Parked back in front of the tube, watching Biden now. He is doing a pretty good job and after his schmaltzy opening homage to his wife, its all about Barack Obama.
He's pounding home the importance of the GM and Chrysler rescues, contrasting Obama's approach to Mitt Romney's instincts on the issue.
And now Biden plays to economic nationalism, something to which I have no objection, but Sully is probably weeping.
Biden is really such an old-fashioned politician, an old-school Irish pol filled with a kind of unself-conscious blarney and sentiment. He's really an almost pre-television kind of figure, someone who probably projects better live than on television. (Although not always -- I saw him live one time where he got into full on blather mode, dragging on interminably and costing fellow candidate Obama about 15 minutes of his allotted time.) Not the greatest of speeches, but one that I think was helpful to Obama both in terms of humanizing the President as a partner, while also emphasizing the decisiveness of Obama's character.
I haven't seen too much this evening, so I will probably have to go back and check out the Kerry and Granholm speeches which were both supposed to be pretty compelling.
And now on to the main event.
With the preliminaries over, he riffs briefly on what "hope" means and how it differs from wishful thinking. We face stark choices, with "two fundamentally different versions of the future." He invokes his grandparents as members of the greatest generation who were part of something bigger and derived the benefits of a society of mutual obligation.
The Republicans: "They want your vote, but they don't want you to know their plan." And the only plan is the magic of tax cuts for the wealthy.
"Climate change is not a hoax." Yes.
Sully and I just had the same thought -- that this feels a little bit more like a state of the union address than a convention speech. (And a rather Clintonesque one at that.)
"When you take off your uniform, we will serve you as well as you served us." Take that Romney.
However, "challenges remain."
Romney and Ryan as foreign policy amateurs -- blustering and blundering all over the world.
And after a slow build, a crescendo about the absurdity of tax cuts for the wealthy.
And now a very strong defenses of Medicare (never a voucher program on his watch) and Social Security (not going to hand it over to Wall Street).
Good riff on rights, responsibilities, citizenship, and solidarity.
"I'm no longer just a candidate, I'm the President." And a sense of the enormity of what that means.
And now back to hope -- after all of the sober and realistic talk -- "ours is a future filled with hope."
"Everyone gets a fair shot and everyone does his fair share." Nice.
"We leave no one behind."
And yes, "We Take Care of Our Own."
I think it was a really good speech, with a really strong ending. Very sure in tone, both sober and uplifting.
I was struck by the amount of humility in the speech, contra to the notion that he is aloof and arrogant.
Join in by all means.
Kerry was terrific. What I liked best was his content was fresh, not a rehash of the talking points everyone seems to be using. This is the Kerry that could have, should have been president.
I love Joe B. Funny, in all the build up to his speech, no one mentioned his forte, his knowledge of and skills related to foreign relations. It's as if he jumped out of Scranton and into the Naval Observatory. No, that's not how it happened. I remember what you did, Joe, and many of us still love you for it.
Sorry to miss the first few hours, including Gabby's pledge and John Lewis's speech. I'll have to look for both on YouTube. If anyone has links, please post.
Posted by: paula | September 06, 2012 at 10:26 PM
"take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations, and call me in the morning." -- the prez
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 10:33 PM
re more like state of union -- well, he IS the sitting president.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 10:44 PM
oooh, zinger: "my opponent and his running mate are 'new' to foreign policy." and ha: russia is not our #1 enemy. also: maybe when one visits the olympics, it would be a good idea not to disrespect our closest ally.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 10:47 PM
"It's time to do some nation-building right here at home." - Barack Obama
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 06, 2012 at 10:48 PM
"i refuse to go along with that" -- OK, he is on fire now.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Now he's revving up..."I will never turn Medicare into a voucher."
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 06, 2012 at 10:51 PM
citzenship. how 'bout that?
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 10:52 PM
kathy,
I agree on the SOTU issue -- when you have a record and you sit in the office, you have to campaign a bit in prose.
