Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
With friends like these....
NY Times Headline: "Obama’s Stump Speech Boils Down to One Word"
With friends like these....
NY Times Headline: "Obama’s Stump Speech Boils Down to One Word"
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
2012 Presidential Election Part 4
- Thread starter ericredaxe
- Start date
- Status
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
For sure, he's removed any references to "AQ is on the run."
For sure, he's removed any references to "AQ is on the run."
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
The new term of art is "newsatorial." Prime example: the NYT hit piece on McCain's "affair." No named sources. Just quotes from McCain staffers that somebody (the NYT perhaps?) might conclude that McCain's long time platonic association with a female would be construed as an "affair." No suggestion that it was. Only that the staffers were concerned. This the Times puts on the front page, thousands of words. Or the WaPo 5,000 word hit piece on some 45 year old Romney prank from prep school. This is "news?"
Every decision an editor makes, print, radio, TV involves selecting some stories to run, their placement, and the amount of implicit importance given them (how much time, how many sound bites). Conversely, making those decisions also involves leaving some stories out.
It's important how stories are written, too. When Ben Nelson first ran for the Senate from Nebraska, he did so as the incumbent governor. I instructed our reporters that he was to be referred to as "Governor Nelson" in stories having to do with his function as chief executive of the state. However, in campaign stories, he was to be referred to as "Ben Nelson." Ben's a nice guy, whom I like personally, but at least in my little corner of the world, he wasn't going to be permitted to use his job as governor to advance his senatorial ambitions.
The new term of art is "newsatorial." Prime example: the NYT hit piece on McCain's "affair." No named sources. Just quotes from McCain staffers that somebody (the NYT perhaps?) might conclude that McCain's long time platonic association with a female would be construed as an "affair." No suggestion that it was. Only that the staffers were concerned. This the Times puts on the front page, thousands of words. Or the WaPo 5,000 word hit piece on some 45 year old Romney prank from prep school. This is "news?"
Every decision an editor makes, print, radio, TV involves selecting some stories to run, their placement, and the amount of implicit importance given them (how much time, how many sound bites). Conversely, making those decisions also involves leaving some stories out.
It's important how stories are written, too. When Ben Nelson first ran for the Senate from Nebraska, he did so as the incumbent governor. I instructed our reporters that he was to be referred to as "Governor Nelson" in stories having to do with his function as chief executive of the state. However, in campaign stories, he was to be referred to as "Ben Nelson." Ben's a nice guy, whom I like personally, but at least in my little corner of the world, he wasn't going to be permitted to use his job as governor to advance his senatorial ambitions.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Most of the time I feel like the scene in "On the Beach" where they discover the random radio signals aren't being sent by a human, rather by a coke bottle, suspended from a window shade cord, bouncing up and down on the radio key.
Most of the time I feel like the scene in "On the Beach" where they discover the random radio signals aren't being sent by a human, rather by a coke bottle, suspended from a window shade cord, bouncing up and down on the radio key.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
All the more reason to enjoy this last season in the WCHA, Pio.
And renew your hope that Barack Obama's message is real and that he is humanity's hope.
All the more reason to enjoy this last season in the WCHA, Pio.
And renew your hope that Barack Obama's message is real and that he is humanity's hope.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Romney got off a good zinger at the Al Smith dinner about this same subject:
"I can just see the headlines tomorrow about tonight's dinner: 'Obama embraced by Catholics, Romney dines with rich people.'"
For those who haven't seen the full talk, it is surprisingly funny. Romney has a better sense of comic timing than I'd have expected. Sure, many of his jokes were probably written for him, yet he still had to deliver them.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2012/10/19/romney-al-smith-dinner.cnn
Romney got off a good zinger at the Al Smith dinner about this same subject:
"I can just see the headlines tomorrow about tonight's dinner: 'Obama embraced by Catholics, Romney dines with rich people.'"
For those who haven't seen the full talk, it is surprisingly funny. Romney has a better sense of comic timing than I'd have expected. Sure, many of his jokes were probably written for him, yet he still had to deliver them.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2012/10/19/romney-al-smith-dinner.cnn
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
An open response to Anonymous:
You asked me about my statement claiming to be a political independent and how I reconcile that with my recent decision to support Romney the person for President:
If there were a political party that combined Democrats' professed support for social responsibility with Republicans professed support for fiscal responsibility, limited government, and individual liberty, I'd support that party. However, (a) that party doesn't exist, and (b) in practice, both Democrats and Republicans abandon their principles for expediency (Schumer is the biggest defender of carried interest, Bush the big spender who added an entire new cabinet department and requested laws that could be used to restrict civil liberties). I cannot support either one as a result.
So how do I reconcile the apparent contradiction so that I don't have to live with cognitive dissonance?
