Saturday, September 1, 2012

Conspiracy of Stupid:   Ron Paul Reps Shouted Down and Permanently Offended - Not "Endorsing" the Rmoney Team (Ever?) Does It Matter That Santorum Addressed Working-Class Voters In Non-Mandarin Terms?


I just found the most concise denouement of the Rethuglican Gathering at Cogitamus:

Would that we'd been reading more like this at the Guardian from our weak-tea press corps here at home.

They set out on their long trek with two deeply mendacious speeches. Mr Ryan's lies were more barefaced: he blamed the incumbent president for the closure of a General Motors plant which went belly up under his predecessor.

Mr Romney's rewriting of recent history was just as bold. According to him, the Republicans in Congress accepted Mr Obama's victory in 2008 and, being the good and generous people that they are, rallied round his presidency. They did not block everything he did, or threaten to send government finances over a cliff, twice.

The most partisan and obstructionist opposition in history has all been one giant misunderstanding. In a similar vein, Bain Capital was a "small" company that "helped" other businesses. The man with more wealth than the eight most recent presidents combined ended this section by reaching out to Americans on two jobs at $9 an hour. The hallucinogen powerful enough to cast Mr Romney as a man of the poor has not yet been confected.
Posted by: nancy | August 31, 2012

Remember to check out Glenn Greenwald now in the Guardian. Here he speaks about this "suffocatingly" dumb presidential election (and all the past ones), and why it's so hard to write seriously about it or wish anything except that it would be over quickly.

by Glenn Greenwald
Wednesday night, the GOP's nominee for vice-president, Paul Ryan, delivered a speech loaded with pure, fundamental deceit on its core claims. The New Republic's Jonathan Cohn has the clearest and most concise explanation of those falsehoods.
Reflecting the pure worthlessness and chronic failure of CNN, however, here is how that network's lead anchor, Wolf Blitzer, reacted after the speech was finished:

"So there he is, the Republican vice-presidential nominee and his beautiful family there. His mom is up there. This is exactly what this crowd of Republicans here, certainly Republicans all across the country, were hoping for. He delivered a powerful speech, Erin, a powerful speech. Although I marked seven or eight points, I'm sure the fact-checkers will have some opportunities to dispute if they want to go forward; I'm sure they will. As far as Mitt Romney's campaign is concerned, Paul Ryan on this night delivered."
Blitzer's co-anchor, Erin Burnett – who, the night before, described how she "had a tear in [her] eye" as she listened to Ann Romney's convention speech – added this journalistic wisdom:

"That's right. Certainly so. We were jotting down points. There will be issues with some of the facts. But it motivated people. He's a man who says I care deeply about every single word. I want to do a good job. And he delivered on that. Precise, clear, and passionate."
As Gawker's Louis Peitzman wrote:

"'A powerful speech' with only 'seven or eight' facts to dispute? Sounds like a winner … [I]n the end, isn't 'precise, clear, and passionate' more important than truthful?"
As perfect an exhibit as that is of the empty, rotted wasteland known as "CNN", when it comes to conveying the self-parodying inanity of The Most Trusted Name in News, nothing will ever top this tweet, from Blitzer last week:
What could ever be better than that? The tagline for Blitzer's show, including on the Sea of Galilee story, boasts that he "delivers the most important news and political stories of the day".

But mocking CNN is to pick low-hanging fruit. The real issue is that CNN's vapid fixation on the dreaminess of our political leaders and "their beautiful families" dominates political discourse generally, especially during the nation's presidential election cycle, which drags on for a seemingly interminable 18 months – more than one third of the president's term – and drowns out virtually all other political issues.
The reason I write so little about the presidential election is that it's the ultimate expression of the CNN-ization of American politics: a tawdry, uber-contrived reality show that has less to do with political reality than the average rant one hears at any randomly chosen corner bar or family dinner. That does not mean the outcome is irrelevant, only that the process is suffocatingly dumb and deceitful, generating the desire to turn away and hope that it's over as quickly as possible.
 Read the rest here.

 Ron Paul won almost (who knows the real count?) 200 votes according to the Seattle Times.

