Live feed RNC

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

The Pander King. Romney's Mexican Roots.

 

In 1885, Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, fled to Mexico to escape America's anti-polygamy laws. Along with a group of his fellow Mormons, Miles Park Romney, who had four wives and 30 children, settled in Chihuahua, Mexico, where polygamy was still legal.

 

OUTLAW flees country then returns.

 

[WorldTraveller]

So out of the 5 big speakers, Ann Romney, Chris Christie, Rubio, Ryan and Romney.

 

They all got good reviews, other than Christie.

[PastaJoe]

A man who has accomplished nothing on his own without the intervention of judges opening divorce docs is meeting a self-made man who eliminates barriers and solves problems aggressively. I'm getting the sense this won't even be close come November.

 

 

For a second I thought when you said 'self-made man', you were talking about Obama, then I saw who posted it. Romney was born on third base, hit a single, and is now proclaimed as a business home run hitter. This guy never had to worry about failing and could take more risks, because he knew that he could go broke and still have his family bail him out, find him other opportunities through their contacts, and provide health care for him and his family. Like another recent president who shall go nameless. Obama didn't have any such advantage. So who is more in touch with what the average American's life is like?

 

 

The Race Card. A Progressives final stand

 

Stay classy douchebag

 

You guys are so sensitive over the fact that Republicans have policies that turn away minorities (immigration, education, job training, social safety net) that you try to laugh it away as being called racist. See how well that works in this and future elections. And try to understand the irony of your last sentence.

 

 

The most fitting comment that I heard on Eastwood's speech was: It's the perfect representation of today's Republican party - An old white guy arguing with their distorted imaginary vision of who Obama really is.

Edited August 31, 2012 by PastaJoe

[John Adams]

So out of the 5 big speakers, Ann Romney, Chris Christie, Rubio, Ryan and Romney.

 

They all got good reviews, other than Christie.

 

Ann Romney would not have been considered a "big 5" speaker. She made herself a big 5 speaker by her performance. Christie was good but they couldn't have predicted that Ann Romney would steal the show and should have been the closer that night. It's heart to go from something so heartfelt to the bombastic, abrasive NJ guy. I'm glad to see that we have enough of a soul that people preferred the former over the later.

 

Christie looked terrible following her. On another night, he would have been fine.

 

I like Christie but he's more suited to attack dog than the more optimistic campaign Romney is trying to run. If Romney wanted to fight the Obama hate and division with hate and division, Christie would be the perfect choice to lead the fight.

Edited August 31, 2012 by John Adams

[WorldTraveller]

I thought the substance of Christie's speech was fine, but considering the setting, not so much.

[fjl2nd]

http://twitpic.com/aphguu

 

#Eastwooding

[B-Man]

Correcting Reality

The liberal media brings out the hockey pucks.

By Jonah Goldberg

 

In 2004, Arnold Schwarzenegger — then a popular figure in the Republican party — gave an exciting, upbeat, and surprisingly funny speech at the GOP convention. He covered a lot of territory: how he came to America, how he became a Republican after listening to Richard Nixon, and other highlights of his life story.

Afterwards, then–CBS News anchor Dan Rather reported that Schwarzenegger “slapped John Kerry around like a hockey puck.”

 

The only problem: Schwarzenegger never mentioned John Kerry, not even once.

 

I bring it up because it’s hardly news that much of the press likes to report the convention as they want it to be rather than as it is.

 

It’s also somewhat less than a thunderclap revelation that the press and the Democratic party tend to see things the same way. Which is why it’s unremarkable that the “fact-checkers” and Democratic-party press-release writers are on the same page.

 

{snip}

 

Meanwhile, one thing the GOP could do is put forward some really attractive and compelling minority speakers to deliver its message. Indeed, that’s what the GOP did on the first night of its convention — and the concerned folks at MSNBC opted to stop covering the speeches whenever a minority took the stage.

 

If the coverage of this convention is an indication of the trajectory the media will follow for the rest of the campaign, you can be sure of three things:

Lies will be defined as facts that are inconvenient to President Obama,

 

racists will be understood to be Republicans who are winning an argument,

 

and truth will be slapped around like a hockey puck.

 

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/315558/correcting-reality-jonah-goldberg

[WorldTraveller]

From the IBD

 

If media "fact checkers" are just impartial guardians of the truth, how come they got their own facts wrong about Paul Ryan's speech, and did so in a way that helped President Obama's re-election effort?

Case in point was the rush of "fact check" stories claiming Ryan misled when he talked about a shuttered auto plant in his home state.

Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler posted a piece — "Ryan misleads on GM plant closing in hometown" — saying Ryan "appeared to suggest" that Obama was responsible for the closure of a GM plant in Janesville, Wis.

 

"That's not true," Kessler said. "The plant was closed in December 2008, before Obama was sworn in."

