Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Conservative post-election analysis
Now we get into the sheer entertainment spectacle of conservative cannibalism and zombie apocalypse, now they're working on Romney's leg. The problem was outsourcing as if Made in Indonesia just happened yesterday, no but maybe Romney should have been from the Midwest instead of the Northeast. Romney didn't reach across the cultural aisle to shake hands with Hispanics the fastest growing demographic in the country but if memory serves they were on prominent display at the RNC along with many prominent Republican women. Other conservatives want Republicans to start killing fetuses and joyfully pass out Rear Entry silicon-based lubes to gay couples and maybe smoke a couple of doobies too while they're at it you unhip out-of-touch crowd. Here's a thought though, what if Romney did nothing wrong? what if the country is simply more liberal or wishy-washy or whatever? What if some people are simply stuck in some form of economic masochism, you know some young guy out of a job for quite some time now but who has simply gotten used to the Routine of sleeping in every day and then circle-jerking to the Price Is Right models and he can go out and buy at least the cheaper gas station porn with his government handout when the old stuff isn't fresh anymore? HOW do you appeal to a populace in constant moral/social flux anyway who know more about the Kardashians than the national debt and deficit or Benghazi? I think Mitt Romney was a strong candidate, strong enough in a bad economy to win and certainly stronger than McCain was so in 2016 what'll happen is maybe they'll throw up a Marco Rubio or a Chris Christie or put them in tandem somehow and when they lose too the conservative post-election analysis/post-mortem will begin all over again with ever fresh and creative deconstruction. Obama got a strong storm bounce of that there is no doubt and I think Chris Matthews (free speech again) hit upon the truth here. You know it's funny about Obama he seems to court every possible voting bloc except the white male vote and I totally agree with Bob Woodward who said on the last episode of Meet the Press that Obama has to start having a much broader message beyond his core constituencies. You want Romney to go out and escort a woman to the nearest abortion clinic or offer his and Ann's bed for a gay romp while they go out shopping at Target? well if you think it'll help but I have to laugh over here in Westchester County practically every Democrat candidate for every conceivable office including dogcatcher touted I AM PRO-CHOICE and my brother goes most people don't care about that at least not right now, where are the JOBS? One last thought, if the conservative pundits know what's best why don't they run?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My analysis , There are much.more imbecilic people residing in the USA then I thought.
ReplyDeleteI've read dozens of post-mortems from all over the political spectrum. Guess we can take our pick, mine being that the Dems really worked on getting their base
ReplyDeletefired up. IMO, Romney was the best pick. Guy up the street still
has his Ron Paul sign up. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on. Conservative pundits run? Hmm,
a Limbaugh-Hannity ticket would be
fun.
Maybe the HUNDREDS of (well documented) lies, the utter inability to state a position and keep it for more than 24 hours, the total unwillingness to open up about tax returns, the 47% remark, the $10K bet, the friends who own NASCAR teams... maybe some of all that added up.
ReplyDeleteThe magical miracle plan that was going to create 12 million jobs (from the same guy who said 'government doesn't create jobs'), the mystical tax plan that managed to cut taxes AND raise revenues at the same time by closing loopholes (which ones were never disclosed), the person who was going to not lower taxes on the wealthy until he was giving a 20% tax cut to EVERYONE... maybe people started to notice that the man couldn't stand by his own words.
And where are the jobs? Hey, wasn't that what the Republicans were going to work on when they all got elected in 2010? Funny how all it seems they've been working on is stuff that has to do with limiting abortion, limiting birth control, eliminating equal pay, and other assorted anti-women things.
I mean, cmon.
That awkward moment when you steal the nomination and still lose. Kudos Romney kudos....
ReplyDeleteSure he celebrated his reelection by drone bombing Yemen but hey, at least you got your uterus back. Kudos Saty kudos....
ReplyDeleteSaty it's a bad day when to cant even convince the soapbox kid .
ReplyDeleteI am always open to persuasion Darth but the truth is the arguments aren't very compelling.
ReplyDelete"I think Mitt Romney was a strong candidate, strong enough in a bad economy to win and certainly stronger than McCain was..."
ReplyDeleteThinking is one thing Z. Knowing is quite another.
http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/11/07/romney-got-less-votes-kerry-2004
What all of the conservative post-mortems miss is maybe Romney isn't the problem, what if the country is the problem? Ah the contradictions, mysteries and puzzles of the American electorate -- poll after poll show most people oppose ObamaCare so what do they do? They reelect Obama.
ReplyDeleteI must've missed Romney's big speech on birth control at the RNC Saty.
ReplyDeleteAh, it wouldn't have mattered, he would have denied saying it the following day.
ReplyDeleteIf this president didn't kill the Democratic Party then I'm speechless .
ReplyDeleteObama had made this into a kind of social election, they wanna take away your birth control when what folks really care about are JOBS. Where are the jobs?
ReplyDeleteWasn't that what the Republicans said they were going to do just as soon as people voted them in back in 2010? Wasn't that what they ran on, that they were going to create jobs? Meanwhile, they did a lot of work on laws that have to do with women, and blocked everything that had to do with jobs.
ReplyDeleteYour Republican Party at work.
As well your Democrats ran on an anti-war, anti-lobbyist, anti-wallstreet, anti-torture, anti-bailout, anti-spying, transparency in government, et al platform. Not only have they NOT kept those promises, they have struck them for their own platform at the DNC.
ReplyDeletehttp://m.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/democrats-retreat-civil-liberties-2012-platform
ReplyDeleteSaty Romney understands how business works more than Obama ever will.
ReplyDeleteWe saw how Romney understands how business works.
ReplyDeleteBain closing plants here and shipping the jobs off to China...
Romney lying about Chrysler taking jobs and sending them to China...
Income tax statements hidden...
