DNC Live Blog 2: Big Dawg, Elizabeth Warren, and the Roll Call Vote
Posted: September 5, 2012 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, U.S. Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention 2012, Elizabeth Warren | 104 Comments
Hi Everyone! Here’s a fresh thread for the big prime time speeches and the roll call vote. Bloomberg published some excerpts from Bill Clinton’s speech:
“What kind of country do you want to live in?” Clinton will ask, according to excerpts released by Obama’s campaign. “If you want a you’re-on-your-own, winner-take-all society, you should support the Republican ticket. If you want a country of shared prosperity and shared responsibility,” voters should support Obama, he will say.
The president “inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery, and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs,” Clinton will say.
Clinton also will talk about the choices he faced during his presidency when Republicans wanted to give tax breaks to companies and the wealthy “to help trickle down” economic benefits and how “it didn’t work then, it’s not going to work now,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina told reporters today at the convention’s site in Charlotte, North Carolina.
According to Politico, Clinton will ask Americans to give Obama more time to “clean up the GOP mess.”
Bill Clinton will tell delegates at the 2012 Democratic National Convention that Republicans left President Barack Obama “a total mess, he hasn’t finished cleaning it up yet” and that the incumbent president deserves another four years to implement his vision for the country.
In early excerpts of the former president’s remarks, Clinton amplifies on the message Democrats delivered on the first day of the convention Tuesday, describing Obama as a champion of the middle class and Republicans as hostile to the interests of regular people.
MSNBC is saying that President Obama will be in the hall tonight. It’s not known if he’ll go onstage after Clinton’s speech.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Live Blog: Democratic National Convention, Day 1
Posted: September 4, 2012 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, U.S. Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, Democratic National Convention day 1, Julian Castro, live blog, michelle obama | 104 CommentsToday is the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can watch the live stream at the DNC website. There are speeches going on right now.
The most significant speakers tonight will be Keynote speaker Julian Castro, Mayor of San Antonio, Texas at 10:00, followed by First Lady Michelle Obama at 10:30. On Castro:
Castro, 37, is in his second term as mayor of the nation’s seventh-largest city after easily winning re-election in 2011 with nearly 82 percent of the vote. The Obama campaign notes that his life story in many ways mirrors President Obama’s: He and his identical twin brother Joaquin Castro came from modest beginnings and relied on scholarships, grants and loans to attend Stanford University and then Harvard Law School.
A senior campaign official told CBS News that Castro’s keynote address will share that personal story “and reflect on the things we need to do as a country to create more Julian Castros, more Barack Obamas to ensure that every young person across this country can achieve their dreams.”
Michelle Obama will
serve as a “character witness” for her husband, according to the Obama campaign. She will speak, a senior campaign official said, “not just about who the president is, but the values that motivate him.”
Mrs. Obama will testify about the “tough decisions” that Mr. Obama made, like pushing through health care reform and backing the auto bailout. And after traveling the country and seeing tangible results, the campaign says, she can also testify to the ways in which those decisions have paid off.
Other speakers tonight will be former President Jimmy Carter (by video hookup), Rahm Emmanuel, Lincoln Chaffee (former Republican, now Independent), actor Kal Penn, President Obama’s sister, and Michelle Obama’s brother.
I plan to watch the live stream and listen to the coverage on MSNBC. I have something I have to do until 7:30, and then I’ll be live blogging. Please join me by posting comments and links. It should be a fun night.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Monday Reads
Posted: September 3, 2012 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Mitt Romney, morning reads, the GOP, U.S. Politics | Tags: Bain Capital, Barack Obama, Clint Eastwood, Joe Biden, Katie Holmes, Moonies, Nazanin Boniadi, Patrick Gaspard, Paul Ryan, Paul Thomas Anderson, Rahm Emmanuel, Republican National Convention, scientology, Sherman Yellin, Sun Myung Moon, tax evasion, The Master, Tom Cruise, Unification Church | 50 CommentsGood Morning!!
Dakinkat is back on-line! Now if I can just get my internet back, we may have a full complement of writers by the beginning of the Democratic Convention. Now let’s see what’s in the news this morning.
