Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Final US presidential debate: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on foreign policy – as it happened | World news | guardian.co.uk
Final US presidential debate: Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on foreign policy – as it happened | World news | guardian.co.uk
Some extracts:
Some extracts:
- This is taking the whole "I'll answer the question my way" concept to a new level.
Question: How was the weather Governor Romney?
Romney: I'll tell you what the weather needs. Small businesses. - Now Obama is talking about teaching math in small class sizes, again not quite a foreign policy issue, traditionally.
- An almost interesting question: "What is your position on the use of drones?"
- I'm all for it, says Romney, who somehow then turns this into the Iran-Middle East-tumult answer, almost word for word an answer he gave earlier this evening. He really likes the word "tumult".
- Obama then avoids all mention of drones.
- That's it for drones, thanks for coming. No mention about how the damn things are used, and the legal issues surrounding the same, but hey, the word got a mention so be grateful.
- Obama says nothing terribly new or excititng, and neither does Romney. "I want to get people off food stamps not by cutting the program but by getting them jobs," says Romney. But he'll cut the program as well, just in case.
- Anyway, I'd say Romney won it because he just lashed away at Obama without regard to subject or logic, showed that he knew enough about what passes for foreign policy that he's not going to fart in front of the Queen or whatever. And Obama did what he did in the first debate: lay out Romney's multiple positions and expect that would be enough. Well it wasn't then and it wasn't now.
- Everyone will say Obama won the debate because he supposed to up on foreign policy and Romney's not, so in the lazy way journalism works that's the outcome we'll get.
- If it matters at this point. I hear all three remaining undecided voters in Ohio went to the bar tonight anyway.
- Will this debate make a difference? Probably not. Although Romney was poor, he was not disastrously bad. And he got across his message that he is not belligerent. Talking about Iran, he said the US "can't kill our way out of this mess". That is what a war-weary America wants to hear. An attack on Iran would be a last resort, Romney said. He made peace a central part of his closing speech.
- Neither Obama or Romney made any serious gaffes or produced any zingers. The first debate in Denver, where Obama was overwhelmed, was a game-changer. But neither this one nor the one in New York have had the same impact or are likely to. The debates in New York and Florida have seen Obama climb back aboard the campaign but his performances have not been strong enough to determine the election outcome.
- Other things that didn't get mentioned tonight: climate change.
- Israel: 22 mentions. Japan, Europe, India: 0.
- I think Europe did mentions somewhere, in the Syria and Iran replies. And Japan got a drive-by mention. On the plus side, Mali ? or Molly, as Romney seems to call it ? got three namechecks. They'll be dancing on the streets of Bamako tonight.
- Bernstein does sum up the Romney debate tactic in a nutshell:
- The problem is that his attacks, over and over again, are just buzzwords and slogans. He?s entirely dependent on people being eager to believe him. On the economy, that may be the case; on foreign policy, it?s unlikely that very many viewers or foreign policy experts see the administration?s policies as ?unraveling,? as Romney continues to insist he sees. That is, it?s unlikely that very many viewers agree unless they get the bulk of their information from Fox News.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Friday, October 12, 2012
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
The presidential election and the gifs that keep on giving | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
The presidential election and the gifs that keep on giving | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/8/1349697533817/mitt_dance.gif
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/8/1349697579882/lightsaber.gif
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/8/1349697533817/mitt_dance.gif
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2012/10/8/1349697579882/lightsaber.gif
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Mitt Romney stands by gaffe but says case not 'elegantly stated' | World news | guardian.co.uk
Just at a time when the Democrats are painting him as the candidate of the rich few, and (rightly in my view) trying to define the election as between their view of a society pulling together and being stronger for it, and a Republican ethic of freeing the lucky and strong to succeed on their own, Romney, who refuses to fully disclose his own tax returns, claims 47% of Americans are for Obama since they don't pay tax anyway and just want more handouts. Well done Mitt!
Mitt Romney stands by gaffe but says case not 'elegantly stated' | World news | guardian.co.uk
Mitt Romney stands by gaffe but says case not 'elegantly stated' | World news | guardian.co.uk
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Friday, August 17, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
The American election is really a battle for the future of capitalism
Mitt Romney embodies a system dominated by financial engineering that uses companies as casino chips
The American election is really a battle for the future of capitalism | Will Hutton | Comment is free | The Observer
Extract:
'Look, if you've been successful, you did not get there on your own. When we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative but also because we do things together." So said President Obama, campaigning in Roanoke Virginia, last week. He went on: "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help".
He listed great teachers, government research, roads and bridges and the whole fabric of the American system as various ways in which "somebody along the line" would have contributed to your success. This was the essence of the social liberalism of the great British thinker Leonard Hobhouse, but now championed by an American president. Hobhouse passionately argued that capitalist wealth was co-created by the interaction of society, social capital and the entrepreneur. Government investment, financed properly by taxation, was the precondition for a successful capitalism.
Obama has begun the counter-argument. Innovation is necessarily about taking risks and unless there are mechanisms to share them between the private and public sectors, the risks and innovation are necessarily not undertaken. "The internet didn't get invented on its own," Obama argued. "Government research created the internet so that all the companies could make money off the internet."
Friday, July 13, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Friday, June 22, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Thursday, June 14, 2012
From Nobel to new low, Obama's lost international prestige
From Nobel to new low: Barack Obama's lost global prestige | DD Guttenplan http://gu.com/p/38b5g
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Republican ads, Obama, Obama, Obama
In the Republicans' latest ad blitz, it's all Obama all the time http://gu.com/p/37q27
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Obama's move on gay marriage
How Barack Obama's gay marriage move changes the presidential race | World news | The Observer
"In US politics, where religion and social views play a central role, nothing is simply the right or wrong choice....Few people believed that Obama had not privately supported gay marriage all along. "It is sad that we now get excited and root for a politician when they just come out and say what they have believed for a long time," he said. ...There is no doubt Obama's decision was highly political. ..."