The inability to state a position and hold it for more than 24 hours or to verbalize it to two different groups...
...yep, that's a man who knows all about business....
Romney...ah yes, the Trump School
ReplyDeleteof economics. We should all worship at the feet of these robber barons.
Obama has the theories of the principles of Social Justice down pat, I'm not saying that I'm just pointing out he has his roots in community organizing and never ran a business like Romney. I don't think he understands the economy or basic economic principles but on Social Justice yeah I'll give you that.
ReplyDeleteDoubt anyone understands the economy. It has more variables than the weather. We know for sure, though that the market has gone from 7063 (Feb 2009) to the
ReplyDeletepresent 12542. If you can predict
where it will be next year, you will be an economics guru.
The economy and economics in general is not a difficult thing to understand. It all lies in a deep and conceptual understanding of praxeology. Once you realize that individuals are autonomous and sovereign you will have a much better chance at understanding how markets work and what role individuals play in a free market.
ReplyDeleteWhat Saty doesn't understand and doesn't seem at all interested in learning is that whether there are a dozen, a hundred, a thousand, a million, or a billion individuals involved, free markets work. Individuals need goods and services. In need of these goods and services people will seek to acquire them locally, nationally, or globaly. It is the same principle regardless of population.
But there are puzzles. Saw a cartoon yesterday with three fat people standing in front of a closing Twinkie factory and the fat guy goes with the country's obesity rate how could Hostess go bankrupt?
ReplyDeleteChris, you keep going on and on about theoretical shit.
ReplyDeleteShow me where a nation has embraced as a nation Libertarianism and made it work on a national, global scale.
Then explain to me how you plan to take the US from where it is to that theoretical free-market utopia.
I keep waiting for this and you keep throwing more theories around. Let's move into the pragamatic for a change.
Your question is the most absurd question one could possibly imagine on the subject and it shows your complete and total ignorance of the subject. It is not a top down philosophy. It is bottom up. And it is in action everywhere every single day in spite of the authoritarian state.
ReplyDeleteSo basically you're saying that there isn't a nation that's working Libertarianism on a national scale in a way that's doable in a practical sense in a global economy.
ReplyDeleteBecause once you move past the group of happy survivalist villagers sharing raw milk and bee propolis in their compound, it doesn't work.
Libertarianism is not possible on the large scale, in a country of 300 million, in a global economy.
Admit it.
The only thing I am going to admit is that you don't understand the first thing about libertarianism and the more you go on talking about it the more foolish you look. What you should admit is that at best you maybe read one book on Austrian economics and libertarianism philosophy and didn't comport with your top heavy socialist doctrine and so you gave up.
ReplyDeleteChris. Libertarianism is about lots of happy villagers, not a country of millions of people who require to function as a nation and as a member of an international community.
ReplyDeleteIf it could, it would, but it can't, so it doesn't.
It's all very wonderful when you have fifty squatters in the North Pacific wilderness who all live in a little squatter village and freely trade wild trout for handspun goat yarn in a voluntaryist exchange of goods, but when you're talking about fifty states that need to function as a nation and that require infrastructure and so forth, it all becomes so much nonsense.
The very nature of Libertarianism means it can't function on a national level. No nation has ever operated according to Libertarian philosophies and none ever will.
I've been reading the discussion here and I'll throw this out, maybe people are afraid to try libertarianism on a nat'l scale. How can we say it won't work if nobody has the balls to try it? One of the problems I have with libertarianism though is the undue Ayn Rand influence. If selfishness is the way to go how do you get from that to something mutually beneficial to caring for your neighbor? Now soap would probably say the mutually beneficial thing happens naturally as people's self-centeredness happens to coincide with others' interests and needs or some such theory but there's no guarantee of this imo and I don't see libertarianism fully working in a positive and moral sense unless and until you get away from all the Rand worship.
ReplyDeleteIt can't work on a large scale. It's all designed around little isolated groups of people.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't take into account needing one national stance to accomodate 300 million people, or any kind of unity on a large scale whatsoever.
It's like perfect for Survivor. Beyond that, not so much, unless you want to buy 400 acres out in the Badlands somewhere and set up some kind of little voluntaryist commune with underground bunkers and shit.
In some ways the concept hearkens back to small primitive tribes, where to clan bond isolaltes them from similar tribes, yet once or twice a year they meet to trade and find wives. One exemplary side
ReplyDeleteof the liberatarian movement is that while enthusiastic, there is
no pushing or forcing their ideas
on others..as we find in contemporary politics.
I'm not knocking the Badlands. There's dinosaurs in them there hills.
ReplyDeleteHere's where libertarianism can benefit everyone imo. A libertarian position on Sex Ed might be the public schools shouldn't be teaching about sex period and that includes abstinence education too. It's basically my position but concerned parents should be happy as well as social libs who think chastity is something out of the '50's. Alas it doesn't work that way.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking a Libertarian doesn't care for public school: sort of like the Man controlling education.
ReplyDeleteKnew an evangelical home schooler that spent almost all his time on sex ed. Guess they figured that an overdose of gonad biology would sour the kids on adventuresome
dalliances..dunno.
I once had a morality teacher at Mt. St. Michael, an ex-cop and it was kind of his job to teach about sex too and one day he goes on and on about ok so you finally go through with it and have the sex and then when it's all over you'll go like was that all there is to it, that's it?
ReplyDeleteAre we talkin' about the same thing here?
Had a good dose of sex ed in the
ReplyDeletereproduction week in college Human Physiology. 'Nuff to make me prefer the stamens and pistils down the hall in Plant Phys....
They say with old age comes wisdom:
ReplyDeletewisdom ..may be
hope for ol Pat yet.
First he's for pot and now this. Maybe he's positioning himself as some type of moderate, dunno.
ReplyDelete