Funny how the domineering Rmoney boys acted like it was only an embarrassment, treated the Paul people "atrociously," and ran their humiliated asses off the stage whenever it looked like someone might want to seriously resist their dismissal.

From the Nation:

As Santorum spoke, not on the message of the night but on a deeper message of outreach to working-class voters delivered in the language both parties once employed, the crowd that packed the great hall roared with approval — if not entirely for the political point, then surely for the relief from the drab repetition that defined “We Built It” night. This was not the empty rhetoric molded by the mandarins who have managed the life out of the fortieth Republican National Convention.

The only speech that might have been more engaging would have been the one that wasn’t delivered — by Paul.
Unfortunately, Paul was not being allowed near any official microphones.
Paul was the Romney challenger who stayed in the race longest, and who won almost 200 delegate votes. (The actual delegate vote for Paul was hard to measure, as RNC officials only announced votes for Romney during Tuesday night’s roll call, but the Seattle Times counted 193 for Paul.)
Not that many years ago, coming second in the convention vote might have guaranteed Paul a convention speaking slot.
At this convention, it guaranteed him—and his supporters—treatment so rough that his supporters, the largest dissident block on the floor, openly accused party chair Reince Priebus and his team of “corruption.”
Paul backers had enough delegates and support in the states to have their candidate’s name put in nomination. But that didn’t count in the Priebus party. As the New York Times noted: “Delegates from Nevada tried to nominate Mr. Paul from the floor, submitting petitions from their own state as well as Minnesota, Maine, Iowa, Oregon, Alaska and the Virgin Islands. That should have done the trick: Rules require signatures from just five states. But the party changed the rules on the spot. Henceforth, delegates must gather petitions from eight states.”
But Priebus did not just rewrite the rules of 2012. More ominously, he and the Romney team rewrote the rules of 2016. The party brass engineered a fundamental change in the next nominating process in order to assure that neither Paul — nor anyone else as interesting, or dissenting — will ever again be able to beat the establishment at its own game and win substantial numbers of delegates. The Paul delegates, many Tea Party conservatives and a number of renegade Romney delegates objected, creating the only real drama of the day, and the convention.
As Priebus and his allies gaveled objections down, the Paul delegates shouted their disapproval from the back-of-the-hall seats to which states with substantial Paul contingents had been relegated. “It’s a coronation,” said David Aiello, a medical student from Rhode who, like many Paul delegates, complained that “the party leaders, the people in charge, they don’t want a real debate. That’s obvious this week.”
Aiello, 25 years old, savvy, smart and highly engaged, is precisely the sort of young person the Grand Old Party needs to bring into its ranks. “That’s what I thought,” said Aiello. “But I’m not getting that vibe.”
Some Paul delegates were so offended that they exited the convention. Others speculated about whether they would back the GOP ticket. And libertarian-leaning young voters across the country got a signal that they weren’t really wanted at the Grand Old Party. In a fall race where it is likely that many states will be decided by narrow margins, the disregard for these voters (who might sit the election out, might vote for Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson or might even consider Obama and the Democrats) could come back to haunt the Romney campaign.
Paul said Tuesday that his delegates felt they had been treated “atrociously.”
And, no, Paul added, he will not be rushing to join the Romney team.
“I haven’t made up my mind,” he told Fox. “Put me down as undecided.”
Paul Ryan has tried to secure Paul’s endorsement, claiming that the Romney-Ryan ticket will appeal to Paul’s supporters. After all, the platform references the Gold Standard.
But Paul’s not so easily bought.
“I have not endorsed the ticket,” Paul explained Tuesday. “I endorsed the principles I have been talking about.… I endorse peace, prosperity, individual liberty and the Constitution. I am more intent on that than on the politics.”


TONY said...

The deference shown to US politicians by CNN is a throwback to the 60s and is indeed pathetic to witness. The age of deference in the UK died about 1966

Suzan said...

I wouldn't call it deference.

Especially after Ted Turner sold CNN to Time Warner/AOL for bazillions.

And they never had the rep CNN did for unbiased reporting.

Love ya,