I have to hand it to President Obama. He had to be angry about Clint Eastwood’s disrespectful performance at the RNC last Thursday, but he’s not going to give Mitt Romney the satisfaction of showing it.
USA Today: Obama, a ‘huge’ Clint Eastwood fan, not offended by skit
“He is a great actor, and an even better director,” the president said in an interview with USA TODAY aboard Air Force One, on his way to campaign rallies in Iowa Saturday. “I think the last few movies that he’s made have been terrific.”
….
Was he offended?
“One thing about being president or running for president — if you’re easily offended, you should probably choose another profession.” Obama said with a smile. He said there would be no effort to counter with a similar stunt at the Democratic National Convention, which opens in Charlotte Tuesday.“I think we’ll be playing this pretty straight,” he said.
The WaPo’s Jonathan Capehart asked DNC executive director Patrick Gaspard about if Eastwood presentation was “disrespectful.” Here’s the response:
“First, Clint Eastwood spoke to an empty chair and then Mitt Romney gave an empty speech,” Gaspard replied. “So, I’m going to focus on Mitt Romney [and] his lack of clearly delineated plans for middle-class Americans.” But Gaspard, who was Obama’s political director in the first half of the term, had more to say.
This was not Clint Eastwood’s convention. It was Mitt Romney’s. He hired these Hollywood consultants to reinvent himself and all I saw, yet again, was the same guy who was a private-sector outsourcer, a failed governor of Massachusetts and now an extreme right-wing candidate for the presidency. So, I’m going to focus on that.
I guess Romney wasn’t really all that proud of the Eastwood skit after all. According to ABC News Eastwood was left on the cutting room floor during production of the RNC promotional video.
A video mash-up of speakers from last week’s Republican National Convention does not include an appearance from the “mystery RNC speaker,” Clint Eastwood.
The two-and-a-half minute video posted today to the Romney campaign’s YouTube account features former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, VP nominee Paul Ryan and of course, Romney himself, but it leaves out Eastwood’s controversial speech.
Interesting.
Joe Biden went on the attack yesterday.
Campaigning in Pennsylvania, vice president Joe Biden attacked Mr Romney’s international agenda as laid out in last week’s convention address, suggesting that it put him out of step with the US’s priorities overseas.
“He said it was a mistake to end the war in Iraq and bring all of our warriors home. He said it was a mistake to set an end date for our warriors in Afghanistan and bring them home,” Biden told supporters.
He added: “He implies by the speech that he’s ready to go to war in Syria and Iran.”
Biden also ripped Paul Ryan’s speech.
He…noted Ryan had not told the complete story when he talked about a General Motors plant that closed in Janesville, Wis., his hometown.
“What he didn’t tell you was that plant in Janesville actually closed while President Bush was still president,” Biden said.
Later, in Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin, Biden again challenged Ryan’s criticism of Obama.
“He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report. He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing,” Ryan said of Obama during his acceptance speech in Tampa.
Biden was having none of that telling.
“What he didn’t tell you is he sat on that commission,” Biden said to laughter.
“I love these guys. Oh, I love these guys, how they claim to care about the deficit,” Biden went on. “Ladies and gentlemen, the thing I most love about them is about how they discovered the middle class at their convention. Isn’t that amazing? All of a sudden their heart was bleeding for the middle class.”
Rahm Emmanuel was out defending his former boss. From the Chicago Sun-Times:
Mayor Rahm Emanuel, former President Barack Obama’s former chief of staff, framed Mitt Romney Sunday as a backward-looking candidate, blistering his acceptance speech as laying “out the policies of Ground Hog Day.”
Emanuel discussed the upcoming Democratic National Convention with David Gregory on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” where he was introduced as an “architect” of Obama’s first term policies.
“If people want to know about the first term? Very simple. General Motors is alive and well. And Osama Bin Laden is not. And that’s what got done,” Emanuel said.
Emmanuel also criticized Romney’s acceptance speech as “weak.” From The Hill:
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel (D) said Mitt Romney’s convention speech was “devoid and vacuous” and allowed for Clint Eastwood’s appearance to claim the spotlight.