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Newt Gingrich ends with lukewarm backing for Romney
Whatever one says about Newt Grudgrich...he's himself till the end...
Newt Gingrich ends with lukewarm backing for Romney – US politics live | World news | guardian.co.uk
Newt Gingrich ends with lukewarm backing for Romney – US politics live | World news | guardian.co.uk
Time to stop wasting the minds of a whole generation | Paul Krugman
Time to stop wasting the minds of a whole generation | The Irish Times
While along way off the horrific kind of youth unemployment seen in Spain (>50%) it seems the US still has problens (16.5% equivalent level currently). Romney's advice to this vulnerable section of society doesn't seem to be doing much to negate his image of a member of the aloof elite who can't appreciate how it is for 'ordinary' people:
"some advice Mitt Romney gave to college students during an appearance last week: After denouncing President Barack Obama’s “divisiveness”, the candidate told his audience, “Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.”
The first thing you notice here is, of course, the Romney touch – the distinctive lack of empathy for those who weren’t born into affluent families, who can’t rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad to finance their ambitions. But the rest of the remark is just as bad in its own way.I mean, “get the education”? And pay for it how? Tuition at public colleges and universities has soared, in part thanks to sharp reductions in state aid. Romney isn’t proposing anything that would fix that; he is, however, a strong supporter of the Ryan budget plan, which would drastically cut federal student aid, causing roughly one million students to lose their Pell grants. "
While along way off the horrific kind of youth unemployment seen in Spain (>50%) it seems the US still has problens (16.5% equivalent level currently). Romney's advice to this vulnerable section of society doesn't seem to be doing much to negate his image of a member of the aloof elite who can't appreciate how it is for 'ordinary' people:
"some advice Mitt Romney gave to college students during an appearance last week: After denouncing President Barack Obama’s “divisiveness”, the candidate told his audience, “Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.”
The first thing you notice here is, of course, the Romney touch – the distinctive lack of empathy for those who weren’t born into affluent families, who can’t rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad to finance their ambitions. But the rest of the remark is just as bad in its own way.I mean, “get the education”? And pay for it how? Tuition at public colleges and universities has soared, in part thanks to sharp reductions in state aid. Romney isn’t proposing anything that would fix that; he is, however, a strong supporter of the Ryan budget plan, which would drastically cut federal student aid, causing roughly one million students to lose their Pell grants. "
Monday, April 23, 2012
Obama :Better then the rest is but good enough
Abroad, as at home, Obama coasts on a wave of disappointment | Gary Younge
Significant hope was invested in Obama to repair America's global reputation and reorient its foreign policy - but there's been precious little return
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/22/abroad-obama-coasts-wave-disappointment
Significant hope was invested in Obama to repair America's global reputation and reorient its foreign policy - but there's been precious little return
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/22/abroad-obama-coasts-wave-disappointment
Monday, March 26, 2012
Monday, March 19, 2012
The Dutch Euthanize Their Elderly, and Other Scary GOP Lies About Europe
Oh dear, seems being cretinously ignorant about the rest of the world is still no weakness in the Republican party:
"The American right sure seems to like stories about foreign countries killing their citizens. Most recently, leading GOP candidate Rick Santorum claimed that 10 per cent of the Netherlands' deaths were from euthanasia, 5 percent forced, and that "elderly people in the Netherlands don't go to the hospital" or, if they do, wear bracelets saying "do not euthanize me," all of which is false."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-dutch-euthanize-their-elderly-and-other-scary-gop-lies-about-europe/254462
And this is from a man campaigning to lead the world's main superpower. Sometimes one reads a piece of information that really scares you about a candidate, and this reminds me of following titbit I encountered recently about Sarah Palin: "Schmidt [Mcain's campaign strategist] said he asked Palin about her serenity in the face of becoming "one of the most famous people in the world." He quoted her as saying, "It's God's plan."
Scary deja vu? You betcha...
"The American right sure seems to like stories about foreign countries killing their citizens. Most recently, leading GOP candidate Rick Santorum claimed that 10 per cent of the Netherlands' deaths were from euthanasia, 5 percent forced, and that "elderly people in the Netherlands don't go to the hospital" or, if they do, wear bracelets saying "do not euthanize me," all of which is false."
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/the-dutch-euthanize-their-elderly-and-other-scary-gop-lies-about-europe/254462
And this is from a man campaigning to lead the world's main superpower. Sometimes one reads a piece of information that really scares you about a candidate, and this reminds me of following titbit I encountered recently about Sarah Palin: "Schmidt [Mcain's campaign strategist] said he asked Palin about her serenity in the face of becoming "one of the most famous people in the world." He quoted her as saying, "It's God's plan."
Scary deja vu? You betcha...
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
polls, hearing what we want to hear
It's become natural to seize on polls such as 'X believe Obama is a muslim' to pour scorn on anti-obama voters, but as this article points out it's an irrational leap of logic to claim that ignorance in one area (knowing he's a Christian) means ignorance in all other areas. Indeed as this article points out, it's more coherent to think that initial rejection of Obama (whether based on policy or person) leads to buying into the more zany criticisms of him . Ironically the basis for liberal disgust at such conspiracy theories is they are irrelevant attacks on the person, not the policies, and yet in grasping with such glee on polls showing support for such theories, they are in fact doing the exact same - judging the voters on irrelevant beliefs and dismissing any other views they might have. Glasshouses and stones come to mind.
Liberal conviction affirmed by polling about faith!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/14/obama-muslim-alabama-republicans-poll
Though this of course is not to mean that all tangential beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to politics. For example a recent poll found that "revealed that one in five Alabamians and more than one in four Mississippians believe interracial marriage should be illegal." (quote from this article). Such racist views really are relevant to the political process, since it is not illogical to think that someone who doesn't think black people should be allowed marry whites, might also think they shouldn't be leading white people. Not all prejudices are determining, but some indeed are...
