Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 It was an adult pick. It forces Obama to come up with a realistic plan that saves medicare and social security for people 50 and younger. Everyone knows these programs are insolvent. Romney has a real plan, Obama's plan is the do nothing and go bankrupt Greece model. I know that a lot of people here think this race will be close, I don't. I think the American people, as they always do, save this country from the total destruction of four more years of Obama and they do it in a big way. Ryan is not running for President. I don't see this as anything big, nor are the rumors about President Obama possibly switching from Biden to Clinton. This is going to be a very close election. Anyone who thinks one or the other will (or should) run away with it, is deluding themselves. I am looking forward to the debates, particularly, the late ones
WorldTraveller Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Politico poll to come out tomorrow Obama 48% Romney 47% Point is, that not much had changed other than the level of unease some people have had. This election for all intents and purposes is still razor tight Ryan is not running for President. I don't see this as anything big, nor are the rumors about President Obama possibly switching from Biden to Clinton. This is going to be a very close election. Anyone who thinks one or the other will (or should) run away with it, is deluding themselves. I am looking forward to the debates, particularly, the late ones Well, it is big and it changes the dynamics
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Politico poll to come out tomorrow Obama 48% Romney 47% Point is, that not much had changed other than the level of unease some people have had. This election for all intents and purposes is still razor tight Well, it is big and it changes the dynamics It shouldn't. For all the talk about how "dumb" Dan Quayle was, it sure didn't keep President George H.W. Bush from doing a pretty good job. If the president and VP were equals, this would be big. It is symbolic.
WorldTraveller Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Adam, not every result dictates the next. This argument that vp picks don't matter is absurd. Of course there are consequences, it is a reflection of the campaign and the dynamics sometimes can minimally be impacted other times much more so. This pick matters
1billsfan Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Politico poll to come out tomorrow Obama 48% Romney 47% Point is, that not much had changed other than the level of unease some people have had. This election for all intents and purposes is still razor tight I think that a small, yet significant percentage of the people who answer they're voting for Obama in the polls are lying. Why? Four years of the race card being played by the MSM and Obama supporters against anyone opposing Obama. People don't want to deal with that garbage.
Nanker Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Paul Ryan is not Sarah Palin, and she beat Joe "O'biden" in their debate.
IDBillzFan Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Adam, not every result dictates the next. This argument that vp picks don't matter is absurd. Of course there are consequences, it is a reflection of the campaign and the dynamics sometimes can minimally be impacted other times much more so. This pick matters I tend to agree with this, especially if Ryan is better at articulating our problems than anyone else, but I still chuckle when I hear the Chris Christie soundbite suggesting that the VP pick doesn't really change things, adding "I'm pretty sure there were not a lot of people saying 'I'm not so sure about this Obama guy, but the Biden guy won me over.' "
Doc Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Ryan's plan calls for Medicare changes starting in 2023. While reports are that it will be insolvent in 2014.
/dev/null Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Caught some of Axelrod on This Week With Snuffleufflgus Pretty much as expected. Hating on Ryan and dodging questions on the Cancer Commercial. Said the campaign wasn't involved and nobody really believes that Romney was involved with that woman getting cancer. Then he went off on a Bane tangent and said Romney fired people and they lost their benefits
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Adam, not every result dictates the next. This argument that vp picks don't matter is absurd. Of course there are consequences, it is a reflection of the campaign and the dynamics sometimes can minimally be impacted other times much more so. This pick matters I will give you this- it matters a bit. It can have a much bigger impact if it turns out bad than good (Ask John McCain about that). I don't think this will help Romney as much as the right thinks and it won't hurt him as much as the left wants to think, As far as the VP debates go, it is more important that they show competence, than win the debate. For now, I say let the republican base have their excitement with the pick.......