President Obama’s former chief of staff said Sunday on “Meet the Press” that there was “nothing memorable about Mitt Romney’s speech” in Tampa.
“Not a memorable line, not a memorable philosophy,” Emanuel said.” “There was nothing there.”
I strongly recommend this piece at HuffPo by Sherman Yellin: Why Mitt Romney IS NOT Like a Bad Haircut. I can’t do it justice with an excerpt. Please click on the link and read it. It’s not very long.
In other news, there’s a story coming out soon in Vanity Fair about how Scientology auditioned women to be Tom Cruise’s next wife–and Katie Holmes wasn’t their first choice.
In the October issue, Vanity Fair special correspondent Maureen Orth reports that in 2004 Scientology embarked on a top-secret project headed by Shelly Miscavige, wife of Scientology chief David Miscavige, which involved finding a girlfriend for Tom Cruise. According to several sources, the organization devised an elaborate auditioning process in which actresses who were already Scientology members were called in, told they were auditioning for a new training film, and then asked a series of curious questions including: “What do you think of Tom Cruise?” Marc Headley, a Scientologist from age seven, who says he watched a number of the audition videotapes when he was head of Scientology’s in-house studio, tells Orth, “It’s not like you only have to please your husband—you have to toe the line for Scientology.” Both Nicole Kidman and Penélope Cruz ran afoul of Scientology and David Miscavige, according to another former Scientologist. “You can’t do anything to displease Scientology, because Tom Cruise will freak out,” Headley says.
According to Orth, Nazanin Boniadi, an Iranian-born, London-raised actress and Scientologist, was selected and dated Cruise from November 2004 until January 2005. Initially she was told only that she had been selected for a very important mission. In a month-long preparation in October 2004, she was audited every day, a process in which she told a high-ranking Scientology official her innermost secrets and every detail of her sex life. Boniadi allegedly was told to lose her braces, her red highlights, and her boyfriend. According to a knowledgeable source, she was shown confidential auditing files of her boyfriend to expedite a breakup. (Scientology denies any misuse of confidential material.) The source says Boniadi signed a confidentiality agreement and was told that if she “messed up” in any way she would be declared a Suppressive Person (a pariah and enemy of Scientology).
I’m looking forward to reading the entire gossipy article!
In other Scientology news, there’s a new movie out that is supposedly based on Scientology, The Master.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson acknowledges that Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard was the inspiration for the title character in `’The Master,” but says the focus of the film is the relationship between a charismatic spiritual leader and his troubled follower, not the movement itself.
The movie, set in the 1950s, stars Philip Seymour Hoffman as a charismatic cult leader who captivates a tortured but sympathetic World War II veteran portrayed by Joaquin Phoenix.
….
Anderson sought to quickly dispel any speculation about the film’s influence on his friendship with Tom Cruise, who starred in Anderson’s 1999 film `’Magnolia” and whose Scientology beliefs are well-documented.
`’We are still friends. I showed him the film, and the rest is between us,” Anderson said.
In other cult news, Unification Church founder Rev. Sun Myung Moon has died.
The Universal Peace Federation said on its website that Moon died early Monday morning of complications related to pneumonia. He was 92.
“Our True Father passed into the spiritual world at 1:54 AM Monday, September 3rd, Korea time,” a message on a Unification Church English-language website said.
Ahn Ho-yeol, a church spokesman, said Moon’s funeral will be held Thursday, with “individual prayers” planned for the three days until then.
“Rev. Moon died from overwork, from frequent trips aboard, including to the U.S., and from morning prayers which caused respiratory disease,” Ahn said.
I posted this on yesterday’s morning thread, but I think it bears repeating: Private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney under investigation for tax strategy
New York’s attorney general is investigating whether executives at Bain Capital, the private equity firm founded by Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, improperly avoided paying $200 million in federal income taxes, according to a report by The New York Times.
More than a dozen firms are under investigation by the attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, who has subpoenaed documents that would show whether some fund management fees were converted to fund investments. Profits on investments are taxed at a much lower rate than management fees, which count as earned income.