Liberal conviction affirmed by polling about faith!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/14/obama-muslim-alabama-republicans-poll
Though this of course is not to mean that all tangential beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to politics. For example a recent poll found that "revealed that one in five Alabamians and more than one in four Mississippians believe interracial marriage should be illegal." (quote from this article). Such racist views really are relevant to the political process, since it is not illogical to think that someone who doesn't think black people should be allowed marry whites, might also think they shouldn't be leading white people. Not all prejudices are determining, but some indeed are...
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Obama is still in a hole. It may yet be deeper than his Republican rivals'
"The trouble is, it's easier to see how things get tougher for Obama –
petrol prices, a eurozone collapse, Iran – than for Romney over the
next eight months. Soon Romney will be the nominee, Santorum and Newt
Gingrich will be his loyal advocates (who knows what Ron Paul will do?)
and the white evangelicals and Tea Party types will find motivation in
their Obamaphobia. This may well be the worst it gets for Romney and, in
national polls, he still only loses to Obama by just beyond the margin
of error.
Data isn't destiny and polls aren't elections. Republicans are doing their best to give Obama the weak opponent he needs and, on that count, Romney has been obliging. Low turnout in these primaries indicates Republicans also have an enthusiasm problem, and with every primary their internal dysfunction becomes more apparent.
All the more reason not to underestimate their potential and potency. The next time a Republican says something ridiculous about contraception, jihadist training camps in South America or how their wife has two Cadillacs, remember: that could be the next president you're laughing at."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/11/obama-republican-rivals-mitt-romney
Data isn't destiny and polls aren't elections. Republicans are doing their best to give Obama the weak opponent he needs and, on that count, Romney has been obliging. Low turnout in these primaries indicates Republicans also have an enthusiasm problem, and with every primary their internal dysfunction becomes more apparent.
All the more reason not to underestimate their potential and potency. The next time a Republican says something ridiculous about contraception, jihadist training camps in South America or how their wife has two Cadillacs, remember: that could be the next president you're laughing at."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/11/obama-republican-rivals-mitt-romney
Friday, March 9, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
belief and politics : making God in man's image
Always interesting to see cognitive dissonance at work, in this case in how both sides of the political divide interpret Jesus in line with their own biases. Of course like all scriptures the Bible is remarkably accomodating on that front, since between the slaughter-your-son-just-to-honour-me savagery of the old testament and the turn-the-other-cheek humility of the new, something for every stripe of philosophy.
"A study led by Lee Ross of Stanford University in California has found that the Jesus of liberal Christians is very different from the one envisaged by conservatives.
The researchers discovered that conservatives believe Jesus would have prioritised the moral issues close to their own hearts, and that disparities in wealth or the treatment of illegal immigrants wouldn't have been high on his agenda. Liberals believed the opposite."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/04/jesus-liberals-conservatives
However, overall the conclusion is quite depressing, given the role religion plays in US politics, then one might at least have hoped it might have provided some common ground for debates, but as this shows, belief is personal, and personally biased.
"A study led by Lee Ross of Stanford University in California has found that the Jesus of liberal Christians is very different from the one envisaged by conservatives.
The researchers discovered that conservatives believe Jesus would have prioritised the moral issues close to their own hearts, and that disparities in wealth or the treatment of illegal immigrants wouldn't have been high on his agenda. Liberals believed the opposite."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/mar/04/jesus-liberals-conservatives
However, overall the conclusion is quite depressing, given the role religion plays in US politics, then one might at least have hoped it might have provided some common ground for debates, but as this shows, belief is personal, and personally biased.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Voter turnout tied to sense of identity
I'm very interested in general in the issue of how we describe ourselves , and what are goals are, influences what we actually do, so fascinating to see the effect in the realm of voting:
Voter Turnout Is Tied to Sense of Identity: Scientific American
"Boosting voter turnout could be as simple as making individuals see voting as part of who they are rather than as something they do. For the 2008 presidential election, the turnout rate was about 96 percent among registered voters who first filled out a survey asking “How important is it to you to be a voter?” compared with about 82 percent for those who were asked “How important is it to you to vote?” The study, led by Christopher Bryan of Stanford University, was recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. “We offered people the prospect of claiming a desirable identity,” Bryan says. “That’s a very powerful thing.”
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Saturday, February 18, 2012
The first Facebook election...
Obama, Facebook and the power of friendship: the 2012 data election | World news | guardian.co.uk
"Facebook is also being seen as a source of invaluable data on voters. The re-election team, Obama for America, will be inviting its supporters to log on to the campaign website via Facebook, thus allowing the campaign to access their personal data and add it to the central data store – the largest, most detailed and potentially most powerful in the history of political campaigns. If 2008 was all about social media, 2012 is destined to become the "data election".
"
Friday, February 17, 2012
The 'second Great Depression' saviour myth
Dean Baker : "We're told that Fed officials and the Obama administration saved us from another 1930s-style slump. Nonsense"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/16/second-great-depression-saviour-myth
However, it might be disingenous to compare the US to Argentina, since in the case of Agentina a collapsing currency must have made it more competetive and allow it to grow with exports to a still existing world economy, whereas if something similar happened the US and the dollar, that entire economy would be severly shaken.
And furthermore even if financial armegeddon was always unlikely, extreme chaos and misery could still have been possible.
Still - hyperbole should be shot down, on both sides of the political divide...so worth reposting...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/16/second-great-depression-saviour-myth
However, it might be disingenous to compare the US to Argentina, since in the case of Agentina a collapsing currency must have made it more competetive and allow it to grow with exports to a still existing world economy, whereas if something similar happened the US and the dollar, that entire economy would be severly shaken.
And furthermore even if financial armegeddon was always unlikely, extreme chaos and misery could still have been possible.
Still - hyperbole should be shot down, on both sides of the political divide...so worth reposting...