I choose to view Romney as an apolitical technocrat who loves his country and needed to use a political party as the vehicle by which to be elected President:
> he cut his teeth as a consultant, and by all accounts, a very adept one
> he approached the Republican party with a deal: you select me to be your candidate for President, and in return, I"ll win the election and I really will govern along the lines of Republican principles (not just in lip service but actually in practice*)
> he took a substantial pay cut to rescue the Salt Lake City Olympics from disaster (IIRC, he took $1 in salary; more important was the diversion of his time)
> he has a track record of successfully turning around failing businesses. our government sure needs that expertise at the helm.
> he has a track record of successfully turning around a failing government: as Republican governor in a heavily Democratic state, he was able to take a $3.5 billion budget deficit from when he assumed office and leave behind a $2 billion surplus when he left
> he promised to replace Bernanke if elected. this is huge for me, reason enough all on its own to vote for him
> his choice of Ryan as VP candidate, to me at least, was more about how he would govern after the election and less about finding someone to help him win the election. If Romney is going to be CEO, he needs a good CFO to handle the day-to-day budget negotiations.
> he has an optimistic and forward-looking agenda: his plan is internally consistent across the board, and addresses the key domestic needs we face as a country today
> he gives more money to charity than he pays in taxes. He didn't pass the tax laws; and it's foolish to criticize a person for following the law (criticize the law, not the law-abiding citizen). However, he in effect imposes an "income tax surcharge" by voluntarily redistributing his own wealth every year.
Note that, in the above, I've said nothing whatsoever negative about Obama: every one is a positive reason to support Romney.
Also note that, in the above, there is nothing about supporting Republicans. I feel confident that, if Romney is elected, he will not care about Republican or Democrat; to me he appears to be a passionate technocrat who truly loves his country and wants to see it become great again.
Frankly, I'm probably projecting my own hopes and dreams on to him. Were I to run for President and attain office, the agenda I'd develop wouldn't be very much different from his; and the governing practices I expect from him wouldn't be very different from the governing practices I'd adopt. I don't care for parties or labels, I do care for principles and effective implementation. that's what I finally have seen from him (I was completely turned off on Romney throughout the entire Republican nomination process, he looked to me then like an opportunistic panderer. I belatedly realized that it was instead a long, drawn-out job interview).
I've seen no indication that Romney is anything other than a man of principle. the worst things they could dig up on him was that he cut a kid's hair in high school and put a dog in a kennel on the roof of his car? seriously?
* I use the term "professed" because many times politicians do not live up to their principles. Reports are that Republicans generally were disappointed in Romney's term as governor because he actually did do what he said he was going to to!
An open response to Anonymous:
You asked me about my statement claiming to be a political independent and how I reconcile that with my recent decision to support Romney the person for President:
If there were a political party that combined Democrats' professed support for social responsibility with Republicans professed support for fiscal responsibility, limited government, and individual liberty, I'd support that party. However, (a) that party doesn't exist, and (b) in practice, both Democrats and Republicans abandon their principles for expediency (Schumer is the biggest defender of carried interest, Bush the big spender who added an entire new cabinet department and requested laws that could be used to restrict civil liberties). I cannot support either one as a result.
So how do I reconcile the apparent contradiction so that I don't have to live with cognitive dissonance?
I choose to view Romney as an apolitical technocrat who loves his country and needed to use a political party as the vehicle by which to be elected President:
> he cut his teeth as a consultant, and by all accounts, a very adept one
> he approached the Republican party with a deal: you select me to be your candidate for President, and in return, I"ll win the election and I really will govern along the lines of Republican principles (not just in lip service but actually in practice*)
> he took a substantial pay cut to rescue the Salt Lake City Olympics from disaster (IIRC, he took $1 in salary; more important was the diversion of his time)
> he has a track record of successfully turning around failing businesses. our government sure needs that expertise at the helm.
> he has a track record of successfully turning around a failing government: as Republican governor in a heavily Democratic state, he was able to take a $3.5 billion budget deficit from when he assumed office and leave behind a $2 billion surplus when he left
> he promised to replace Bernanke if elected. this is huge for me, reason enough all on its own to vote for him
> his choice of Ryan as VP candidate, to me at least, was more about how he would govern after the election and less about finding someone to help him win the election. If Romney is going to be CEO, he needs a good CFO to handle the day-to-day budget negotiations.
> he has an optimistic and forward-looking agenda: his plan is internally consistent across the board, and addresses the key domestic needs we face as a country today
> he gives more money to charity than he pays in taxes. He didn't pass the tax laws; and it's foolish to criticize a person for following the law (criticize the law, not the law-abiding citizen). However, he in effect imposes an "income tax surcharge" by voluntarily redistributing his own wealth every year.