 

What's not true are Kessler's "facts." Ryan didn't suggest Obama was responsible for shuttering the plant. Instead, he correctly noted that Obama promised during the campaign that the troubled plant "will be here for another hundred years" if his policies were enacted.

Also, the plant didn't close in December 2008. It was still producing cars until April 2009.

 

An AP "fact check" also claimed that "the plant halted production in December 2008" even though the AP itself reported in April 2009 that the plant was only then "closing for good."

 

CNN's John King made the same claim about that plant closure. But when CNN looked more carefully at the evidence, it — to its credit — concluded that what Ryan said was "true."

Media fact-checkers also complained about Ryan's charge that Obama is cutting $716 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare. Not true, they said. Medicare's growth is just being slowed.

But Obama achieves that slower growth by making real cuts in provider payments. And in any case, the media always and everywhere call a reduction in the rate of federal spending growth a "cut." So why suddenly charge Ryan with being misleading for using that same term?

In any case, Obama himself admitted that he's doing what Ryan says. In a November 2009 interview with ABC News, reporter Jake Tapper said to Obama that "one-third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare," to which Obama's response was: "Right."

The rest of Ryan's alleged factual errors aren't errors at all; it's just that the media didn't like how he said it. But since when is it a fact-checker's job to decide how a politician should construct his arguments?

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/083012-624188-so-called-fact-checks-disguise-media-liberal-agenda.htm?src=HPLNews

 

MSNBC tried to ding Gov Walker regarding the GM statement from Ryan, and Walker took them to school.

 

 

 

 

Take Ryan’s criticism of Obama’s ignoring Simpson-Bowles. This is a fact. That Ryan voted for it and then put together the only comprehensive budget using some elements of Simpson-Bowles (a premium-support Medicare plan, block-granting Medicaid) doesn’t make his remarks about Obama a lie. A true statement — Obama ignored Simpson-Bowles — is not a lie because there is another true statement — Ryan voted no and came up with his own plan. This is a standard of “lying” that has never been applied to the president, by the way.

Then there is the “lie” that Obama took $716 billion out of Medicare. That is also a fact. That Ryan, who has now signed onto Romney’s plan which puts the money back, previously took those cuts to put back into the Medicare trust fund does not make the statement false. Obama can defend the cuts and say it wasn’t so bad or say that sticking the money into Obamacare was justified, but Ryan did relate what Obama did.

Then there is the accusation that Ryan “lied” about the Janesville GM plant. Let’s recall exactly what he said: “‘I believe that if our government is there to support you … this plant will be here for another hundred years.’ That’s what [Obama] said in 2008. Well, as it turned out, that plant didn’t last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that’s how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.” Ryan quoted Obama accurately.

 

Ryan never said the plant was closed by Obama; he said Obama promised to revive the plant and couldn’t deliver. That is a fact, not a ”lie.” Well, it’s not a lie by Ryan; and I’ll not call Obama’s promise to keep the plant open a “lie.” Obama just didn’t deliver. The Romney-Ryan campaign points to a story in the <a data-xslt="_http" href="http://www.jsonline.com/business/130171578.html" target="_blank">Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel verifying that a decision was made in 2011, well after Obama’s Janesville appearance, to keep the plant on standby. (“Since they were shut down in 2009, both the Janesville and Tennessee plants have been on standby status, meaning they were not producing vehicles, but they were not completely shut down.”)

The stings on these issues cut so deeply that I suppose that the Obama team and its media allies are crazed to turn facts into lies and aspirations into distortions. Take Ryan’s statement that he’ll keep GDP below 20 percent. What Ryan critics say is “misleading” is in fact a policy difference. Ryan’s budget does bring spending to about 20 percent of GDP, with an increase in defense spending. It’s fine to say that’s a bad choice; but it’s not misleading.

It is likewise not misleading to say: “None of us have to settle for the best this administration offers — a dull, adventureless journey from one entitlement to the next, a government-planned life, a country where everything is free but us.” That is an accurate description of Obama’s own “Life of Julia” Web site, which depicted exactly that. If anyone blew it, it was the Obama team in putting out a caricature of the liberal welfare state.

I understand the frustration of Obama’s camp and its supporters. Moreover, I think much of the media accusations were offered in haste in an effort to get out the instant reaction without the media doing their full homework. It is a revealing moment, for the press and the Obama camp. For members of the Obama team, it means they are losing the race, and they know it.

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/ryan-freaks-out-obamaland/2012/08/30/be97852e-f2ac-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_blog.html

[Taro T]

I was neither put off, nor impressed with Eastwood. I didn't tune in to hear from him eitherway.