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Santorum back in the race after sweeping wins over Mitt Romney
Santorum won political caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota, along with beauty contest in Missouri securing triple victory
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/08/rick-santorum-victory-colorado-minnesota
"The big results for Santorum were Minnesota and Colorado, whose caucuses were about delivering delegates The potential turning point could be Super Tuesday on 6 March when 10 states hold elections. Gingrich and Santorum victories in some of these states and a share of delegates in others would doom Romney's chances of bringing the race to a close in April."
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Obama campaign throws its weight behind Democrats' Super Pac
Head of Obama's campaign expresses concern that Republican candidates will be able to outspend president in 21012 race
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/obama-campaign-democrats-super-pac
"The Democratic party has watched aghast at not only the amounts raised by Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney – who is favourite to take on Obama for the White House – but Republican Super PACs storing funds for the general election, such as Karl Rove's American Crossroads.
Messina said American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS raised $51m last year while comparable Democratic groups collected only $19m over the same period.
Until recently, it had been widely assumed that Obama would be the first candidate to have a record-breaking $1bn to fight a White House campaign and his Republican rival would be behind, with about $750m. But these calculations are being up-ended."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/obama-campaign-democrats-super-pac
"The Democratic party has watched aghast at not only the amounts raised by Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney – who is favourite to take on Obama for the White House – but Republican Super PACs storing funds for the general election, such as Karl Rove's American Crossroads.
Messina said American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS raised $51m last year while comparable Democratic groups collected only $19m over the same period.
Until recently, it had been widely assumed that Obama would be the first candidate to have a record-breaking $1bn to fight a White House campaign and his Republican rival would be behind, with about $750m. But these calculations are being up-ended."
Friday, February 3, 2012
Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor
Given the recent (and ongoing) crisis of the western economic model, and the untold hardship for many, then I think wealth, and candidates attitudes to it, are an important topic for our times. It should be said that since Romney is under the spotlight at the moment, of course most articles will be about him, and I will try to seekout post and highlight any similar articles about the other candidates, and Obama.
It's not just that all politicians are wealthy, it's what their worldview of wealth, and how it should be distributed that matters, since it will set the tone for how society progresses (and letting the market decide returns is just as much a mechanism of re-"distribution", a transfer of wealth from one bunch of people to another, as taxation is).
And several elements in the following article are (even if taken as they are here in isolation) I think particularly worrying about Romney (extracts below).
Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor
The Republican frontrunner rejects the politics of 'envy'. How convenient for the multimillionaire candidate of the 1%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/02/mitt-romney-not-concerned-about-poor
On the one hand he doesn't think the 'poor' are a group worth being focused on, despite this being an ever increasing section of US society, nor does he think there is anything wrong with siding with the 99% against the 1% who disproprotionately benefit from the current system, claiming, without any irony, that the mere thought of it is against the US ideal of 'one nation under God'. Maybe he means the '1% nation under God'.
Extracts :
It's not just that all politicians are wealthy, it's what their worldview of wealth, and how it should be distributed that matters, since it will set the tone for how society progresses (and letting the market decide returns is just as much a mechanism of re-"distribution", a transfer of wealth from one bunch of people to another, as taxation is).
And several elements in the following article are (even if taken as they are here in isolation) I think particularly worrying about Romney (extracts below).
Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor
The Republican frontrunner rejects the politics of 'envy'. How convenient for the multimillionaire candidate of the 1%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/02/mitt-romney-not-concerned-about-poor
On the one hand he doesn't think the 'poor' are a group worth being focused on, despite this being an ever increasing section of US society, nor does he think there is anything wrong with siding with the 99% against the 1% who disproprotionately benefit from the current system, claiming, without any irony, that the mere thought of it is against the US ideal of 'one nation under God'. Maybe he means the '1% nation under God'.
Extracts :
- According to the most recent figures available from the US Census Bureau, 46.2 million people lived in poverty in 2010, 15.1% of the population, the largest number in the 52 years the poverty estimates have been published. 2010 marked the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty
- We will hear from the Democrat[ic] party the plight of the poor, and there's no question, it's not good being poor," he told CNN's Soledad O'Brien. "You could choose where to focus, you could focus on the rich, that's not my focus. You could focus on the very poor, that's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans."
- Romney, in his victory speech in New Hampshire, said:
"This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success … We are one nation under God."
- The next morning, NBC's Matt Lauer challenged him, asking:
"Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?"
- Romney doubled down, claiming:
"I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99% versus 1% – and those people who have been most successful will be in the 1% … [it's] entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God."
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Socialists and conservatives may be born not made
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/jan/31/socialists-conservatives-born-not-made
This is not the first study I've read about which correlates political leanings to certain dispositions, but it's one that fits into a pet (and half in jest!) stereotyping of mine that people on the right worry more about the undeserving being treated too fairly, and people on the left worry more about the deserving being treated unfairly.
Both of these concerns are valid, since the drives to support and help those we feel as part of our society, and the drives to punish those who we feel act against it, are both I think equally important (and necessary) strands in a moral community. Doing good is not enough, for the system to work we need to also act against 'the bad', and there seems to be a lot of evidence that we have been hard wired by evolution for both these dispositions. While most people will agree about the former (that some people will and should help others despite cost to themselves), it is perhaps less widely known that studies show people will also accept a cost to themselves just to punish other people, and from similar righteous reasons (the classic example of this is the 'ultimatum' game ).
For me it's a bit like worrying which is worse - that nine guilty men go free, or one innocent man goes to jail. My view is that a lot of right wing politics is focused most on the travesty of the nine guilty escaping punishment, or as is more likely the case, nine welfare cheats getting away with excessive benefits. Of course no one can disagree with being angry about this, and these are real problems which society has to work on, but the question is how important they are. In contrast, I would think it a more left-wing approach to focus most instead on what happens the one innocent, or the deserving welfare recipient who might lose out due to new 'tough' policies. Of course no one on the right disagrees with this either, the point is not that one side is 'nasty' or the other 'soft' , both agree in principle, but disagree in priority.