Hundreds of pages of leaked financial documents from Bain Capital that have been posted online indicate at least $1 billion in executives’ management fees were converted to investments, whose capital gains are taxed at 15 percent, instead of the 35 percent paid on earned income in the top tax bracket.
According to the documents, executives could take money that would have been paid to them for managing investment funds and put the money into the funds, instead. The executives could pick and choose which companies to invest in, within a given fund, and were not required to invest the value of their fees for the entire life of a fund. They could decide whether to convert fees to investments on a quarter-to-quarter basis.
Today’s WaPo also has a story on Bain Capital and Romney’s taxes: Mitt Romney exited Bain Capital with rare tax benefits in retirement
Before Mitt Romney retired from Bain Capital, the enormously profitable investment firm he founded, he made sure to lock in his gains, both realized and expected, for years to come.
He did so, in part, the way millions of other Americans do — with the tax benefits of an individual retirement account. But he was able to turbocharge the impact of those advantages and other tax breaks in his severance package from Bain in a way that few but the country’s super-rich can ever hope to do.
As a result, his IRA could be worth as much as $87 million, according to his estimates, and he can continue to earn tax-advantaged income from Bain more than a decade after he formally left the firm.
If Romney wants to demonstrate his honesty, he can always release those secret tax returns.
That’s all I’ve got for today. What are you reading and blogging about?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Thursday Reads: Convention Hangover Edition
Posted: August 30, 2012 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, morning reads, the GOP, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: abortion, Ann Romney, Barack Obama, Chris Christie, Dan Rather, lies, medicare, Mitt Romney, Nut-throwing incident, Paul Ryan, Racism, Republican National Convention, Todd Akin, Walter Cronkite, welfare | 68 CommentsGood Morning!!
I’m really beat after two nights of watching the horror show down in Tampa, so today’s post is going to be a link dump. Luckily, there are lots of good reads out there.
Yesterday we were talking about how the media is handling the blatant lies of the Romney campaign on welfare and medicare. Some media outlets have actually begun calling them out and using words like “false” and even “lies.”
Some links on that topic–some of which come from yesterday’s comments, because I think this is such an important issue.
Jonathan Chait: Mitt Doesn’t Care About Your Facts.
Brian Beutler: A Critical Juncture (h/t RalphB)
James Fallows: Bit by Bit It Takes Shape: Media Evolution for the ‘Post-Truth’ Age (h/t JJ)
Robert Reich: How Romney Keeps Lying Through HIs Big White Teeth
Dave Wiegel: “You Didn’t Build That”…But You Sure Did Edit It.
Now, some important reads on Romney/Ryan and race-baiting.
Harold Meyerson: In modern GOP, the old South returns (h/t RalphB)
Ron Fournier: Why (and How) Romney is Playing the Race Card (h/t JJ)
Joan Walsh: Paul Ryan and the GOP’s New Dog Whistle Politics
By now everyone knows that a CNN camera woman was harassed at the GOP Convention. Two attendees reportedly threw nuts at her and said “This is how we feed animals.” They were removed, but no one knows if they were permanently banned. CNN has chosen not to reveal the camera woman’s name or the names of the perpetrators–why?
Greg Sargent: CNN should reveal details of nut-throwing incident
Digby: CNN is fighting the perception of being biased against racist thugs
Digby harked back to the famous incident when Dan Rather was attacked by a security person at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 and pointed out that Rather and Walter Cronkite didn’t shrink from commenting on the thuggish behavior.
Several links about Tuesday night’s top speakers, Ann Romney and Chris Christie
Connor Friedersdorf: Chris Christie’s RNC Speech Misled Viewers on Medicare
Andrew Rosenthal: Chris Christie: But Enough About Mitt, Let’s Talk About Me
Errol Lewis: Tough Truths About Christie’s New Jersey
Politico: Chris Christie’s Flop at the GOP Convention
E.J. Graff: Ann Romney Loves Women!
Adam Serwer: Ann Romney and the Subversive Conservatism of ABC’s ‘Modern Family’
Don’t Miss this one! Ed Kilgore: Who’s Zoomin’ Who on Abortion?
