As for the rest of the convention, I'll say that conventions matter for all the reasons I and others have been talking about, but I didn't notice anything particularly exceptional the rest of the time. So: mattered, but only the way you would expect; nothing new generated.
What else? What do you think mattered this week?
Couldn't you say the convention was an opportunity to earn an A and turned in only a B+? LIke, maybe cut back a little on the mendacity in Ryan's speech, up the policy content in Romney's, highlight the personal stories of Romney's kindness--and of course script Eastwood and keep him to three minutes. And other improvements I can't conjure, but the managers should have been able to? Surely they could have gotten closer to 1992 Democrat standards? I mean, I was worried they might score a home run, and instead it was just a single or two and the good guys got out of the inning with no runs scored--a relief.
ReplyDeleteit's hard to imagine that the convention did anything to change the outcome of the election. looks like we're still headed for a narrow Obama victory... barring any last minute shifts or under-estimated factors.
DeleteJames,
DeleteSure. But it was also a chance to get a C-, and they didn't do that either. So on balance, they more or less met what my expectations were, and therefore I'd say no (new) effect, and so "didn't matter."
Note that part of the problem here is that "matters" isn't really a very useful question most of the time, especially since I leave it self-defined. But it often gets the discussion going, so I keep it.
The Fed might "Release the Kracken!" in the next few weeks. Isaac matters for folks who lost homes and for the rest of us who will be paying more for gas in the next few weeks. Syria Civil War matters.
ReplyDeleteI like your take on Ryan's reputation. I noticed yesterday that some media was calling him out for claiming to have run a sub-three hour marathon... It was a stupid little detail but I wondered if it was evidence in a larger media shift judging Ryan as a fibber
ReplyDeleteThe marathon thing could end up being a huge deal. After Ryan's mendacious speech to the convention, the discussion was all about whether he lied, how much of his lies were excusable, etc. Pretty dry stuff, although it established the meme of Dishonest Ryan.
DeleteThe marathon lie, coming right on the heels of that, has the potential to turn him into a joke. No one is going to make jokes about Ryan's role in killing Simpson-Bowles, but they can make jokes about his marathon time, and are already doing so.
...ya' think Ryan will reach Biden "joke" status? ;-)
DeleteIf he's around for another 30 years like Biden has been...maybe.
DeleteThe difference between Biden and Ryan is that this was Ryans enterance on the national stage and he (probably) blew it. Biden has been on the national stage for decades and hasn't completely destroyed his political clout (though he does kind of suck).
DeleteThe difference between Biden and Ryan is that Biden had a completely compliant lefty media during the first 20 years of his Beltway occupation, which ignored all of his stupidity, nepotism, plagirizing and malaproprisms.
DeleteOn the other hand, that same lefty media wants to immediately destroy any conservative, as usual.
I think the difference between Ryan and Biden is that the Onion has been lampooning Biden for three years now.
DeleteOn the other hand, I don't recall any examples of Biden's nepotism or "plagirizing." His "malaproprisms" don't rise in humor value to anything near GW Bush.
If we're really going to compare Biden to Ryan it has to be noted that Biden (among other lasting politicans) didn't "stretch the truth" as much as Ryan on their first outing into national attention.
DeleteOn the other hand, I don't recall any examples of Biden's nepotism or "plagirizing."
Delete.
You make the point precisely, and thank you for doing so.
You CAN find those examples, obviously, you'll just have to dig through something other than the predominant lefty media, which ignored and ignores them, which they wouldn't do if he was a conservative.
So there aren't any you can cite, then?
DeleteYou are more than welcome to do your own research, guy. I'm confident you're not really interested in cites, and are more interested in arguing, and that's a waste of both of our time.
DeleteIt's not my research if it's not my point. People can slander whoever they want anonymously, and with poor spelling, on the internet, as you amply display. Longwalkdownlyndale has a nice explanation on that non-story below.
DeleteI'm sure you just say what you're told to say.
It is your research if you're asking for information that you could easily find for yourself, if you were interested in information, that is. You're not, and so providing you any is a waste of both our time.
DeleteIt sounds like at least one Romney supporter is ready to blame the usual suspects if Romney loses. I guess that griping is the loser's consolation prize (applies to all sides).
DeleteActually, no, I'm not a Willard supporter, lefty.