But I think the speech has been building nicely and offers the stark choice posed in the election.
Posted by: Sir Charles | September 06, 2012 at 10:55 PM
the election four years ago wasn't about me -- it was about you. it was your change.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 10:55 PM
it has had a very nice build, and the citizenship section was wonderfully constructed and delivered
Posted by: big bad wolf | September 06, 2012 at 10:59 PM
i am really liking this part about things being about "you" -- about us -- about "hope" resting with all of us, not with one person.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 11:01 PM
bbw and kathy,
I agree and I agree.
Posted by: Sir Charles | September 06, 2012 at 11:07 PM
A strong finish - he may have made better speeches, but this was more than good enough.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 06, 2012 at 11:14 PM
it was a good speech -- not his most flamingly hot one ever, but overall pretty damned perfect. and yes, SC, he is humble -- not in the sense of rolling over, but in the sense that he has the heavy burden of actually looking out for everyone.
which, ya know, is not what the moneybags team is about.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Michelle, Patrick,Strickland, Ledbetter, Warren, Schweitzer, Castro, Biden -- cohesive, focused,inspiring. Perhaps too many of the same phrases beaten into the ground, but also some unique but voices, like Chaffee, Kerry, Crist. BHO did not disappoint. He said all the right things, and then some. In those last few moments, he sounded and gestured like Martin, and that scared me.
Posted by: paula | September 06, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Citizenship theme was his best theme. We should here more of that in the campaign. Dems crushed repubs in conventions. On to the debates.
Posted by: Abonilox | September 06, 2012 at 11:39 PM
john kerry. love the beginning, when he talks about the GOP hopefuls "outsourcing" foreign policy.
he is really strong. whoo -- "the most inexperienced twosome to have run for the oval office in decades." and -- "mr. romney, before you debate barack obama on foreign policy, you'd better finish the debate with yourself." damn, he's full of facts, and also funnier than i recalled.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 11:41 PM
When he speaks from the heart, Kerry is a giant.
Posted by: paula | September 06, 2012 at 11:51 PM
gabby giffords.
get the tissues out. she is gorgeous and determined. and she bears the damage of our freaking idiotic gun policies -- in her gait, her inability to raise her right arm, difficulties with words. wasserman-schultz has been and is her strong ally. (and, i venture to say, ours.)
Posted by: kathy a. | September 06, 2012 at 11:51 PM
kathy,
Thanks for the Kerry link. I was looking for it at that very moment. Very solid stuff.
As for Gabby Giffords, if that didn't make you cry, you've got no heart.
Posted by: Sir Charles | September 06, 2012 at 11:57 PM
rep. john lewis, reflecting on the civil rights movement, and his experience as a freedom rider.
omg, he talks about an officer who went, a couple years ago, to apologize for beating him and the others. "brothers and sisters, do you want to go back? or do you want to keep america moving forward?"
your vote is the most precious non-violent tool we have. and some GOP officials are trying to stop you from voting. (more tissues recommended.) "i have seen this before. i have lived this before." too many people have suffered and died to make it possible for us to vote. we must march to the polls like never before.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 12:07 AM
reformed former GOP governor charlie crist. i love a good reformation story. also: seniors, home foreclosures, the gulf oil spill; reagan, leadership, football, middle class. "we must come together."
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 12:27 AM
All I can say is we certainly needed what this convention brought us. I had no idea how deflated my soul was, until I found the tears welling up. The genius behind this convention led us on a spiritual retreat with our very own zen master, to a concert where we already knew the words and just needed a musical cue to bring it all back. Thank you, DNC, great job. I don't care who says what about the rhetoric, half truths, manipulation of facts or shallowness of message. I needed this event to stay afloat in the river of extremist rhetorical slop that has nearly engulfed us and, I suspect, millions of others needed it too.
I,for one, will wake up happy tomorrow.