The study mentioned in this article seem to indicate that right-leaning/left-leaning people differ in the magnitude of their responses to negative and positive stimuli, and I think this fits in with the theory above, namely that if one gets more charged up about negative things, e.g. moral outrage about cheats, one is more likely to favour a conservative platform, since these issues provoke a deeper response, and hence raise their relative priority. The converse is harder to show, since it's not clear absence of unfair punishment is really a sort of 'positive' stimulus, but my impression is there is something valid in this direction as well.
Given how passionate people can be about politics then the more psychological information we can gather the better, and studies such as this provide promising initial insights.
extract:
"The results showed those with right-wing beliefs had a relatively increased response to disgust and threat, whereas those who vote left-of-centre had a relatively increased response to pleasurable images.
This suggests that left-wing people are relatively more responsive to appetitive than aversive stimuli and that people who are right-of-centre are more responsive to aversive stimuli. Put another way, conservatives are more responsive to negative stimuli whereas those on the left are more responsive to positive stimuli.
The implication is that the same stimuli will evoke polarised responses depending on where you are on the aversive-appetitive spectrum. These different reactions to shared experiences will mean those of politically opposing viewpoints will automatically judge the other as wrong, and no amount of arguing in the House of Commons can change that."
This is not the first study I've read about which correlates political leanings to certain dispositions, but it's one that fits into a pet (and half in jest!) stereotyping of mine that people on the right worry more about the undeserving being treated too fairly, and people on the left worry more about the deserving being treated unfairly.
Both of these concerns are valid, since the drives to support and help those we feel as part of our society, and the drives to punish those who we feel act against it, are both I think equally important (and necessary) strands in a moral community. Doing good is not enough, for the system to work we need to also act against 'the bad', and there seems to be a lot of evidence that we have been hard wired by evolution for both these dispositions. While most people will agree about the former (that some people will and should help others despite cost to themselves), it is perhaps less widely known that studies show people will also accept a cost to themselves just to punish other people, and from similar righteous reasons (the classic example of this is the 'ultimatum' game ).
For me it's a bit like worrying which is worse - that nine guilty men go free, or one innocent man goes to jail. My view is that a lot of right wing politics is focused most on the travesty of the nine guilty escaping punishment, or as is more likely the case, nine welfare cheats getting away with excessive benefits. Of course no one can disagree with being angry about this, and these are real problems which society has to work on, but the question is how important they are. In contrast, I would think it a more left-wing approach to focus most instead on what happens the one innocent, or the deserving welfare recipient who might lose out due to new 'tough' policies. Of course no one on the right disagrees with this either, the point is not that one side is 'nasty' or the other 'soft' , both agree in principle, but disagree in priority.
The study mentioned in this article seem to indicate that right-leaning/left-leaning people differ in the magnitude of their responses to negative and positive stimuli, and I think this fits in with the theory above, namely that if one gets more charged up about negative things, e.g. moral outrage about cheats, one is more likely to favour a conservative platform, since these issues provoke a deeper response, and hence raise their relative priority. The converse is harder to show, since it's not clear absence of unfair punishment is really a sort of 'positive' stimulus, but my impression is there is something valid in this direction as well.
Given how passionate people can be about politics then the more psychological information we can gather the better, and studies such as this provide promising initial insights.
extract:
"The results showed those with right-wing beliefs had a relatively increased response to disgust and threat, whereas those who vote left-of-centre had a relatively increased response to pleasurable images.
This suggests that left-wing people are relatively more responsive to appetitive than aversive stimuli and that people who are right-of-centre are more responsive to aversive stimuli. Put another way, conservatives are more responsive to negative stimuli whereas those on the left are more responsive to positive stimuli.
The implication is that the same stimuli will evoke polarised responses depending on where you are on the aversive-appetitive spectrum. These different reactions to shared experiences will mean those of politically opposing viewpoints will automatically judge the other as wrong, and no amount of arguing in the House of Commons can change that."
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Romney reaps the power of the dark side, Gingrich dreams on...
Mitt Romney reclaims position as GOP frontrunner with crushing Florida win
Romney turns nasty : "In Florida, Romney fought one of the most relentlessly negative campaigns in recent US history. An independent monitoring group reported that 99% of his ads aired in Florida were negative"
Gingrich keeps on dreaming : "He did not adere to the tradition of congratulating Romney on his victory, nor did he immediately call him to concede. Before he embarked on a rambling speech about what he would do in his first days as president, Gingrich warned the "elite media" against writing him off as they had done before."
Romney turns nasty : "In Florida, Romney fought one of the most relentlessly negative campaigns in recent US history. An independent monitoring group reported that 99% of his ads aired in Florida were negative"
Gingrich keeps on dreaming : "He did not adere to the tradition of congratulating Romney on his victory, nor did he immediately call him to concede. Before he embarked on a rambling speech about what he would do in his first days as president, Gingrich warned the "elite media" against writing him off as they had done before."
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Of the rich, for the rich, by the rich?
Money always plays and played a role in politics, but must be coming to extreme levels now in the age of the Super PACs, and it really is shocking the amount of money sloshing around, and due to slosh even more, in the US elections...
Is the US setting itself up for a government of the rich, chosen by the rich, and who one would have to suspect then of being at least in some way for the rich?
some recent articles on the subject :
in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/29/us-politics-vote-money-wins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/28/newt-gingrich-sheldon-adelson-billionaire)
Money doesn't just talk, it shouts, and drowns out everything else...
Is the US setting itself up for a government of the rich, chosen by the rich, and who one would have to suspect then of being at least in some way for the rich?
some recent articles on the subject :
in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/29/us-politics-vote-money-wins
- "In the whole of 2008 individuals, parties and other groups spent $168.8m independently on the presidential election. This year on Republican candidates alone, where voting started less than a month ago, the Super Pacs have reported independent expenditures of almost $40m. In 2008 election spending doubled compared with 2004. This year industry analysts believe the money spent just on television ads is set to leap by almost 80% compared with four years ago. "
- "This is not a partisan point. Almost two-thirds of Americans believe the government should limit individual contributions – with a majority among Republicans, Democrats and independents. The influence of money at this level corrupts an entire political culture and in no small part explains the depth of cynicism, alienation and mistrust Americans now have for their politicians."