 

Romney needed to do three things tonight:

1. explain WHO he is, in his own words to those who only know what the media tells us about him
    
   
2. what his general vision is and how that differs from the current adminstration
    
   
3. unite HIS base and give them the confidence to believe they can win the election. In essence, to become the face of the GOP
   

I though he did all three fairly well. I think he came off very well talking about his family, children, his parents. I think it was smart that constantly mentioned how great America is, and that we all have the opportunity no one else in the world has. He addressed some issues (for good or ill) that people, especially our friends on the left, have about him: namely, where does he stand on Iran?

 

I thought he was very positive about many things, and I like that he had a positive tone on immigration. And I do not believe he was overly critical (without merit) of the President. I did not find him to be petty or condescending. There were some things that didn't resonate with me, such as the religious aspects, but again, that is part of uniting his base. However, unlike MSNBC, I did not find his speech to be overly "sabre rattling" in tone. Honestly, I WANT the President to have the attitude that America is tops and we can kick some ass if needed. I did not take away that we are "going to attack Iran" or that we are building our armies to be a world conqueror. He did say that he wanted the military to be one that "no one would dare threaten". I am not sure how you can disagree with that sentiment.

 

Overall, I think he did what he needed to do. Now I have to hear more specifics about what he will do about this proposed 12 million jobs. Time for some substance Mittens, what is your plan for health insurance reform (Christ, I HATE the term "healthcare" reform)?

 

I'm curious if Eastwood did his schtick the way he did to help get seniors outraged when the inevitable attacks from the left occur?

 

And, with Romney and crew making a lot of their points to be about a disappointment in President Obama not living up to his hype and also for believing better days are ahead for America, it'll be interesting to see how the President frames his message next week.

 

I thought Romney did well with his speech, but it's clear that he isn't an orator by vocation. Though if he can keep the message focused on 23MM lost jobs and a hopeful vision for the future, the President will be in for a very tough fight.

[WorldTraveller]

 

I'm curious if Eastwood did his schtick the way he did to help get seniors outraged when the inevitable attacks from the left occur?

 

And, with Romney and crew making a lot of their points to be about a disappointment in President Obama not living up to his hype and also for believing better days are ahead for America, it'll be interesting to see how the President frames his message next week.

 

I thought Romney did well with his speech, but it's clear that he isn't an orator by vocation. Though if he can keep the message focused on 23MM lost jobs and a hopeful vision for the future, the President will be in for a very tough fight.

 

Funny you mention that, my father who isn't that political, saw the convention last night. I spoke with him afterwards and we both made the observation that Eastwood is lookin kinda old, and we both seemed to share the view that it was unfortunate (for Eastwood) that he was out there. However, when I told him that hard core left wingers were ripping Eastwood for sounding old and muddled, it elicited a strong reaction from my father.

 

The White House tweeting remarks childishly disparaging Eastwood my guess won't play well with many seniors.

[truth on hold]

Its a smart move on white house part. They want the post RNC narrative to be on Eastwood, not Romney's speech. Couching it as lighthearted humor is a good move too

Edited August 31, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Buftex]

Coincidentaly, Clint, who was supposed to have done his last job as an actor a couple years ago, has a new movie coming out, starring, from the ads, as the same crumudginly old guy he was in the painfully awful "Gran Torino"...

[B-Man]

Opinion piece from Big Hollywood;

 

 

 

Media Strikes Back After Dirty Harry Dares To Mock Obama

 

FTA:

Eastwood hit Obama in every sweet spot we've been waiting for him to get hit on: The incompetence; the lies; the empty, pretentious rhetoric; the inexperience; and that roaring blowhard of a moron Obama chose to be a heartbeat away.

 

 

Oh, and the empty chair. Other than an empty suit, there is no sharper metaphor.

 

 

Eastwood also made one of the very best points of the night: WE own this country, and when someone doesn't do the job "we have to let them go."

 

The media, naturally, is furious. They don’t like to see Their Precious One mocked and they also understand the power of mockery -- which is why they keep Stewart and Colbert on such a tight leash. This is why the media has already written 25 stories (5 from Politico) mocking Eastwood.

Had Eastwood said the things the media likes to hear with the same nervousness and hesitation, they would've called him wizened and seasoned. But because he mocked Their Precious One, suddenly he's some kind of embarrassment.

 

And now Politico, Ben Smith and CNN are all talking about how they intend to use Eastwood as way to overwhelm Mitt Romney's speech in the coming days.

 

Like they wouldn't have found another reason.

 

All I can say in response is: Go to hell you Obama-shilling crybabies. Eastwood showed more grit and honestly in those few minutes than you water carriers have during your entire propaganda-for-the-collective careers.

 

What Eastwood did tonight was funnier, fresher, edgier, and braver than anything those comedy cowards Chris Rock, Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert have done in 15 years.

