I'm not the mother of all deficit hawks, though. Also, the Gabe from the Office comparison is much more accurate.
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
I'm not the mother of all deficit hawks, though. Also, the Gabe from the Office comparison is much more accurate.

Fixed.
I'm trying to compare this pick to McCain's pick of Palin ... McCain's campaign got a big temporary boost that later probably helped him lose (I think he was going to lose anyways).
This pick can't really generate more excitement at all, seems more like a measure to lock in conservative votes who think Romney is not one of them. They were going to vote for him anyways.
At least the pick is consistent, with Romney picking a guy who like the philosopher who thinks "selfishness is a virtue".
It's similar, but dissimilar. Palin was clearly all sizzle and no steak. Ryan is vaguely steakish. He gives a respectable veneer to the same radical agenda that Palin espoused.
"Vaguely Steakish" should be their new bumper sticker.
Sarah Palin's reaction, posted on her official Facebook:
Quote:
I don't say this lightly, but she is disgusting.
I'm not usually such a stickler for titles, but that's President Obama, you sanctimonious hairdo.
They don't have a word for president in Muslim.
To be fair, she does say "President Obama" several times. Given how often she mentions Obama by name, calling him "President Obama" every time would have been redundant...and yes, I'm surprised that Palin avoided redundancies here, as she does seem to be rather fond of them most of the time. Also, referring to a sitting president by their name only seems to be a pretty common practice, intentional swipe or not...I mean, how often did his critics call former President Bush "George Bush", as in "We don't need more of George Bush's policies"? I think I saw that more often than I did "President Bush", that's for sure. It's not something that bothers me much.
I can't believe I'm defending Palin here, but "Candidate Obama" is clearly referring to Obama in 2008, not currently. Of course, there's nothing coincidental or innocent about how "Candidate Obama" is prominently featured at the beginning of every sentence.
And I never knew Obama was governor of California. I thought it was some Repubilcan ex-actor...
she may have posted that on "her" FB page but there is not a chance in HELL she wrote any of that....oh, I'm sure she put in her 2cents..."could we take out 'President', yah know...because he's not MY president"....but that is nothing more than tea party pablum. It got the stench of Rove-ian influence running all through it.
While driving to work this morning, I saw a billboard that said: OBAMA IS FOR SAME SEX MARRIAGE AND ABORTION! ARE YOU?
Yes I am. Anyone who is against gay marriage doesn't believe in a small government that stays out of people's lives. If your for against abortion, then why aren't you for single payer health care. You think life is scared don't you?
And here you all are paying attention to it for some reason.
I view it like the way one slows down to look at a non-fatal car wreck.
I've been offline for a week and came back to the Ryan news. I think Paul Ryan is straight up scary. Romney won't get any warm fuzzies from this choice and he had a major deficit in that currency to begin with. Ryan's like a sick Dr. Frankenstein with his Randian fantasies and crazy eyes. I don't think this helps Romney at all.
I dare say everyone in here has decided who they are voting for...probably years ago. On the other hand, as a voter in Ohio, I am still looking at this election with a wary eye. I am far from a Romney fan, but I think President Obama has failed on many fronts. Sure, he's struggled against a highly motivated opposition. But most presidents have. But he keeps making misteps such as the recent flap over "You didn't make this" and the dragged out Fast and Furious mess. The economy is slowing rather than speeding up. and that is always a barometer of a President's success. I do regret voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries last time around. He has definitely proven to be a disappointment. Perhaps he was sold as more than he was, but that is the price he has to pay. But I won't vote for Romney, who has proven to be the weakest winner of the weakest Republican offerings in my lifetime.
Does anyone else wonder if the Republican powers that be are offering up Romney as a sacrifice, knowing the world economy is about to go into the tank, and they want Obama in office to take the fall?
"Crap. Now I gotta make an extra stop at Wal-Mart to pick up some more rifle ammo. There goes my Sunday. Jerks."
How is that Obama's fault? If Romney is willing to edit quotes like that, there's really nothing he can do about it.
It's not a one time flub, Cap. He's been saying stupid things about business for his whole term. Remember the Las Vegas flap? It hasn't been hard for Romney to paint Obama as anti-business.
You've got to be fucking kidding. Are you seriously talking about Obama's criticizing of people who used bailout money to go to Las Vegas as being "anti-business"? That was another bit of shameless spin on Romney's part. He's shoehorning quotes to fit his narrative.
"Not allowing huge corporations to do whatever they want" has apparently come to mean "anti-business". It's kind of like how people who don't think Christianity should be the legal religion of the United States are suddenly "anti-religion".
Well...shit.
I actually agree that the environment is a huge deal and the reason I'm consistently to the left. If the right became convincingly green, started pushing for alternative energy, carbon reduction, reforestation and all that shit, but kept all their other horrible policies, I might nevertheless actually vote for them. As horrible as stuff like warrantless wiretapping and religious extremism is, that can be fixed. We only get one planet.
But it's silly to suggest that the economy doesn't matter. It does. It affects people's lives. It's not surprising that people might make that a major issue on which to cast their vote.
Fortunately, there's not much of a conflict here, as the right has demonstrated a complete apathy towards reasonable stewardship of the economy, just as they have towards stewardship of the environment. Most of the economic criticisms towards Obama amount to "he's not cleaning up Bush's mess fast enough." Even assuming that's true, I'm not sure why putting exactly the same people who were behind Bush back in charge is a logical move.
I've actually never had that much trouble with Romney as an individual. His track record isn't great, and he's totally an empty suit, but he governed from the center, generally behaved like an adult, and hey, he saw the value of universal health care. My fear has always been about the degree to which he's beholden to the horrible corporate assholes, and with his pick of Ryan he's made it 100% clear that he's going to go along with the same manipulative wedge politics and economic clear-cutting that Bush did. There won't be any substantial difference between a Romney presidency and Dubya's.
The "you didn't build that" thing is just a perfect example of how desperate Romney is, and again, there only way the president could have prevented that is by not talking. Pretty soon we'll see his campaign editing words instead of sentences to make it seem like the president is saying something else.

