obama was a Senator. Although his word was diluted out of 100, his voting record (assuming he didn't vote Present) would speak there.