E.J. Dionne: In defense of Juan Williams (and Chris Matthews)
Today is the last day of the GOP Convention, and tonight is Mitt’s big moment!
Gail Collins: Renovating Mitt Romney
Dana Millbank: Republicans playing Brutus
Michael Kinsley: Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Todd Akin: Going for distance
Now what are you reading and blogging about today?
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More
Mitt Romney, Sex Symbol?
Posted: August 23, 2012 | Author: bostonboomer | Filed under: Mitt Romney, psychology, The Media SUCKS, The Right Wing, U.S. Politics | Tags: Barack Obama, biology, evolutionary psychology, homoeroticism, Kevin Williamson, man crushes, masturbatory fantasies, mate selection, The National Review, Trivers-Willard hypothesis, wealthy men | 44 CommentsI was going to include this in my morning post, but I forgot. The National Review’s latest cover story is a bizarre homoerotic tribute to Mitt Romney’s sexual prowess in which Kevin Williamson makes a simple-minded evolutionary argument that women should adore the Republican candidate for president.
What do women want? The conventional biological wisdom is that men select mates for fertility, while women select for status — thus the commonness of younger women’s pairing with well-established older men but the rarity of the converse. The Demi Moore–Ashton Kutcher model is an exception — the only 40-year-old woman Jack Nicholson has ever seen naked is Kathy Bates in that horrific hot-tub scene. Age is cruel to women, and subordination is cruel to men. Ellen Kullman is a very pretty woman, but at 56 years of age she probably would not turn a lot of heads in a college bar, and the fact that she is the chairman and CEO of Dupont isn’t going to change that.
It’s a good thing Mitt Romney doesn’t hang out in college bars.
I happen to have actually studied some evolutionary psychology, and it’s true there is some evidence that males and females select mates based on different reproductive goals. Females are more likely than males to choose good providers–men with college degrees, and good future prospects. Males are more likely than females to choose females who are young, healthy, and physically attractive and thus more likely to be fertile. However research on college students also shows that, for both males and females, the most valued characteristics in mate selection are attributes like kindness, good personality, and sense of humor. The sex-differentiated characteristics are less important–at least for college kids.
But Williamson is just using something he heard about evolutionary theories on mate selection to excuse his masturbatory fantasies about a man he clearly finds extremely attractive. And since Williamson has a huge man crush on Mitt, we women should feel the same way.
From an evolutionary point of view, Mitt Romney should get 100 percent of the female vote. All of it. He should get Michelle Obama’s vote. You can insert your own Mormon polygamy joke here, but the ladies do tend to flock to successful executives and entrepreneurs. Saleh al-Rajhi, billionaire banker, left behind 61 children when he cashed out last year. We don’t do harems here, of course, but Romney is exactly the kind of guy who in another time and place would have the option of maintaining one. He’s a boss. Given that we are no longer roaming the veldt for the most part, money is a reasonable stand-in for social status. Romney’s net worth is more than that of the last eight U.S. presidents combined. He set up a trust for his grandkids and kicked in about seven times Barack Obama’s net worth, which at $11.8 million is not inconsiderable but probably less than Romney’s tax bill in a good year.
Williamson latched onto a biological mating theory also, the Trivers-Willard hypothesis, to claim that Romney’s reproductive history–he’s the father of five sons–proves he’s a much more manly man than wimpy Barack Obama, who just has two measly daughters.
It is a curious scientific fact (explained in evolutionary biology by the Trivers-Willard hypothesis — Willard, notice) that high-status animals tend to have more male offspring than female offspring, which holds true across many species, from red deer to mink to Homo sap. The offspring of rich families are statistically biased in favor of sons — the children of the general population are 51 percent male and 49 percent female, but the children of the Forbes billionaire list are 60 percent male. Have a gander at that Romney family picture: five sons, zero daughters. Romney has 18 grandchildren, and they exceed a 2:1 ratio of grandsons to granddaughters (13:5). When they go to church at their summer-vacation home, the Romney clan makes up a third of the congregation. He is basically a tribal chieftain.
Professor Obama? Two daughters. May as well give the guy a cardigan. And fallopian tubes.