 

82 years-old, and Dirty Harry is still pissing all the right people off.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/08/30/Eastwood-Mocks-Obama

[Taro T]

Funny you mention that, my father who isn't that political, saw the convention last night. I spoke with him afterwards and we both made the observation that Eastwood is lookin kinda old, and we both seemed to share the view that it was unfortunate (for Eastwood) that he was out there. However, when I told him that hard core left wingers were ripping Eastwood for sounding old and muddled, it elicited a strong reaction from my father.

 

The White House tweeting remarks childishly disparaging Eastwood my guess won't play well with many seniors.

Interesting. I can't believe that's the reaction Axelrod was shooting for, but it could be expected.

 

The one thing that has struck me throughout this campaign is how shrill the incumbent's campaign has seemed. The R's playing up their desire to 'fire' the current incumbent as being due to disappointment and even stating that they actually think he's a good man just a horrible President would seem to be playing up to this as another contrast between the 2.

[IDBillzFan]

...it'll be interesting to see how the President frames his message next week.

 

From a strategic standpoint, I think the Romney camp knows precisely what their message will be next week: destroy Mitt Romney's character and scare the hell out of everyone else trying to describe the horror that would be a world under Romney Rule!

 

Obama is desperate for his base to get out because he knows the black and Latino vote won't be there like last time (and given how badly they are being treated in this "recovery," who can blame them?). So he needs the batschitt crazy progressives to do their thing, which is why you look at their list of speakers and see a who's who of DailyKos/MediaMatters lefties. Sandra Fluke getting a prime-time speaking gig is all you need to know.

 

My expectation is the DNC will be a three-day character assassination muted by a Friday jobs report showing that nothing is getting any better. Because Obama doesn't have an answer for Romney's comment last night that was (to paraphrase) "What does it say that the best feeling you ever got from this president was the day you voted for him?"

[Chef Jim]

Its a smart move on white house part. They want the post RNC narrative to be on Eastwood, not Romney's speech. Couching it as lighthearted humor is a good move too

 

That's a smart move?

[Taro T]

From a strategic standpoint, I think the Romney camp knows precisely what their message will be next week: destroy Mitt Romney's character and scare the hell out of everyone else trying to describe the horror that would be a world under Romney Rule!

 

Obama is desperate for his base to get out because he knows the black and Latino vote won't be there like last time (and given how badly they are being treated in this "recovery," who can blame them?). So he needs the batschitt crazy progressives to do their thing, which is why you look at their list of speakers and see a who's who of DailyKos/MediaMatters lefties. Sandra Fluke getting a prime-time speaking gig is all you need to know.

 

My expectation is the DNC will be a three-day character assassination muted by a Friday jobs report showing that nothing is getting any better. Because Obama doesn't have an answer for Romney's comment last night that was (to paraphrase) "What does it say that the best feeling you ever got from this president was the day you voted for him?"

But right now, it seems the main thing the President has going for him is that he's 'more likeable.'

 

If the whole thing ends up just 'Mitt Romney isn't afraid to go to hell - he's the devil' then the D's risk losing one of the 2 edges they have (the 2nd being, people KNOW what they're getting with the current President; getting back to 'the devil you know vs the one you don't' motif) - the likeability.

[IDBillzFan]

If the whole thing ends up just 'Mitt Romney isn't afraid to go to hell - he's the devil' then the D's risk losing one of the 2 edges they have (the 2nd being, people KNOW what they're getting with the current President; getting back to 'the devil you know vs the one you don't' motif) - the likeability.

 

I have no way to back this next statement, but I think "likeability" means nothing to voters. People keep bringing it up, but it's kind of like saying "I know the plane is going to crash, but it looks like the drinks are free." You could also argue that Obama is in trouble simply because people DO know what they're getting with Obama, and it's not acceptable. I go back to a simple, but true comment: Keep doing what you're doing, keep getting what you're getting.

[Taro T]

I have no way to back this next statement, but I think "likeability" means nothing to voters. People keep bringing it up, but it's kind of like saying "I know the plane is going to crash, but it looks like the drinks are free." You could also argue that Obama is in trouble simply because people DO know what they're getting with Obama, and it's not acceptable. I go back to a simple, but true comment: Keep doing what you're doing, keep getting what you're getting.

I hope you are correct.

 

The after the likeability statement was meant to convey that I am unsure how much value that brings to the table. I am having a hard time coming up with many (any?) other reasons that people have to vote for him other than 'we know what we're getting with him' and 'he's not a Republican.' And yet the polls are still essentially even.

Edited August 31, 2012 by Taro T

[IDBillzFan]

I hope you are correct.

 

The after the likeability statement was meant to convey that I am unsure how much value that brings to the table. I am having a hard time coming up with many (any?) other reasons that people have to vote for him other than 'we know what we're getting with him' and 'he's not a Republican.' And yet the polls are still essentially even.

 

The polls are nothing more than something to talk about at this point. They mean nothing until they all include likely voters.