Posted by: paula | September 07, 2012 at 12:34 AM
ted strickland, former ohio gov., from a couple days ago. big on workers, middle class, and auto industry. on fire. "mitt romney never saw the point of building something when he could profit by tearing it down." "even his money needs a passport."
on welfare to work, romney is lying. and on his tax returns, he is hiding.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 12:39 AM
Thanks for the links, kathy. I'll watch them tomorrow. I don't have many regrets about the things I've done or not done, but do wish I had been on that first bus with John Lewis, Diane Nash and others. Talk about giants.
Posted by: paula | September 07, 2012 at 12:39 AM
cheers, paula! and agreed.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 12:40 AM
l-t-c, in the previous thread you asked about House races. The DCCC has a Red to Blue site with candidates (Googlable), but it's full of blue dog Dems. A better choice might be Blue America at Act Blue's pages.
Here's what they say about their job: "Blue America doesn't work in safe districts where our help isn't needed. We look for tough races where a little encouragement, some financial help and some advice could go a long way, especially with candidates unlikely to get much help from the DCCC or the DSCC."
Posted by: Linkmeister | September 07, 2012 at 03:35 AM
As usual lately, the private employment number was better than the overall employment number, rising by 103K while government shed 7,000 jobs.
Not a very encouraging employment number. And the decline in the unemployment rate has more to do with shrinkage in the labor force participation rate than people going back to work. The employment/population ratio is unchanged at 58.3%, pretty much where it's been for years now.Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 08:40 AM
Damn, I've got the numbers up before Atrios or Benen. They're slacking this morning. ;^)
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 08:42 AM
the more i think about it, citizenship is at the core of the entire campaign -- shared responsibility, providing opportunity, inclusion, the future.
it is such a contrast to the country-club-membership views of the GOP. this is not a club, where more goodies flow to those paying a higher fee, and those who can't pay are left outside the gate. the tactics of fear-mongering and division arise naturally from this cramped, entitled, heartless view. their objective is more power, and they plan to get there not by proving a commitment to fairness for all, but by appealing to resentment and suggesting that junior memberships (and a free ticket to heaven!) may be had by sticking with the rich white guys.
"us" means, to obama/biden, all of us who work hard and try to do right, who honor the work of others and share their burdens. to the GOP, "us" is best understood in the context of "us vs. them," and it is also understood that "they" are losers, outsiders, unworthy.
and so we have race-bating; we have wave after wave of encroachments on women's autonomy and access to health care; we have welfare queens, charges of "elitism" for wanting all to have access to education, endless rants about government regulations. guns for all; health care for those who can afford it. wars aplenty (somehow, that is not figured to increase costs) -- but absolutely no attention to servicemembers, their families, or vets. more tax cuts for the rich, and slashing safety nets (costs too much). voter disenfranchisement. "jokes" about birth certificates. "trust me" as the detailed policy plans. ayn rand as the defacto head of domestic policy. yosemite sam as the defacto head of foreign policy.
the DNC was so good for reminding us of the real issues. and so affirming for doing so without resorting to the confirmed, deliberate idiocy and hatefulness that we have seen from the other side.
(hatefulness is a strong word. that is, however, how i feel when my rights and legitimacy are attacked; when my experiences and my friends are attacked as illegitimate; when all but the anointed are treated as chattel, if not outright traitors.)
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 12:13 PM
John Kerry: "Mr. Romney, here's a little advice: before you debate Barack Obama on foreign policy, you'd better finish the debate with yourself."
"Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV."
Kerry rocked, no question about it. As Josh Marshall said, "It’s like John Kerry’s been sitting on a big can of whoop-ass for 8 years."
I've never stopped believing that he would have made an excellent President. There's talk that he'll succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and he'd do a fine job there, too.
And did you hear Jennifer Granholm? "He loves our cars so much, they have their own elevator. But the people who design, build and sell those cars? Well, in Romney’s world, the cars get the elevator; the workers get the shaft."