- "The trend towards oligarchy in the polity is already clear. There are 250 millionaires in Congress. Their median net worth is $891,506, nine times the typical US household. Around 11% are in the nation's top 1%, including 34 Republicans and 23 Democrats. And that's before you get to Romney, whose personal wealth is double that of the last eight presidents combined."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/28/newt-gingrich-sheldon-adelson-billionaire)
- "By 2010 Adelson had donated around another $6m to the group as Gingrich toured the country, touting his causes and contemplating a presidential run. Eventually this group turned into the Super PAC Winning Our Future. The cheques from Adelson kept coming."
Money doesn't just talk, it shouts, and drowns out everything else...
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Another debate, another round of the Mitt and Newt show...
no matter what one's political persuasion, I think these Guardian blogs of the GOP debates are classic...who'd have thought politics could be so amusing?!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/24/republican-debate-tampa-florida-live
some extracts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/24/republican-debate-tampa-florida-live
some extracts:
- it seems like only yesterday that we were all here for the last Republican debate live blog. That's because it was only yesterday. Well, almost yesterday. This is the 18th debate, and the Republican race is showing no signs of being decided anytime soon, so there could be many more. There's another on Thursday, for god's sake. Then there's a gap of about month, but the ratings are so good, and American Idol is tanking, so the broadcasters will probably drop in even more. It makes you want to scream.
- Dammit. Moderator Brian Williams turns to Rick Santorum.Why, Brian Williams, when you had candidates re-enacting the Sharks vs Jets routine of the West Side Story but without the choreography and more ill will?
- The reason why Newt keeps mentioning Reagan, Pope John Paul and Thatcher, is that he wants to relive his glory years in the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe he should throw Duran Duran in there as well.
- Immigration now – always a hot topic in Florida. "We're not going to round people up," says kindly Mitt Romney. Instead they will be allowed to work without healthcare benefits on one of Mitt's mansions, and then deported. Actually, according to Romney, those without valid ID "will self-deport". That sounds more like something in Star Trek: "Self deport me, Scotty."
- President Mitt will restart the space programme, presumably to shoot his tax records for the past two decades into the ionosphere
- RomneyBot 2000 is back, presumably smuggled on during the last commercial break, and it promptly answers the question about sugar subsidies by talking about Barack Obama having played 90 rounds of golf while presiden
- What I've learned in this debate so far: It is not 1962 (Ron Paul), Americans are insufficiently blood-thirsty (Newt Gingrich) and when Castro dies, someone is going to think it's a good idea to wake up the president at 3AM (Brian Williams). Also, you should not have to apologize for success (Mitt Romney), but if you spend five minutes arguing that point, it will sound a lot like you are apologizing for success. Santorum something something something.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
The big issue..inequality
The people, from both sides, seem to know which direction to go, but can politicians, of either side, lead them there?
" talk of inequality is resonating with voters. When asked recently what was a bigger problem – "unfairness in the economic system that favours the wealthy or over-regulation of the free market that interferes with growth and prosperity" – 55% of Americans chose the former and only 35% the latter. Two-thirds of Americans believe there are either "very strong" or "strong" conflicts between rich and poor in America – a nearly 20% increase from 2009.
...
From a policy standpoint, polls consistently suggest that Americans believe taxes should be raised on the wealthiest Americans. It's even a view held among rank-and-file Republicans, in stark contrast to the tax cut absolutism of party leaders.
...
The problem is that few national politicians have sought to test the proposition that such attitudes matter much politically. Republicans are deeply fearful of any national discussion about income inequality or the wealthy's shrinking tax burden. .
...
But Democrats have also been resistant to offering such populist appeals for fear of being defined as divisive or engaging in class warfare.
...
Rather, Democrats were happy to parrot the Republican party's talk about deficit spending and defer discussions of income inequality. The gutlessness of Democrats reached its pinnacle in the autumn of 2010 when a mere two months before midterm elections congressional Democrats refused to bring to a vote a measure that would have brought to an end tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year."
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Gingrich's victory in South Carolina..what we learned
Below is the guardian's list of "what we learned" points from the SC primary. Personally I think the overall winners were politico soap opera junkies who get another round of cliff hanger episodes, the media circus that gets to continue its carnival and avoid having to get back to real reporting, and of course Barack Obama, who can sit back and watch the the republicans pour their cash into taking chunks out of themselves and writing his own campaign ads for him. That comment that Gingrich is like a cross between Batman and Nixon seems quite apt...the self obsessed, ethically besmirched, vigilante against the powers of Romneykind rides on!
and my favourite quote of the night: "chortled Karl Rove, a man for whom the verb chortle might even have been invented"
From the guardian: (www.guardian.co.uk):
==================================
10.30pm: Right. Here's what we've learned tonight:
A race we all thought would be neck-and-neck between Gingrich and Romney turned out to be a runaway romp for Gingrich. He won with a 14 percentage point margin that outstripped the final opinion polls.
A majority of Republicans in South Carolina think that Newt Gingrich is the party's most electable candidate versus Barack Obama. That's a charming idea in and of itself.
Mitt Romney's supposed advantage in terms of money, super pac support and campaign machinery all turned to ashes on the night. Given that much of the received assumption of Romney's inevitiability rested on those three points, where does that leave Romney's chances?
The Republican contest will now go on beyond the next primary in Florida at the end of this month. A tide of money is likely to flow into the Gingrich campaign. How quickly he can scale up his operation will have an impact on the course of this nomination.
Gingrich's new position as the frontrunner will bring a big bonus with it in terms of free media coverage. Combined with the two debates coming up – on Monday and Thursday – which play to his strengths, Gingrich can use free media to compensate for his organisational and financial weaknesses – but only up to a point.
