Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
disco

2012 Election

Recommended Posts

Hey, it's everyone versus me here! I don't have time for interpretation! :rolleyes:

 

Maybe you were joking, but nearly everyone else was not. Though going back and reading it, I still don't see any indication that you were joking. :huh:

 

-edit- I have a lefty friend that SWEARS by the 538 blog. I know all about it. Ever since the rest of the polling organizations and RCP started showing Romney ahead, he only relies on 538 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about Sudekis' Romney. Romney's a bland guy and doesn't really have any specific traits that make him who he is, unlike many other political figures. I don't see how it would be that difficult to impersonate him.

 

I still think SNL's Sarah Palin skit helped create such a negative reaction against her. People saw how idiotic she was.

 

Meh. I have mixed feelings about that.

 

On one side, I am very happy that both McCain and Palin were the candidates in 2008, because it was an impossible-to-win year for the GOP. In one fell swoop, that election removed McCain's AND Palin's prospects of ever becoming nationally viable as candidates. Palin will never be in politics again, though she does have some influence in conservative media- too much, IMO. Her influence there has much less parity than all of the other dozens of influential figures in conservative media, thereby muting her voice. There's no way she'd ever be as influential as someone like Victor Davis Hansen or Deroy Murdoch. The 2008 election ensured that we never have to "waste" an election to find out if Palin is POTUS/VPOTUS material. If it was going to happen, I would have rather it happened in a year the GOP was never going to win anyway, instead of an election like this year where the GOP actually has a chance.

 

On the other hand, Palin was politically raped for the two months after the 2008 GOP Convention. I have NEVER seen a candidate treated as badly as she was, deserving or undeserving. She was viciously savaged in every way politically possible, in ways that should make people with conscience ashamed. I'll be the first person to tell you that she's not exactly the smartest knife in the drawer or even a good politician. But the disrespect shown her by political and entertainment figures (Maher, CK Lewis, for example) would never have been accepted if shown to a Democratic woman. It was absolutely disgusting. In my opinion, it's truly a version of the "where are the moderate Muslims?" question I hear so much: where were the Democrats that were standing up for Palin, if anything for just a more respectful tone to be shown? I never found any.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The SNL skit helped express a repressed piece of collective understanding. We all knew that a half-term governor from Alaska had no business being one heartbeat away from being President, but they helped make it completely simple and clear to understand. Just as SNL in 2000 made Al Gore be the inhuman automaton that he came across as, SNL in 2008 helped people realize just how completely incompetent Palin was at the task assigned to her. They didn't make fun assumptions about Palin or invent new scenarios - they took existing situations, used her own quotes, and made it perfectly plain that, my god, there is no way in hell this person is qualified.

 

There were two consequences. The first is that Palin became delegitimized in the minds of a majority of the US population, which is what I was mentioning earlier. The second is what fuels your second paragraph - the invention of Palin as an innocent martyr, set upon by vicious leftists in the media and in politics, who thereby helped propel Obama into office (yes, it also fits well with the Republican narrative of "he stole it!" but I'll leave that aside). That is why her supporters run up and cry at her rallies, that's why she has op-eds and appears on Fox news. She is supported so rabidly precisely because she is seen as a victim of some evil machinations.

 

In short, the revealing of Sarah Palin as utterly unqualified was the cause of her political demise and the cause of her media celebrity.

 

Relating to the actual criticism of Palin and whether or not its fair, I don't really care. This person is presumably going to be next in line for President. If that person can't handle 2 months worth of media scrutiny, or has enough holes in her background that the media can run amok with hilarious anecdotes, or fails miserably at incredibly easy interview questions (can't name a newspaper?), then that person doesn't deserve to be President. Can't stand the pressure, don't gun for the job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But the disrespect shown her by political and entertainment figures (Maher, CK Lewis, for example) would never have been accepted if shown to a Democratic woman. It was absolutely disgusting. In my opinion, it's truly a version of the "where are the moderate Muslims?" question I hear so much: where were the Democrats that were standing up for Palin, if anything for just a more respectful tone to be shown? I never found any.

Oh comon now. We as a society are past the respectful and nice stage. The internet prevents that from ever occuring again.

 

For every comment again Palin's children, or hacking her phone, there's a person out there who thinks Obama is a nazi, socialist, muslim nigger who's mission is that of the antichrist trying to destroy christian america.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I don't want to be in the position of defending Palin and I have no interest in doing so. My comments are a repudiation of the political climate in general and those that feel it's okay to call women with whom they disagree cunts and bitches.