I guess Williamson has forgotten that George W. Bush also had two daughters and no sons. How does that fit into his evolutionary argument?
Anyway, if Williamson is right, women should be falling all over themselves to vote for Romney, right? So why aren’t they? Williamson thinks that Mitt just needs to stop worrying about being ostentatious and embrace his inner rich guy. He should take lessons from another former Massachusetts Governor, William Weld, who flaunted his old money with “panache.” The problem with that is that Romney isn’t old money and he’s been disgustingly ostentatious about his wealth (which Romney equates with “success”) throughout the 2012 campaign. And quite a few voters are pretty repulsed by that.
But really, Williamson is just working his way up to his own climax:
Reassuring arch-patriarch — maybe one with enough sons and grandsons to form a pillaging band of marauders? Hillary Rodham Clinton told us that it takes a village, and Mitt Romney showed us how to populate a village with thriving offspring. Newsweek, which as of this writing is still in business, recently ran a cover photo of Romney with the headline: “The Wimp Factor: Is He Just Too Insecure to Be President?” Look at his fat stacks. Look at that mess of sons and grandchildren. Look at a picture of Ann Romney on her wedding day and that cocky smirk on his face. What exactly has Mitt Romney got to be insecure about? That he’s not as prodigious a patriarch as Ramses II or as rich as >Lakshmi Mittal? I bet he sleeps at night and never worries about that. He has done everything right in life, and he should own it.
Stomach-churning, isn’t it? Is this how most conservative men think? And I’ve just given you the gist of the piece. There are three pages of this nauseating verbiage.
Look, I don’t think most voters–at least women voters–don’t look to their presidential candidates to fulfill their sexual fantasies. Maybe women are actually smart enough to vote based on issues that are important to them. Mitt Romney is not going to turn on the average college woman. He’s a dork, and so is Barack Obama for that matter. He looks like what he is–an arrogant, shallow, emptyheaded former CEO with an exaggerated estimation of his own importance. He’s also a liar and a bully. What’s attractive about that? Amanda Marcotte has some good points about all this about this in a post at The American Prospect:
The delusion that regular Americans look to politicians and see Sexy persists in East Coast media circles, despite its evident ludicrousness and a number of debunkings. It leads me to believe that the problem stems from the bubble mentality that prevents pundits from remembering the world outside theirs, if only for the sake of comparison. In the media circle around D.C. (one that sadly extends to New York), President Obama is “cool,” Paul Ryan is “hip,” and Sarah Palin is scorchingly hot. These myths persist, even though the flag-waving, apple-pie-eating persona that politicians must adopt to survive precludes any realistic hope of being an actual sex symbol like George Clooney and Angelina Jolie.
Recently, in an otherwise excellent piece in The New York Times, Maureen Dowd demonstrating exactly this sort of bizarro-world thinking, described Paul Ryan as looking “young and hip and new generation, with his iPod full of heavy metal jams and his cute kids.” By “heavy metal jams,” Dowd presumably meant Ryan’s beloved Rage Against the Machine, a band that was relevant two decades ago and only sounds “heavy metal” to people who think all rock music released after 1967 is a wall of undistinguished noise. Ryan wears khaki pants with checkered shirts! He sounds like a 16-year-old virgin imagining what sex must be like when he talks about reproductive rights! You can only consider him hip and sexy if your only point of comparison are the residents of a nursing home. And yet Dowd didn’t come up with this assessment all on her own; she got the strange notion that Ryan is hip from the Beltway discourse, where it’s assumed he’s dreamy because he has blue eyes and works out.
I don’t read the right wing media much, and after reading Williamson’s embarrassing ode to Willard and realizing that the National Review thinks it’s worthy of a cover story, I don’t think I’ll be going back for more very soon.
Did you like this post? Please share it with your friends:
- Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
- Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
- Share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Pinterest
- Share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Tumblr
- Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
- Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
- Email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
- Print (Opens in new window) Print
- Share on X (Opens in new window) X
- Share on Threads (Opens in new window) Threads
- Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky
- More










Recent Comments