Practically everyone speaking at this convention has been downright proud of Obamacare, and the party's stands on abortion and gay rights. I feel like a broken record here, but what the fuck happened? All of a sudden, this party has stopped trying to run away from itself. Did Barack Obama get hold of the Infinite Improbability Drive or something?
Whatever the explanation, it's been a joy to watch speaker after speaker stand up for the things that Dems have so often run away from, and almost gleefully take a two-by-four to Romney, the Republicans, and everything they stand for.
I'd say I'll miss calling them the Scared Rabbit Party, except if this holds up, no, I won't miss it one bit.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 01:03 PM
John Kerry: "Mr. Romney, here's a little advice: before you debate Barack Obama on foreign policy, you'd better finish the debate with yourself."
"Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from Alaska. Mitt Romney talks like he's only seen Russia by watching Rocky IV."
Kerry rocked, no question about it. As Josh Marshall said, "It’s like John Kerry’s been sitting on a big can of whoop-ass for 8 years."
I've never stopped believing that he would have made an excellent President. There's talk that he'll succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and he'd do a fine job there, too.
And did you hear Jennifer Granholm? "He loves our cars so much, they have their own elevator. But the people who design, build and sell those cars? Well, in Romney’s world, the cars get the elevator; the workers get the shaft."
Practically everyone speaking at this convention has been downright proud of Obamacare, and the party's stands on abortion and gay rights. I feel like a broken record here, but what the fuck happened? All of a sudden, this party has stopped trying to run away from itself. Did Barack Obama get hold of the Infinite Improbability Drive or something?
Whatever the explanation, it's been a joy to watch speaker after speaker stand up for the things that Dems have so often run away from, and almost gleefully take a two-by-four to Romney, the Republicans, and everything they stand for.
I'd say I'll miss calling them the Scared Rabbit Party, except if this holds up, no, I won't miss it one bit.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 01:05 PM
If anyone says, "You can say that again," I'll reach through the Interwebs and smack 'em. ;^)
Damned post wouldn't show up, wouldn't show up, and wouldn't show up, so finally I posted it a second time, and it showed up twice.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 01:08 PM
yeah, my post disappeared, then appeared. and another has disappeared....
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 01:18 PM
grandholm = On Fire.
tammy duckworth at the DNC. wonderful.
and here is the GOP representative she is running against, claiming she only cares about her outfit and rubbing elbows with the dem big-wigs. also, she's not a hero, because she talks about her service.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 01:37 PM
Now, some electoral math:
Steve Benen notes that Romney's aiming an ad barrage at Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Nevada, Iowa, and New Hampshire.
But not Pennsylvania, Michigan, or even Wisconsin.
It's already been noted that Karl Rove's and the Koch Brothers' organizations have also abandoned those last three states.
So apparently it really does just come down to the bolded 8 states. And really not even all of them, since while North Carolina's certainly in play, it's the icing on the cake for Team Obama: nobody expects Obama will, say, lose Florida, Virginia, and Ohio, but win North Carolina. It's just that as long as it's in play, Team Romney can't take that chance, so they've got to bombard it with ads anyway.
So let's assume that Romney wins all the McCain states, plus Indiana and Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. And Obama wins everything he won in 2008, minus those states, and the bolded states above, which we call tossups, even if they're leaning heavily one way or the other.
That gives us a starting point of 247 EVs for Obama - just 23 shy of victory - and 191 for Romney.
You can all but toss away your calculators. What it comes down to is that Obama's all but certain to win the election if he wins ANY of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. And Romney's all but certain to win if he wins ALL of those three states.
Here's the breakdown:
Florida: if Obama wins Florida, he wins, period.
Ohio: if Obama wins Ohio, Romney has to sweep all of the other tossups to win outright. He could lose NH and sweep the others to throw the election into the House.