 

The SNL skit helped express a repressed piece of collective understanding. We all knew that a half-term governor from Alaska had no business being one heartbeat away from being President, but they helped make it completely simple and clear to understand. Just as SNL in 2000 made Al Gore be the inhuman automaton that he came across as, SNL in 2008 helped people realize just how completely incompetent Palin was at the task assigned to her. They didn't make fun assumptions about Palin or invent new scenarios - they took existing situations, used her own quotes, and made it perfectly plain that, my god, there is no way in hell this person is qualified.

 

Well, actually they did make up quotes and assign them to her. I can't tell you how many people I've talked to that said Palin said she can see Russia from her house.

 

And I don't care about the SNL skits. Everyone knows they are parody. I laughed along with everyone else at her.

 

There were two consequences. The first is that Palin became delegitimized in the minds of a majority of the US population, which is what I was mentioning earlier. The second is what fuels your second paragraph - the invention of Palin as an innocent martyr, set upon by vicious leftists in the media and in politics, who thereby helped propel Obama into office (yes, it also fits well with the Republican narrative of "he stole it!" but I'll leave that aside). That is why her supporters run up and cry at her rallies, that's why she has op-eds and appears on Fox news. She is supported so rabidly precisely because she is seen as a victim of some evil machinations.

 

WTF are you talking about? I don't know where you got this "Obama stole it" meme from, but it's ridiculous. I read a LOT of punditry and I've never read that. Maybe you got it from reading comments from people, but as I've said before, if you get your opinions of a party from the worst of its people, the problem is you, not them.

 

And I do agree that the big reason that Palin is popular NOW is because she is viewed as the innocent victim of evil machinations.

 

Relating to the actual criticism of Palin and whether or not its fair, I don't really care. This person is presumably going to be next in line for President. If that person can't handle 2 months worth of media scrutiny, or has enough holes in her background that the media can run amok with hilarious anecdotes, or fails miserably at incredibly easy interview questions (can't name a newspaper?), then that person doesn't deserve to be President. Can't stand the pressure, don't gun for the job.

 

Here's the problem with your statement: Palin was made out to be a caricature of conservatism as a whole, except it was acceptable to say those things about her because she is a woman. I agree, if she can't stand the pressure or isn't competent enough to be POTUS, that much will show out. She's not smart. She had no idea what she was doing and should have declined McCain's offer for the VP. But she didn't because she's ridiculously self-unaware and prideful in thinking that she had what it took to be on the national stage.

 

I'm not talking about her lack of qualifications and you know I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about misogyny from your side of the political aisle that went completely unchecked. I'm talking about the problem that Democrats have with black people and women that express themselves as conservatives, how they are treated WITHOUT REBUKE by Democrats. Or at least, none that I've seen.

 

For every comment again Palin's children, or hacking her phone, there's a person out there who thinks Obama is a nazi, socialist, muslim nigger who's mission is that of the antichrist trying to destroy christian america.

 

Well, again, as I told disco, those comments are likely made by rank and file regular people, Democrats and Republicans, and if you need to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find your opinion about a side with which you disagree, the problem is you. Calling Palin a cunt, bitch, the comments about her kids, etc., were all made by PROMINENT DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS, the opinion-makers/validators of the party. With no rebuke or repudiation. At all. From the party that is supposedly in favor of women's equality and respect.

 

Debate's on. Let's see if someone pulls out a win tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say that my earlier statements about Palin still stand. Yes, SNL is satire. But great satire points out truths that nobody wants to admit. Swift said that the Irish children should be raised for meat harvesting, and SNL said that Palin can see Russia from Alaska, pointing to proof of her bona fides - which, by the way,

. They both point to truths that everyone realizes but doesn't openly say. That's why I respect the great comedians - the Bill Hicks, the Richard Pryors, the George Carlins of the world - because they are experts in this art. SNL, in 2008, revealed that it is utter stupidity to think that Palin was qualified for president. That's the primary point I was interested in making.