Rob's House Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) I will give you this- it matters a bit. It can have a much bigger impact if it turns out bad than good (Ask John McCain about that). I don't think this will help Romney as much as the right thinks and it won't hurt him as much as the left wants to think, As far as the VP debates go, it is more important that they show competence, than win the debate. For now, I say let the republican base have their excitement with the pick....... It could swing wildly in either direction. For the Republicans I like it because it changes the strategy from a McCain approach of playing it safe to one about aggressively offering your philosophy and convincing others that it is the right one. I've never thought much of the don't rock the boat and hope you can squeak by with the moderate morons who vote for whoever makes them feel good at the moment. It's like being on a date and rather than engaging and having fun you try to make sure you don't say anything she'll disagree with and hope that by the end of the night she'll be content to have a warm body in her bed. They're going with a bold "here's our philosophy and here's why it works" strategy. Either way, this is more than a VP pick; it's also a fundamental change in campaign strategy. This could backfire. The press is already trying to paint Ryan as a right-wing extremist who wants to throw hungry orphans out in the streets and they have countless outlets (particularly entertainment media) to blast that message unchecked. And the Obama campaign and PACs can mischaracterize it at will without fear of being called out by any news media outside of Faux News. If it sticks (keep in mind, soccer moms don't typically break it down like we do here. They hear "extremist" and get scared away) the association could sink the ship. By countering the Obama strategy of throwing out vague platitudes about Republicans sticking it to the middle class (with no explanation of how this happens), with a policy based approach of spelling out their plan, the Republicans are rolling the dice and hoping logic trumps hype. It will be the true test to see if the bulk of our electorate are thinkers or mindless drones that float whatever way their TV tells them to. Edited August 12, 2012 by Rob's House
B-Man Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 I have to assume all the retirees in Florida will hate Paul Ryan as the learn more about him. You assume wrong. From polling last year, when plans were being debated. Gallup: Seniors Most Favorable To Ryan Budget by Josh Kraushaar A new Gallup/USA Today poll contains a counterintuitive finding: the age group most receptive to House Budget Chair Paul Ryan's plan to deal with the budget - seniors. The poll finds 48 percent of seniors (those 65 and over) support Ryan's plan over President Obama's plan, while 42 percent back the president. That's the highest total among the age groups tested - a 47 percent plurality between the ages of 50 and 64 backed Ryan, and a 45 percent plurality of those between 30-49 backed Ryan. But young voters overwhelmingly sided with Obama by a 23-point margin, 53 to 30 percent. http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/04/gallup-seniors.php .
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 It could swing wildly in either direction. For the Republicans I like it because it changes the strategy from a McCain approach of playing it safe to one about aggressively offering your philosophy and convincing others that it is the right one. I've never thought much of the don't rock the boat and hope you can squeak by with the moderate morons who vote for whoever makes them feel good at the moment. It's like being on a date and rather than engaging and having fun you try to make sure you don't say anything she'll disagree with and hope that by the end of the night she'll be content to have a warm body in her bed. They're going with a bold "here's our philosophy and here's why it works" strategy. Either way, this is more than a VP pick; it's also a fundamental change in campaign strategy. This could backfire. The press is already trying to paint Ryan as a right-wing extremist who wants to throw hungry orphans out in the streets and they have countless outlets (particularly entertainment media) to blast that message unchecked. And the Obama campaign and PACs can mischaracterize it at will without fear of being called out by any news media outside of Faux News. If it sticks (keep in mind, soccer moms don't typically break it down like we do here. They hear "extremist" and get scared away) the association could sink the ship. By countering the Obama strategy of throwing out vague platitudes about Republicans sticking it to the middle class (with no explanation of how this happens), with a policy based approach of spelling out their plan, the Republicans are rolling the dice and hoping logic trumps hype. It will be the true test to see if the bulk of our electorate are thinkers or mindless drones that float whatever way their TV tells them to. There is going to be mischaracterizations on both sides, morons on both sides and in the middle. That, in essence, is what American politics is about- the main job is to get elected and re-elected, not to get anything done. We are a big carnival and the carosel just keeps going round and round, from right to left and back again!
Nanker Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 One thing. Romney's campaign has more money than BO's does so he can afford to get that message out. I've heard a lot of middle-of-the-roaders here say Romney's not articulating his vision well. Well, he's not running ads in most states and the debates haven't put his mug in front of most of the electorate. 86% of the stories in the media about Romney are negative. Most people haven't heard him speak about his vision. Prime time debates and TV ads will even that playing field.
/dev/null Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 There is going to be mischaracterizations on both sides, morons on both sides and in the middle. That, in essence, is what American politics is about- the main job is to get elected and re-elected, not to get anything done. We are a big carnival and the carosel just keeps going round and round, from right to left and back again! Forward! One thing. Romney's campaign has more money than BO's does so he can afford to get that message out. I've heard a lot of middle-of-the-roaders here say Romney's not articulating his vision well. Well, he's not running ads in most states and the debates haven't put his mug in front of most of the electorate. 86% of the stories in the media about Romney are negative. Most people haven't heard him speak about his vision. Prime time debates and TV ads will even that playing field. I've seen enough of both Romney and Obama in the Norfolk TV market. Thank God for DVRs
Nanker Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 You assume wrong. From polling last year, when plans were being debated. http://hotlineoncall...lup-seniors.php . Nononononononononononononononononono! That doesn't fit Conner's reality! It can't be true! This is reality!
Rob's House Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 There is going to be mischaracterizations on both sides, morons on both sides and in the middle. That, in essence, is what American politics is about- the main job is to get elected and re-elected, not to get anything done. We are a big carnival and the carosel just keeps going round and round, from right to left and back again! I don't buy this whole "both sides" crap. Sure, both sides will engage in some hyperbole, but one side is far and away more dishonest this time around and one side has every word run under a microscope and any possible misinterpretation brought to the forefront by every other media outlet in the country while the other is given the benefit of the doubt.