I actually agree that the environment is a huge deal and the reason I'm consistently to the left. If the right became convincingly green, started pushing for alternative energy, carbon reduction, reforestation and all that shit, but kept all their other horrible policies, I might nevertheless actually vote for them. As horrible as stuff like warrantless wiretapping and religious extremism is, that can be fixed. We only get one planet.
But it's silly to suggest that the economy doesn't matter. It does. It affects people's lives. It's not surprising that people might make that a major issue on which to cast their vote.
The best way to get people to care about the environment is to put it in terms of economics. The potential to maximize the use of clean energy technology has a very direct impact on everyones wallet's in the long term, so if you don't care about the science or are suspicious of the environmentalist, you will care when energy is cheaper and we don't have to rely on nations that often act against our interests.
This is the thing that really blows my mind. Anyone who is an actual conscious, living being should react to this hypothetical with shrieking terror. The country seems to suffer from some sort of Stockholm Syndrome with the GOP - the George W. Bush administration was an incredible, horrifying disaster from one end to the other, and people have managed to forget that?

The best way to get people to care about the environment is to put it in terms of economics. The potential to maximize the use of clean energy technology has a very direct impact on everyones wallet's in the long term, so if you don't care about the science or are suspicious of the environmentalist, you will care when energy is cheaper and we don't have to rely on nations that often act against our interests.
This should be a sound argument, but the problem is also very rooted in economics - people are simply unwilling, or unable, to accept a higher short-term cost (in terms of more expensive energy - the fact is, oil and coal are incredibly cheap compared to their energy potential, and that isn't going to really change) in exchange for a drastically lower long-term cost (things like, say, a livable planet and an end to the petrowars).

I mostly agree with you, but you are screaming catastrophe to people who believe the scientists saying these things are doing so for political reasons. It doesn't seem to be working at all, and Zhukov is right, the economic argument is harmed by the short term thinking that plagues our planet.
That's why high gas prices are a good thing, but are politically dynamite for a re-election campaign.

For those who haven't read it yet, this is what Dr Harford is talking about:
And it truly is rather terrifying.