 

The secondary point is that the villification of Sarah Palin by the media, reflecting this newly-revealed truth, led to her media celebrity. I don't care that Bill Maher called her a cunt. That kind of bullshit comes with running for President, and that's what she was doing. Obama was called everything from Kenyan to Muslim. Stupid stuff like that happens during elections today, sadly. You can talk all you want about media civility, about ugly discourse in politics, but you can't point to Palin as unfairly singled out - because she wasn't. Every politician running for office faces that kind of scrutiny. She wasn't singled out because she's conservative, or because she's a woman, or because she's a conservative woman (what Fox would like to say). She was put through the same rigors that every other politician running on the national stage is put through. Turns out that, under that scrutiny, she was revealed as wholly incompetent. And that's what SNL pointed out for everyone to see.

 

Finally, debate. We have airplane carriers now. Planes land on them. Polling put Obama at +8%

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE-OCDexYrU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to expand on a point I didn't mention in the previous one, my thesis involving "he stole it." It is part of a broad strategy to dismiss Obama as an illegitimate president. Its roots are in the birther bullshit, but it extends further. Allow me to connect the dots.

 

The phrase "take this country back" is commonly used, which of course implies that Obama took it. A supporting argument here is reflected in statements Mr Cat himself has made, arguments which claim that Obama either deceived the public or charmed the shit out of them and made them stop thinking clearly. They reject the idea that Obama got elected on a platform and instead prefer to argue that Obama got elected on fleeting emotional inklings (hope and change). This is a way of de-legitimizing anything that Obama wants to do. Healthcare? Well, Obama only got elected because he charmed the shit out of a bunch of unthinking dolts (not me!), so healthcare is stupid!

 

The fact of the matter is that Republicans lost touch with America. They were soundly defeated in 2006 and 2008. Their economic policies (admittedly with Democrat support, including Clinton) put this country in the worst economic recession since the Great Depression. But their current platform is largely a doubling-down on those economic principles. The Tea Party, especially, is basically neoliberalism meets social conservatism. Obviously, they can't sell themselves in that way. So what do they do? They argue that Obama is illegitimate, that he is a charm machine devoid of substance, which makes his proposals not a viable alternative to be considered but instead the ramblings of an empty-minded idealist dreamer. How convenient. Now there's only one course to think about: the one which Republicans are selling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is like saying, "Everything happens for a reason."

 

I actually think a lot of people have the belief that God lets bad things happen. What he said is not controversial. That he said it...well, that was less than shrewd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The statement "everything happens for a reason" is really an attempt, after the fact, to provide a sense of order to a universe that is inherently predictable. By saying "everything happens for a reason," a person attempts to fit a truly random event into a cosmology which is ordered, logical, and above all predictable. And none of those adjectives truly describe the world we live in.

 

The above reasoning is one of the first steps I took as a teenager when I came to reject my Christian upbringing. But that's another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be quite a different thing for a raped woman who becomes pregnant to make peace with her baby by stating that she believes that the baby is God's gift to her, than it is for a lawmaker to express his belief that raped women who become pregnant are being gifted by God.

 

What happened to the days where the Republicans just expressed a somewhat slower adoption of social progressivism, heightened emphasis on military preparation, and conservative fiscal policy? Watching these guys try to drive us back to the dark ages just makes me vomit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Somewhat slower adoption of social progress" is being pretty generous. They've consistently been in direct opposition to social progress (DOMA, opposing the Civil Rights Act) for a very long time. They aren't in favor of slowing progress, they're in favor of stopping it. This is the party that refuses to accept scientific consensus on evolution and global warming.

 

They also do not at all deserve their reputation for fiscal conservatism. Reagan exploded the federal deficit, and Bush added trillions more to it. Paul Ryan had no qualms voting for both wars and the prescription drug act without bothering to fund any of them. But suddenly, Obama gets elected, and the federal debt is zomg #1 issue must fix!

 

They're out of touch on social issues and are hypocrites, at best, opportunists at worst, on fiscal responsibility. So they believe in a strong military. Who doesn't? They're losing women by two digits, their Hispanic gap is something like 30-40%, and their black gap is about the same. Their biggest constituency is southern Christian white males. If they continue on their current path, they're going to be completely irrelevant in a couple of cycles.

 

Maybe when they lose this election they'll kick the crazies out of their party and actually re-invent themselves as something which is more palatable to more people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

 

During Tuesday night's debate with his Democratic challenger Joe Donnelly, Mr Mourdock was asked whether he believed abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.

 

"I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realise that life is that gift from God," he said.

 

"And, I think, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×