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) Forward! I've seen enough of both Romney and Obama in the Norfolk TV market. Thank God for DVRs If we had a candidate who was for forward, they wouldn't have a prayer of getting elected. The wingnuts would trample them. We need to tie entitlements to how the economy is doing, we need to make military spending efficient (note, I didn't say more efficient) and spend a lot less. We need to cut the costs of health care, not just give it lip service, we need to rebuild our infrastructure. If we stopped wasting time and energy on the facade of what we want this country to be, we could use that time and energy on making that a reality. You bring up a great point on the money- its all well and good to have it, but you can only spend so much at a time effectively. If Romney wins the election, it isn't because of the money. I don't buy this whole "both sides" crap. Sure, both sides will engage in some hyperbole, but one side is far and away more dishonest this time around and one side has every word run under a microscope and any possible misinterpretation brought to the forefront by every other media outlet in the country while the other is given the benefit of the doubt. I often hear that from guess what- both sides. And I grow tired of it...........Each side feels they completely give in to the other and get nothing back and that the other side demonizes them....blah, blah, blah. Both sides can go stick it where the sun don't shine- they are both unamerican. Yes, just like them, I can define what is American and what isn't. Edited August 12, 2012 by Adam
Rob's House Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 If we had a candidate who was for forward, they wouldn't have a prayer of getting elected. The wingnuts would trample them. We need to tie entitlements to how the economy is doing, we need to make military spending efficient (note, I didn't say more efficient) and spend a lot less. We need to cut the costs of health care, not just give it lip service, we need to rebuild our infrastructure. If we stopped wasting time and energy on the facade of what we want this country to be, we could use that time and energy on making that a reality. You bring up a great point on the money- its all well and good to have it, but you can only spend so much at a time effectively. If Romney wins the election, it isn't because of the money. I often hear that from guess what- both sides. And I grow tired of it...........Each side feels they completely give in to the other and get nothing back and that the other side demonizes them....blah, blah, blah. Both sides can go stick it where the sun don't shine- they are both unamerican. Yes, just like them, I can define what is American and what isn't. Well sure, both sides say it, but then we look to the evidence. Can you find evidence of Romeny's campaign stooping to the level of the cancer wife Romney killed, Harry Reid's baseless accusations, or being so petty as to harp on Romney's wife's horse? The only place I can see where the Obama camp can even attempt to cry foul is the "you didn't build that" statement. However, team Obama has far more blatantly taken Romney out of context with "I like to fire people" and a shameless ad that's running constantly in VA where a clip of Romney saying "...Planned Parenthood. We need to get rid of that" even though the "..." materially alters the rest of the sentence. At least in Obama's case he actually said what he said and in proper usage of the English language his words would be properly interpreted to mean you didn't build it. And the spirit of what he said wasn't far from it. In Romney's case, the words are taken out of context so as to betray the plain meaning of the words as they were stated. If you want to play the middle-of-the-road "both sides do it" game, that's certainly your prerogative, but I challenge you to objectively state the case that the Romeny camp has resorted to anywhere near the level of dishonesty the Obama camp has.
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Well sure, both sides say it, but then we look to the evidence. Can you find evidence of Romeny's campaign stooping to the level of the cancer wife Romney killed, Harry Reid's baseless accusations, or being so petty as to harp on Romney's wife's horse? The only place I can see where the Obama camp can even attempt to cry foul is the "you didn't build that" statement. However, team Obama has far more blatantly taken Romney out of context with "I like to fire people" and a shameless ad that's running constantly in VA where a clip of Romney saying "...Planned Parenthood. We need to get rid of that" even though the "..." materially alters the rest of the sentence. At least in Obama's case he actually said what he said and in proper usage of the English language his words would be properly interpreted to mean you didn't build it. And the spirit of what he said wasn't far from it. In Romney's case, the words are taken out of context so as to betray the plain meaning of the words as they were stated. If you want to play the middle-of-the-road "both sides do it" game, that's certainly your prerogative, but I challenge you to objectively state the case that the Romeny camp has resorted to anywhere near the level of dishonesty the Obama camp has. The cries of socialist are among the most ignorant things ever. First, President Obama is not a socialist. Second- socialism may not be suited to be the primary system in this country, but it is neither inherently good or bad. Believe me, you don't see me defend our current president, unless the criticism is ridiculous on him. He should be criticized and should the Super Pacs, for the attacks on Romney's wife and the call for his taxes. The birthers are equally ignorant. I will say this- I see a lot of patriotism in both major party candidates. Why else would anyone run for office in a country such as this........
Recommended Posts