Virginia: if Obama wins Virginia, then Romney must (a) win the other three big tossups (FL, OH, NC), AND (b) win three out of the four smaller tossups (CO, NV, NH, Iowa) to win the election or (by winning specifically NV, NH, Iowa) throw the election into the House.
On the other hand, if Romney sweeps FL, VA, and OH, and we assume that nets him NC as well, then Obama would need to win all four of the smaller tossups (CO, NV, NH, Iowa) to win the election.
So it's essentially a three-state election. If you know people who live in those three states, be thinking about how to persuade them to vote for the right guy.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 01:45 PM
i want to go back to something seemingly small in clinton's speech, about the GOP's evisceration of medicaid + medicare. a balloon juice post started looking at that. i say "started," because the beginning thesis was that medicare doesn't cover everything, like extended nursing home care, and thus assets that children might have inherited are run down. ("wealth growth" gets a real boost when somebody leaves a stack of money.)
i never expected to inherit anything, because my parents were scraping by. i started working for spending money as a very young teen, and was completely without parental financial support after my second year of college. having no expectation of inherited wealth (or parents to "borrow" from) does change one's perspective.
but here is why i care about medicaid -- care a lot. in 1990, my grandmother fell and broke her hip. her husband had died a few months earlier, and she had spent their savings and taken another mortgage on the house to pay for his experimental cancer treatment. turned out she also had dementia. my mother freaked out, and had my grandmother call me. and it was bad -- she had thousands of dollars in outstanding bills; she had sold her house, but not figured out a place to move.
my grandmother lived another 6.5 years, never walking again, and her dementia increasing steadily. the funds from selling her house were quickly depleted.
my kids were then 1 and 3 years old, and needed all we had. i was the primary breadwinner for my own family (my husband was just starting law school), and i had just started a new career. we moved her across the country to be nearby, found a nursing home that would work with her financial situation, and i managed her affairs for the duration, visiting often, being her advocate.
i could not care for her personally (at my home) without destroying my own family and its chances for moving ahead. i had to put my own kids, family, career first. arranging her care, visiting, managing her medical stuff, providing what was not covered (including the moves, clothing, a telephone, etc.) was really a challenge, but something that i could do with effort. without medicare, SS, and medicaid, the situation would have been truly impossible.
other families end up in that situation. it is random. but the bare truth is that without medicaid, i would have been forced to decide between my own and my family's security, and casting my grandmother off to who knows what miserable fate. (the bedridden and demented for 6.5 years part was pretty damned miserable, anyway.)
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 02:16 PM
kathy - without Medicaid, we'd really have to put people like your grandmother (and my wife's grandmother, I'll tell that story later when I have time) out on ice floes, or some temperate-zone equivalent.
And they have the nerve to accuse us of creating 'death panels.'
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 02:49 PM
kathy - Joe Walsh was scum even before now, but his remarks about Duckworth were beyond the pale. Not to mention, was he paying attention when John McCain ran for President?
Besides, anyone who's lost both legs in the service of her country has earned the right to talk about her service whenever she damned well pleases.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 02:52 PM
Can't resist this latest bit of Sarah Palin stupidity; it's like catnip.
She asked, "How does [John Kerry] even know my name?"
All I can think of is, "You're kidding, right? 2008? Running for veep? Ring any bells? Anyone in there, McFly?"
Did I miss the memo where it was folksy or something to feign memory loss? Jeez.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 03:03 PM
Via Balloon Juice, Mitt explained why he didn't talk about the troops in his speech:
"When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things you think are important."
Oh, dearie me.
I'd love to put that on a sign outside of every American Legion hall in the country.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 07, 2012 at 03:20 PM
Did I miss the memo where it was folksy or something to feign memory loss? Jeez.
SO frightening to think that the nominee of a major political party thought having her a heartbeat away from the Oval Office was a good idea!
Posted by: oddjob | September 07, 2012 at 04:07 PM
I'd love to put that on a sign outside of every American Legion hall in the country.
Oh man does that need to go viral!
