The Guy Running For President Like He Hasn't Been President These Past Four Years
At reason, Nick Gillespie noted what I did during the debate -- how much the guy talked like he wanted to get into the office of President. Like he hasn't been there mucking things up for four years. Gillespie writes:
The way he talked about George W. Bush and the various situations he faced upon moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, you'd think he just called up to the bigs for the playoffs or something. He invokes the years since 2009 as if he just came back from vacationing off-planet. Does anyone else remember all the crowing that went on after Obama's "historic" first year in office? This is a president who basically was able to get everything he wanted - stimulus, healthcare, the sorts of military actions he wanted, a free-hand in surveilling enemies here and abroad, and more - and he has still reaped a whirlwind when it comes to a vaguely decent economy and America's standing in the world. Indeed, the Dems took a "shellacking" (his term) in the 2010 mid-term elections because of his legislative record, not in spite of it. By his own litmus tests - especially the unemployment rate - he's been a huge and undeniable failure. When it comes to foreign policy, does anyone really believe he's done more than drive down U.S. standing from the already-low place that his predecessor left it? And when it comes to a variety of other issues - ranging from executive power to raiding medical marijuana joints in states where they're legal to immigration - he's simply been godawful.The strongest case against re-electing Obama remains the one that Clint Eastwood made during his empty chair performance: Bam might be a good guy, but he hasn't gotten the job done, and so it's time to let him go. The strongest case for re-electing Obama shared the stage with him last night. Mitt Romney bungled questions on the Benghazi attack and follow-up (there's no doubt that the administration dissembled in the aftermath of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, which itself showcased inexcusable misjudgments in State Department security priorities) and he totally whiffed on issues such as gun control and immigration. Indeed, his signature flip-flopping was very much in evidence as he tried tacking away from clear positions (hey governor, maybe the reason gun crime and violence is way down is because virtually all states liberalized their gun laws and the Supreme Court started upholding the Second Amendment) toward some sort of mushy "centrism." Romney has more private-sector experience than Obama (who has exactly zero), but whatever free-enterprise bona fides he carried in his pockets stayed there in favor of rants against cheap Chinese imports and pledges to bring back manufacturing jobs (because nothing says first-world economy more than assembly lines, right?). Simply put, he doesn't inspire confidence that he would be a particularly effective and level-headed leader when it comes to domestic or foreign policy.
The internet is very quiet today. Everything... Blogs, email, twitter. People are talked out.
Also, we should change the word "leader" in the last sentence of the passage Amy cited above to "servant."
Also, science people understand the boundaries of science better than non-science people. (At least until they get a hardon for global warming and the increased funding it portends, after which anything goes.)
Also, two phrases in this piece bug me; But there is hope for life in that neighborhood… and The next step would be to…
It's like journalists writing about science are religiously defensive about the existence of life on this planet... As if the rest of the universe was teasing Earth about being a joke, such that the reporters need to identify another instance to say 'No guys, really... Life is a thing!'
In the morning after the Crowley debacle, the chatter of journalists about impartiality has never seemed so hollow.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 17, 2012 12:01 PM
Crid: "In the morning after the Crowley debacle, the chatter of journalists about impartiality has never seemed so hollow."
I'll ditto that Crid - she was an unbelievable Obama whore! The only thing she didn't do was bend over and suck his black dick. (she is named "Candy" afterall)
Charles at October 17, 2012 12:47 PM
Wow.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 17, 2012 12:53 PM
Or were you making a point?
Y'know, for every single hillbilly with despicable sexual insecurities, the left sees ten thousand.
Amy thinks anyone who believes in god is Jerry Falwell.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 17, 2012 12:55 PM
In other words, Candy Crowley isn't that bright: You ought to pull your own shit together so as to discourage her inanities.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 17, 2012 12:56 PM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/10/the-guy-running.html#comment-3385898">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Amy thinks anyone who believes in god is Jerry Falwell.
Wrong. I saw my friend Tom, this morning, who's Christian, and goes to church and everything.
Amy Alkon
at October 17, 2012 1:44 PM
Y'ever tag along?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 17, 2012 1:51 PM
And now for the all-too-frequent "What, Muslims AGAIN?!" headline, USA Edition.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/17/justice/new-york-federal-reserve-terror-plot/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
As Charles might put it (see above), dickery of the blackest sort.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 17, 2012 3:14 PM
IMHO Romney's mistake was the adjective he used: "terrorist". The proper adjective would have been "organised" for the noun "attack".
It was an organised attack, not a spontaneous attack. Using "terrorist" -- which BTW has become a substitute for the real adjective -- allowed Obama to say that, because he had said "terrorist" in his eulogy, all was well.
Patrick Armstrong at October 17, 2012 3:23 PM
dunno Patrick, I wonder what Romney could have said that wouldn't have been cut off and called a liar about... even when you think you are making a bulletproof argument, it's in the nature of a politician to split hairs... regardless of party or persuasion.
Fact isn't a hallmark, and we wouldn't vote for anyone that actually told the truth, we'd call them crazy.
SwissArmyD at October 17, 2012 3:33 PM
I love this tweet response with the flaming adoration of the midday Sahara sunshine.
"Decides to have a child," as if she might have "decided to wear the blue blouse."
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 17, 2012 8:42 PM
I mean, does the intended audience for that stuff understand that they're being address as idiots?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 17, 2012 8:42 PM
Candy Crowley was so in the bag for Obama it was ridiculous.
Look at the Obama Rose Garden speech.
That was three paragraphs later. Yes -- he mentioned "terrorism". But it had no relation to Chris Stevens' death.
Jim P. at October 17, 2012 9:40 PM
Leave a comment