This is the thing that really blows my mind. Anyone who is an actual conscious, living being should react to this hypothetical with shrieking terror. The country seems to suffer from some sort of Stockholm Syndrome with the GOP - the George W. Bush administration was an incredible, horrifying disaster from one end to the other, and people have managed to forget that?
Denial is an incredibly strong psychological defense mechanism.
If you can convince yourself that something "bad" hasn't occurred, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, you can continue to live your life like everything is "normal". Of course, hiding from the "truth" could very well cause all sorts of compounded psychological issues down the line.
IMO, if the hardcore electorate that supported GW Bush 199% were ever to admit to themselves that he and his administration were actually the colossal fuckups that they truly were, their worldview would collapse.
"If we were wrong about Dubya, that means that we could be wrong about other things...you mean Palin isn't smart and the bible isn't 100% true...ahhh crap...."<Scanners explosion>
Denial leads to willful ignorance and then all bets are off....
From the New Republic:
Having said all that, there is a rationale for picking Ryan. It just has little to do with strengthening Romney’s chances this fall. In recent weeks, the presidential race has fundamentally changed. Where the polling once showed Obama with a consistent but easily-surmountable lead, it now shows the race moving out of reach for Romney. As the sober minds at NBC’s political unit put it yesterday:
[W]hen the Olympics began, we wrote that we were basically at halftime of the general election -- and Obama had a narrow lead. Well, it’s a little bigger than that now. (People may want to quibble, but you can’t dismiss every poll on sampling.) There’s clearly movement toward the president and clearly problems for Romney personally.
Predictably, this development has unnerved conservatives, who correctly view Team Romney as whiffing on a once-in-a-generation chance against an incumbent president (albeit for the wrong reasons). The most recent outburst resulted in a fatwa against Romney’s perfectly anodyne press secretary, who had the temerity to channel Romney’s pride over his Massachusetts health care law, which is undeniable.
So, to review, the key recent development is that Romney is poised to lose a race he should by all rights be winning, and conservatives are poised to blame this loss on his ideological moderation. (He not only gave people health care, he wants credit for it!). Against this backdrop, the rationale for the Ryan pick strikes me as pretty clear: Ryan is the way Romney and his aides escape blame for their now-likely defeat—blame which would have vicious and unrelenting—and pin it in on conservatives instead. With only minor historical revisions, they will be able to tell a story about how Romney was keeping the race close through early August, at which point the party’s conservative darling joined the ticket and sent the poll numbers into steady decline.
According to this narrative, the campaign will merely be guilty of a political misdemeanor—being bullied by conservatives into a lousy running mate—not the felony of strategically miscalculating against a historically weak incumbent (which is where the existing storyline was headed). That’s a plea bargain any right-minded politico would take, even if they didn’t consciously consider it in those terms. Moreover, there’s a whiff of Pascal’s Wager to the whole gambit: God (in this case, political salvation through ideological extremism) may not exist. But you don’t lose anything by pretending he does. And, who knows, he may surprise you!
Better still, this won’t just be good for Romney’s historical reputation, and for the future career prospects of his campaign team. It will be good for the entire GOP. Pre-Ryan, a Romney loss would have led to the nomination of a Neanderthal in 2016—someone, like Rick Santorum, who could say he warned the party against a candidate too moderate to take on Obama. Post-Ryan, a Romney loss will be read as a Goldwater-esque act of ideological self-immolation, which the party must resist at all costs if it hopes to win another election. Paradoxically, the Ryan pick is both selfish and selfless at the same time.
What it isn’t, as all the commentators keep insisting, is “bold.” It’s a highly risk-averse move—one that assumes a loss and tries to make the best of it. In that respect, Romney is staying true to himself till the bitter end.
I'm not sure I buy the argument that they picked Ryan as a scapegoat. I mean, desperate campaigns do desperate moves, but at this level ... plan for failure already? Doubtful.
I think it's worse than that. The Republican Party really thinks that the rest of America will think Ryan is as awesome as they think he is.
I don't think Ryan is a scapegoat either. I assumed he was picked to appease the base. It made Palin happy, so I guess its working. I don't know why a quitters opinion would matter, but to some people it does.
The you didn't make this thing is 100% pure spin. As soon as every factory in America is responsible for building all the roads that lead to it and educating their entire workforce, they can claim to have done it themselves.
The "You didn't build that" speech was taken out of context but it was a dumb line. Even adding "on your own" at the end of that would have helped. I think Obama has run a very good summer campaign but that line was a big misstep. Thankfully, Romney keeps doing really dumb shit. See Mitt's VP selection and immediately running away from his running mate's whole reason for being picked.
Obama talks about climate change as a reality. Romney won't admit that in public. If climate change is your worry (as it is mine and everyone else who is sane's) then Romney/Ryan is some kind of suicide pact.
I used to think Romney was a sacrifice but I don't anymore. The tact the big money is taking isn't to say that Romney's good, it's to say that Obama is the antichrist. Virtually everyone I know who is right of center believes this and no amount of logical arguments will sway them. They will overlook everything to get rid of Obama. All this sturm and drang because Obama wants to raise the millionaires' taxes a few percentage points. That's politics in America these days.
"Hmm, well on the one hand the Republicans hate gays, the poor, minorities and are vociferously racist in many parts of the country. But on the other hand the President HAS made a stupid comment or two....wow, this is HARD!"