Posted by: oddjob | September 07, 2012 at 04:14 PM
sarah didn't just have her 15 minutes as the VP candidate for a major party -- she has spent the last 4 years milking the deal for the greater fame and fortune of self and family. she's probably pissed she didn't get invited to be a big name in this race.
romney and the military -- it's like a bunch of toys to him. we have been in our longest war ever, and he doesn't see the personal sacrifices of military people and their families as worth mentioning. he did not serve; he had a "minister of religion" deferment. his surrogates want more more war. i doubt he has ever spent much time with anyone in service; maybe it seems to him like his church mission overseas. or something, i don't know.
i'm not generally in favor of wars, but there have been many members of the military in my family, including my husband, and we have known many more who served. the disrespect is personal.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 04:30 PM
it's like a bunch of toys to him
I've noticed that about neoconservatives generally. It doesn't surprise me the vast majority of neoconservatives have never served themselves. I find their ideas adolescent. Neoconservatism reminds me of nothing so much as the product of a bunch of teenage boys who can't let go of their addiction to the board game RISK.
Posted by: oddjob | September 07, 2012 at 05:16 PM
beau biden nominating his dad. after speaking 4 years ago, beau went on to serve in iraq, and then to be AG of delaware. you tell me how any of the chicken-hawks can dare challenge this.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 07, 2012 at 05:49 PM
I plan to waste/enjoy ten minutes with our Mr. Brooks, revered conservative, at my Nightly News Hour this evening. By last night his grumpy-mumbly pout at PBS coverage was undisguised. BUT Charlie Rose later had him on to convey his concerned words of wisdom from hisownself. Wonder what's next for Davey-in-the-dumps. I'd recommend a weekend vacation in the Caymans. Probably a good place to have a sad.
Posted by: nancy | September 07, 2012 at 08:47 PM
nancy,
I keep hoping to run into him and taunt him mercilessly.
Posted by: Sir Charles | September 07, 2012 at 09:16 PM
low-tech-cyclist, did you find my comment above regarding places to donate your well-earned shekels to the right sort of Democrats running for the House and Senate?
Posted by: Linkmeister | September 08, 2012 at 02:42 AM
Linkmeister: yes, I did, thanks. Sorry that I didn't reply earlier - I think it was somewhat helpful, but it's still one of several pieces in the puzzle. Having decent capsule descriptions of where these candidates are coming from is good, but I still have to do my own digging to find out if they're in a winnable race, or whether it seemed in February that it might be so, but it's long since become a lost cause.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 08, 2012 at 07:51 AM
Pro tip to Ann Romney: if you don't want to answer questions, perhaps you shouldn't do interviews.
And if you're going to lead off the interview with, "My message, really was, ‘women, I hear your voices,'" you might should expect you'll be asked some questions that are of particular relevance to women. Just a hunch.
She followed that quote up with this exchange:
Her message to women, in other words, is exactly the same message she'd have to men: jobs and the economy.
But I'm sure that if the interviewer had asked her to get specific about how Mitt was going to increase the number of jobs, and ask questions like whether they'd be good-paying jobs, she would have clammed up just as fast.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 08, 2012 at 08:05 AM
but see, birth control means something to women that is relevant to their jobs, and the economics of their families. a person who keeps getting pregnant is a person who is working less.
so -- her answer is NO, but she doesn't want to say NO -- because it is to their advantage to be unclear.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 08, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Talk about desperate....
I only hope it doesn't work. :(
Posted by: oddjob | September 08, 2012 at 04:18 PM
LOL!
:)
Posted by: oddjob | September 08, 2012 at 05:04 PM
Oddjob, one would think that a staffer should have gotten the message through to Mitt that when he tries that kind of stuff, he becomes the instant laughing stock of the very large world of twitter wits.