Rick Santorum's relatively strong showing in third place, winning 17% of the vote, will probably be enough to sustain him in the race. But should Santorum make a decision to withdraw, that would almost certainly aid Gingrich.
Will Gingrich's victory cause a backlash from what's left of the Republican establishment? The next few days will show if there any panic in the ranks. Since Gingrich has been banging the Reagan drum as loudly as possible, look for former Reaganites to start rubbishing Gingrich in public.
With three different winners from the first three contests, looking for a national pattern among Republican voters is pointless. That makes national polls worthless. And the fluid nature of the earlier contests means that opinion polls taken more than two or three days before voting took place were also worthless.
Feel free to speculate endlessly about a deadlocked Republican National Convention and/or late entrants – Jeb Bush? Why not, everyone else will.
That will do for one primary. Next up: a debate in Florida on Monday, just 46.5 hours from now. No, we can't wait, either.
Friday, January 20, 2012
The GOP race and the media: stuffing the "newshole"
Sadly definitely true media coverage of the GOP race exceeds both interest and import, and too much focus on it inevitably leaves other important stories uncovered. But like any soap opera its devotees are simply obsessively addicted, and this one probably has an especially strong hook on the self proclaimed "thinking man" who would scorn such gossip and trivia in any other arena but laps it up once has a "high brow" excuse. Politics and the city, the latest season...
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Barack Obama's presidency, three years on – is it time to give up hope?
Given the focus on the republican primaries, is worth talking as well about the man they're fighting to go up against:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/barack-obama-president-hope-michelle
Perhaps the most wounding criticism of Obama is indeed :
"Which brings us closer to the core critique of Obama. That he avoids a fight, that he folds too early, that in his desire to unite and heal he too often surrenders his own position – to the point where no one is clear what his own position is"
It is true both that Obama could never have lived up to the many (divergent) hopes had of him when elected, but also that he has been less than stellar in his performance. Personally my interpretation is that while his heart is in the right place on most matters, he is ironically far from the driven left wing politican that the republicans paint him as, and is in fact someone who seeks compromise too much. When it comes to compromise it takes two to tango, and I think it is fair to say there has been often congressional obstructionism merely for the sake of it.
That this tarnishes his image is also ironic given that bipartisanship is something the electorate seems to want, and even the office of president itself was (in my understanding) originally meant to be for a sort of concilliatory guiding role, not an authoritarian all powerful one (I think Washington chose the term 'president' precisely for this reason, since the person was 'to preside' over government, and this would be in contrast to the title of 'prime minister' which they could have easily taken over from England, and which would imply much more superiority).
In the modern day however, and especially in a country with such deep cultural divisions, both sides want a president who is forceful in defending their values, and Obama is not very good at that it seems. Try to please everyone and you end up pleasing no one. But surely this is what the country needs at a divided time. To paraphrase the stones, you might not 't always get what you want, but sometimes you might get what you need.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/barack-obama-president-hope-michelle
Perhaps the most wounding criticism of Obama is indeed :
"Which brings us closer to the core critique of Obama. That he avoids a fight, that he folds too early, that in his desire to unite and heal he too often surrenders his own position – to the point where no one is clear what his own position is"
It is true both that Obama could never have lived up to the many (divergent) hopes had of him when elected, but also that he has been less than stellar in his performance. Personally my interpretation is that while his heart is in the right place on most matters, he is ironically far from the driven left wing politican that the republicans paint him as, and is in fact someone who seeks compromise too much. When it comes to compromise it takes two to tango, and I think it is fair to say there has been often congressional obstructionism merely for the sake of it.
That this tarnishes his image is also ironic given that bipartisanship is something the electorate seems to want, and even the office of president itself was (in my understanding) originally meant to be for a sort of concilliatory guiding role, not an authoritarian all powerful one (I think Washington chose the term 'president' precisely for this reason, since the person was 'to preside' over government, and this would be in contrast to the title of 'prime minister' which they could have easily taken over from England, and which would imply much more superiority).
In the modern day however, and especially in a country with such deep cultural divisions, both sides want a president who is forceful in defending their values, and Obama is not very good at that it seems. Try to please everyone and you end up pleasing no one. But surely this is what the country needs at a divided time. To paraphrase the stones, you might not 't always get what you want, but sometimes you might get what you need.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president
Gingrich has said before that he regards the president as above the court when the two branches have fundamentally differing views but he went further in committing himself to setting up a constitutional crisis on his first day in office.
The Republican candidate cited what he said were precedents, including Abraham Lincoln's refusal to accept the Dred Scott decision denying that former slaves were citizens.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/newt-gingrich-ignore-supreme-court-president
Without knowing the details of the US system, can't comment too much on what consitutional grounds a president has to ignore the courts, but regardless of the particular setup, in general it sounds pretty terrible. One can only imagine how Putin or Ahmadinejad would be described if they made a similar promise.
Though of course in principle courts are to interpret law made by congress, not to make them, and so they are of course not omnipotent. But the point of a complicated and interconnected judicial and congressional system is specifically to avoid the power being given to one individual, who could dictate at will. Laws and their interpretation is something which is culture based and on which culture is based, and must thus change direction slowly, as the result of deliberation and discussion. If every 4 years one person can have ultimate control on what they are allowed do, and not just how to do it, then it's not just republicanism, but banana republicanism (as even Bush's attorney general has callled it ("President George W Bush's attorney general, Michael Mukasey, has said that a president selectively ignoring supreme court decisions would turn the US in to a banana republic.")
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Mitt Romney admits: I pay 15% tax on $200m personal fortune
The fact that a candidate with wealth of $200m pays income tax at an effective rate of 15% says more about the taxing (or lack of) of the extremely rich rather than how far removed most candidates (of both parties it must be said) really are from the 'man in the street'. Though of course the acceptance of the wealth of those involved is even more bizarre when one considers that coming across as 'one of us' seems to be one of the most important boxes to tick for any US presidential candidate.