Note that, in the above, I've said nothing whatsoever negative about Obama: every one is a positive reason to support Romney.
Also note that, in the above, there is nothing about supporting Republicans. I feel confident that, if Romney is elected, he will not care about Republican or Democrat; to me he appears to be a passionate technocrat who truly loves his country and wants to see it become great again.
Frankly, I'm probably projecting my own hopes and dreams on to him. Were I to run for President and attain office, the agenda I'd develop wouldn't be very much different from his; and the governing practices I expect from him wouldn't be very different from the governing practices I'd adopt. I don't care for parties or labels, I do care for principles and effective implementation. that's what I finally have seen from him (I was completely turned off on Romney throughout the entire Republican nomination process, he looked to me then like an opportunistic panderer. I belatedly realized that it was instead a long, drawn-out job interview).
I've seen no indication that Romney is anything other than a man of principle. the worst things they could dig up on him was that he cut a kid's hair in high school and put a dog in a kennel on the roof of his car? seriously?
* I use the term "professed" because many times politicians do not live up to their principles. Reports are that Republicans generally were disappointed in Romney's term as governor because he actually did do what he said he was going to to!
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Which is what makes a man like Dr. Frank Luntz, famous Republican Strategist, Pollster and author, wealthy for subscribing and writing a book detailing how effective it is to craft words that work. It's not what you say, it's what people hear. Going one step further, it seems our media hears a ton from what isn't said and writes their own conclusions, most often inaccurately and unfairly.
Which is what makes a man like Dr. Frank Luntz, famous Republican Strategist, Pollster and author, wealthy for subscribing and writing a book detailing how effective it is to craft words that work. It's not what you say, it's what people hear. Going one step further, it seems our media hears a ton from what isn't said and writes their own conclusions, most often inaccurately and unfairly.
Foxton
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Unless of course you think taking whatever political position that will get him ahead, even if it directly contradicts his prior held beliefs, is principled.
Probably because you're willfully ignorant or purposely misleading.
Unless of course you think taking whatever political position that will get him ahead, even if it directly contradicts his prior held beliefs, is principled.
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Like "evolving" on gay marriage and closing Gitmo?
Like "evolving" on gay marriage and closing Gitmo?
Foxton
Banned
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
But don't worry, I'm sure if we just stick to the policies that have failed miserably for the past decade, things will turn around. And yes that's an indictment of Obama as well for appeasing the taxes are bad retards when they spent the better part of the last four years kicking and screaming about how no tax can possibly be raised for any reason.
I can't wait for the response about how the dems had a majority for a short period of time. As if we didn't see the republicans use every possible procedure they could in order to stall or destroy every piece of legislation that came up.
If that's the way you want to argue about it then you've just ceded that morally your candidate is no better than Obama. So you then want to base his merit on his policies. Which goes back to Bush's failed plan to create an American empire with overseas wars and setting up monetary policies that lead to the crash that the world economy still hasn't recovered from.
But don't worry, I'm sure if we just stick to the policies that have failed miserably for the past decade, things will turn around. And yes that's an indictment of Obama as well for appeasing the taxes are bad retards when they spent the better part of the last four years kicking and screaming about how no tax can possibly be raised for any reason.
I can't wait for the response about how the dems had a majority for a short period of time. As if we didn't see the republicans use every possible procedure they could in order to stall or destroy every piece of legislation that came up.
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Which agenda? The one he ran on in this year's primaries and most of the summer? Or the one he flipped to about three weeks ago?
If his turn to the center is to be believed, he should have done it a long time ago. That he waited so long makes it hard to believe he's being genuine now.
Which agenda? The one he ran on in this year's primaries and most of the summer? Or the one he flipped to about three weeks ago?
If his turn to the center is to be believed, he should have done it a long time ago. That he waited so long makes it hard to believe he's being genuine now.
Last edited:
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Bush is also responsible for AIDS and the designated hitter. Not to mention the death of Ambassador Stevenes. No, wait.
Bush is also responsible for AIDS and the designated hitter. Not to mention the death of Ambassador Stevenes. No, wait.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Some of His Desperateness' bodyguards in the MSM have finally snapped to the fact that his campaign is small, "peevish," and totally lacking in "hope and change."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/20/Media-Elite-Fret-Over-Obamas-Small-Campaign
Some of His Desperateness' bodyguards in the MSM have finally snapped to the fact that his campaign is small, "peevish," and totally lacking in "hope and change."
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/20/Media-Elite-Fret-Over-Obamas-Small-Campaign
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
He is not my candidate, I throwing my vote away to Johnson. I see no difference between Obama and Romney, they are both bought and paid for.
Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part 4
Bush is responsible for himself, which is condemnation enough.
Bush is responsible for himself, which is condemnation enough.
- Status