The other item gaining attention in twitworld is that Ann will be by Mitt's side tomorrow morning on Meet the Press. The on-line cracks as to what questions David Gregory might pose are practically writing themselves. Bated breath here. Can't wait for Mouse Circus coverage by Driftglass. :^)
Posted by: nancy | September 08, 2012 at 05:23 PM
"I will not take God off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart."
-Mitt
Excuse me, Mitt, but you just did. When you bore false witness.
Per 1 John 4:20: "If anyone says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen."
[No, I don't have these things memorized. But I knew there was a Bible verse that said *something* along those lines, and Google did the rest. Thanks, Google.]
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 08, 2012 at 05:39 PM
Queens & Brooklyn had a tornado this morning. Hope Prup's okay.
Posted by: oddjob | September 08, 2012 at 06:48 PM
oddjob, i'm not sure if the book of mormon correlates. not that i want to stir up a religious discussion, but he might not know what you are talking about.
the more basic issue is that the dem party is not talking about taking god off the coins, nor does the party want to tell mitt to take god out of his heart. didn't anyone else notice that every single speech at the DNC ended with "god bless america"?
as an athiest, i'm all OK with people talking about god as they see him/her -- and keeping the word god on coins -- so long as nobody's particular vision of god is being shoved down my throat. separation of church and state.
also hoping prup (and the rest of greater NY) is ok.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 08, 2012 at 08:14 PM
Seems to me that Mitt walks a high-wire act with his "God" talk. JFK had to persuade the electorate that as a devout Catholic, his devotion to his Church and thus the Vatican would never compromise his ability to serve in the highest office of the land.
Romney, given these statements, is begging to be asked to discuss his loyalty to his Church's hierarchy, which speaks with Godly authority as I understand it.
Meanwhile Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the USCCB has explicitly endorsed Romney in thinly disguised written letters to the faithful. (You can find a petition at "Faithful America," an offshoot of move.on.org).
I'd like our separation of church and state back and forcefully reiterated. "God Bless America" at the end of a speech used to be a supplication, not an assertion. It has never been "God Blesses America, Especially", inferred, until our recent bunch of zealots came along.
Posted by: nancy | September 08, 2012 at 09:19 PM
And oh yes. Prup. Hope all is well.
Posted by: nancy | September 08, 2012 at 09:48 PM
Atrios:
The Sunday after the Democratic Party Convention.
Boy howdy, this town really IS wired for Republicans, isn't it?
We're gonna win this election anyway, but between a GOP-leaning media, and the hundreds of millions from big GOP donors, it's an uphill battle even when you're ahead.
Crazy stuff.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 09, 2012 at 09:10 AM
Well, see, the Washington Press Corps is still feeling guilty about that whole Watergate thing and the subsequent Democratic landslide in 1974. That's why Iran-Contra was allowed to fade but Clinton's Presidency was attacked mercilessly. Balance, doncha know?
Posted by: Linkmeister | September 09, 2012 at 02:17 PM
I sure am glad I don't live in one of those swing states. Those poor people are going to be smashing their TVs by the time this is finally over. I had the misfortune to be eating breakfast in a hotel restaurant this am while they had CNN on (thank God the volume was turned down). The caption was something about how political journalists are all mad because the campaign is so "joyless." Silly me, I thought the point here was to elect officeholders, not provide feel-good entertainment for the press corps. Obviously I was misinformed. I'm old enough to remember when CNN actually was a news network.... Seriously, the thing that never stops blowing me away is the utter cluelessness that these decisions AFFECT REAL PEOPLE'S LIVES. I was reading Scott Lemieux on LGM ripping into Stoller and Nader about their latest idiocies: Stoller was claiming that this election isn't very meaningful because after all Romney is really a moderate at heart (WTF?????), and Nader was claiming yet again that 2000 didn't matter because Gore and Bush really weren't very different. Try telling that to the people who died in the Iraq War (just for starters), you #@(#%#. When on earth did the elite's vanity start mattering more than what happens to real people? Lemieux summed this all up much better than I could, talking about the differing impact the election outcomes would mean for women, gays, people who need health care, the environment, etc., etc., etc. Like they say, read the whole thing. As they say on Balloon Juice, this is our "failed media experiment" in action.