DeleteJust for the record, Biden's 1988 presidential campaign was partially derailed by revelations that key sections of his stump speech were taken from a speech by British Labour Party leader Neil Kinnock.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign,_1988#Kinnock_controversy
Angola voted. Not that it matters when we can waste time on political infomercials.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteNeither Romney nor Ryan spoke about the military; yet we're still at war. The agitating for new military action was left to McCain & Rice; certainly the old guard who were actively working for he who must not be named. Not sure what it speaks of; but it's a defining silence.
There have been some terrific articles by members of the formerly Republican real-politick foreign policy wings about Romney.
DeleteI don't think they're contributing to his campaign.
Michael Cohen of Foreign Policy Magazine comes to mind.
DeleteThe new GOP rules inspired by fear of Ron Paul: Not only will the rules themselves be important in coming years, but opposition to them unified tea party and liberty Republicans, at least temporarily. The dirty politics used to pass the new rules, and against the Paul supporters in general, amplifies the narrative of the Paulite insurgency.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Clint Eastwood channeling Andy Kaufman and showing the Republicans how to get your message out in the new media.
Agreed... those were the only things of consequence arising from that R convention.
DeleteWe found out how much clout the Ron Paul wing of the party has --- nil.
DeleteBut far more than they have with the Left, obviously.
DeleteIt may turn out that what mattered most this week were the court decisions in Ohio and Texas, and the judge's decision in Florida, all pushing back on GOP voter suppression. We won't really know until the votes are counted and voting patterns are studied, but Ohio and especially Florida seem to be so close, every little bit helps or hurts. It doesn't look as though Romney is getting even a temporary bump from the convention.
ReplyDeleteYou can sugar coat it any way you want, (and obfuscate by comparing Ryan to Biden) but the fact is, if the press hadn't gone after Ryan's lyin' lies any hint of credibility would have wafted off into the wind.
ReplyDeleteThey've let Ryan off the hook for too long already. Obviously Ryan and his handlers believed the press would lay off him once again or he never would have given the speech he did at the convention. He told lies that were easily provable with no fear, apparently, of being called out on them. That says volumes about where the press stands these days.
Ryan and Romney's future include a lot of questions where their words are quoted back to them. It's going to happen in news interviews and at the debates. Obama's going to get some of these questions too. I'm looking forward to the answers.
DeleteWe learned from Mitt Romney that the Republicans really wanted Obama to succeed. Apparently, they just masked it very well.
ReplyDeleteCaptain Future really got it, although I'd throw in some of the new (good) economic stats that came out this week. Nate Silver has some stuff on it, but mainly "real personal income" and "personal consumptions expenditures" went up which is good news for Obama. I'd also say the early news about the GOP's convention "bounce" seems to be coming back poorly for them (also cribbed from Silver).
ReplyDeleteI do think I have to stand up for Biden a little here. One of my personal pet peeves is when people try to explain aways politicians they don't like by just labeling them stupid and/or cheaters. It's a lot like calling George Herbert Walk Bush or John Kerry wimps when they are in fact decorated war heroes. You don't have to like John Kerry to acknowledge the fact that he won a Silver Star and a Bronze Heart for heroism in combat, which might not mean much to you, but in the Military its a big deal. Basically you don't have to agree with a politician's policies or record even or support them (I don't think Bush the Elder was a very good president) to acknowledge their achievements. So it's fine to make fun of Biden's Bidenisms, his off the wall personality and goofy hair cut but I don't think its fair to label him a bad person. If you want to research the ins and outs of the accusations he plagiarized in law school (which he was eventually cleared of by the University of Syracuse and an independent investigation {to get lost in the weeds a bit Biden just did a monster foot note quoting a big chunk of a law journal for a paper he was writing, but didn't cite it correctly, which is lazy paper writing but not exactly a mortal sin. So it looked like he was plagiarizing but wasn't. He quoted the article's summery of the facts but made up his own line of argument}) I'd recommend "What It Takes" By Richard Ben Cramer.
Simpson-Bowles was resurrected by the GOP. They only want to use it as a prop, but you can't control the things you reanimate.
ReplyDeleteThe RNC with an assist from the Beltway Press, crowned a number of "rising stars" in the GOP. If Obama wins, expect a fight over the GOPs direction with these folks all
ReplyDeletein the mix. Notably absent from prominent convention roles: Mitch Daniels and Bobby Jindal. That there would be no heir apparent to the head of the GOP would make 2016 quite interesting. If Romney wins he probably assumes the Presidency with less political capital than these folks which would make 2013 a mess.