The question is whether the candidate, party or electorate think this is ok in current times of hardship.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/17/mitt-romney-speaking-fees-tax
Of course the figure of $200m is 'wealth', not income (I specifically don't use the term 'earnings') but since Romney considers the $370,000 he gets for speaking engagements 'not very much' then presumably his (not disclosed) yearly take is considerable, even after the whopping 15% tax he pays in the socialist commune Obama has supposedly turned the US into....
The question is whether the candidate, party or electorate think this is ok in current times of hardship.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/17/mitt-romney-speaking-fees-tax
Of course the figure of $200m is 'wealth', not income (I specifically don't use the term 'earnings') but since Romney considers the $370,000 he gets for speaking engagements 'not very much' then presumably his (not disclosed) yearly take is considerable, even after the whopping 15% tax he pays in the socialist commune Obama has supposedly turned the US into....
Monday, January 16, 2012
Domestic elections and foreign policy
The Republican challenger can talk big, act tough and promise the world, so the president must not to rise to the bait:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/15/romney-obama-republican-foreign-policy
Sunday, January 15, 2012
oddest attack ads
two most bizarre attack ads have seen so far...
Santorum's 'values' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhNdmD_I3Aw , claiming he's 'the only one with experience in the fight against radical islam' ?! Not sure what that is supposed to be based on, and even worse blatant stoking of irrational fears...
Gingrich's body blow to Romney, the man, speaks... French! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFaWhygzjQ
Santorum's 'values' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhNdmD_I3Aw , claiming he's 'the only one with experience in the fight against radical islam' ?! Not sure what that is supposed to be based on, and even worse blatant stoking of irrational fears...
Gingrich's body blow to Romney, the man, speaks... French! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFaWhygzjQ
PAC men
Guide to the super-PACs...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
current top 8 by expenditure...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
current top 8 by expenditure...
| Group | Supports/Opposes | Independent Expenditures | Viewpoint | Total Raised |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Restore Our Future | supports Romney | $7,795,104 | Conservative | $12,231,700 |
| Winning Our Future | supports Gingrich | $4,204,685 | Conservative | $0 |
| Make Us Great Again | supports Perry | $3,793,524 | Conservative | $0 |
| Our Destiny PAC | supports Huntsman | $2,453,204 | Conservative | $0 |
| Endorse Liberty | supports Paul | $1,165,542 | Conservative | $0 |
| House Majority PAC | $1,105,843 | Liberal | $2,110,000 | |
| American Crossroads | $1,064,223 | Conservative | $6,679,887 | |
| Red, White and Blue | supports Santorum | $727,200 | Conservative | $0 |
Friday, January 13, 2012
Stephen Colbert for President?
Satirical news show host paves way for presidential bid by transferring control of political fundraising to Jon Stewart
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/13/stephen-colbert-president-super-pac-jon-stewart
Thursday, January 12, 2012
When two Newts go to war...
It seems Gingrich is thrashing in SC out of pure spite, but I guess
it could mean such issues are raised and dealt with long in advance of
the real campaign, so maybe not so bad as it looks.
Two Newts emerge in South Carolina to take down Mitt Romne : Both the nasty and nice sides of Newt Gingrich are facing a tough battle in trying to derail Romney's momentum, but neither side may be able to succeed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/newt-gingrich-south-carolina-romney
I have to admit since I am repelled by some of the more conservative streaks in the Republican party (though as I say elsewhere these elements are probably over-hyped and might cloud objective judgement on policies that do matter), so have also to admit a certain relish in watching them take chunks out of each other. Surely Obama must be sitting back and laughing, especially at the irony of Mitt Romney being portayed by Gingrich as a 'vulture capitalist'. Is this not the exact kind of charge Obama can use to most effect in the final campaign in a time of economic suffering, and what better than be able to say Romney's own colleagues say it?
Since so talked about, here's the link to the full ad : When Mitt came to town :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE
Two Newts emerge in South Carolina to take down Mitt Romne : Both the nasty and nice sides of Newt Gingrich are facing a tough battle in trying to derail Romney's momentum, but neither side may be able to succeed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/newt-gingrich-south-carolina-romney
I have to admit since I am repelled by some of the more conservative streaks in the Republican party (though as I say elsewhere these elements are probably over-hyped and might cloud objective judgement on policies that do matter), so have also to admit a certain relish in watching them take chunks out of each other. Surely Obama must be sitting back and laughing, especially at the irony of Mitt Romney being portayed by Gingrich as a 'vulture capitalist'. Is this not the exact kind of charge Obama can use to most effect in the final campaign in a time of economic suffering, and what better than be able to say Romney's own colleagues say it?
Since so talked about, here's the link to the full ad : When Mitt came to town :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The New Hampshire result...Ron Paul wins in 2nd place...
"Mitt Romney's emphatic win is less significant than Ron Paul's result. And what it signifies is a Republican party fragmenting"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ana-marie-cox-blog/2012/jan/11/ron-paul-is-a-winner-with-second-place
Though this might be a case of excessive rune-reading. I do however like the comment: "Gingrich continues on completely out of spite, thank God. He is the grim anti-hero of the GOP, a cross between Richard Nixon and Batman."
It's economic policies, stupid
It's a valid point that for all the fascination with the 'cultural' views in the GOP race, on religion, rights (and maybe even slightly race) too little attention is being paid to the implications of candidates' economic 'ideologies'. While the republican party makes headlines with stances on abortion and gay rights, what is more relevant to the vast majority of people are the economic dogmas.
Mitt Romney, candidate of the 1% :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/09/mitt-romney-candidate-of-the-1-per-cent
Monday, January 9, 2012
Ron Paul's useful idiots on the left
"Progressives who make common cause with Paul on US foreign policy ignore his stunningly reactionary views on everything else"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left
Rick Santorum's homophobic frothing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/04/rick-santorum-homophobic-frothing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)