Posted by: beckya57 | September 09, 2012 at 04:06 PM
yeah, what is it with reporting the whole thing as a horse race, and not so much reporting the actual impact of issues? i guess it is a little hard to report on specifics when one major candidate won't disclose them, but that's an issue in itself.
hilarious, the notion that romney is a closet moderate. there is nothing moderate about his platform, or his VP nominee.
also glad i do not live in a swing state. i'm ready for this to be over, already.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 09, 2012 at 05:54 PM
Becky, thanks much for pointing to that post from Lemieux. Here's the link: St. Ralph Lecture Series . I'm not sure it can be overstated how important it is to remember the performance of our vanguard press corps during the fall of 2000 as we head to November. Also, this time around we have WaPo playing the role of neo-con foil/centrist pretender, as it has devolved since then. Yeah, failed media experiment indeed. Well-paid scribe Jennifer Rubin is busy tweeting nonsense about the President wearing jeans in the Oval Office. Impressive.
"Joyless"...I think that's going to be the updated "who would you rather have a beer with" meme for this season from our too-lazy-to-even-phone-it-in bunch.
Posted by: nancy | September 09, 2012 at 06:15 PM
Thanks, nancy, some day I need to learn how to embed links. :(
On a happier note, saw Bonnie Raitt and Mavis Staples last night and they were both great. Some veiled (liberal) commentary on the election from both of them.
Posted by: beckya57 | September 09, 2012 at 07:27 PM
hilarious, the notion that romney is a closet moderate. there is nothing moderate about his platform, or his VP nominee.
This completely fails to characterize what Romney really is. Yes, for what it's worth I suspect that if he had the chance to govern as he temperamentally would most like to do he'd govern as a traditional moderate RINO, but that's irrelevant. The data show very clearly that Romney isn't a moderate or a conservative:
Romney is a carpet bagging opportunist.
Posted by: oddjob | September 09, 2012 at 08:12 PM
(To clarify, the "this" of my first sentence was the notion that Romney would govern as a moderate.)
Posted by: oddjob | September 09, 2012 at 08:13 PM
"Joyless"...I think that's going to be the updated "who would you rather have a beer with" meme for this season from our too-lazy-to-even-phone-it-in bunch.
I fear you're right about that.
Posted by: oddjob | September 09, 2012 at 08:15 PM
this presidential election is not a baby shower, or a wedding reception, or a tailgate party, or a grand opening. any reporter or pundit who feels the need to comment on the joylessness should just go cover some events for which they are better suited. we have issues here. important ones.
Posted by: kathy a. | September 09, 2012 at 09:14 PM
Maybe the White House press corps should go cover the Nats or something. That'll give them some joy, and the rest of us can read the candidates' press releases directly, instead of reading the reporters' stenography of those releases.
Posted by: low-tech cyclist | September 09, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Well said,oddjob,kathy and LTC.
Posted by: beckya57 | September 09, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Sir C, Hope all is well. We've been noisy and you're very quiet.
Posted by: nancy | September 10, 2012 at 01:10 AM
I second your motion, becky.
And Bonnie Raitt? Jealous I am.
Posted by: jeanne marie | September 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Becky---I looove Mavis Staples and go to her concerts every chance I get.
Kathy---You nailed it at 9:14. That's all she wrote.
Posted by: Paula B | September 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM
Sorry for my indolence and not participating in this very lively thread.
I read the Stoller piece and thought I might commit mayhem, if not murder. Seriously, how can people not learn from their mistakes?
Posted by: Sir Charles | September 10, 2012 at 05:57 PM
Cheney's made a very successful career out of doing exactly that. So also have any number of the most prominent neoconservatives.
Posted by: oddjob | September 10, 2012 at 06:54 PM