The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Sunday, August 12, 2012

Turning and Burning

Richard Fernandez, of the Belmont Club, goes all "air-to-air" on us with an analysis of Governor Romney's pick of Representative Paul Ryan as his running mate—"Zoom and Boom vs Turn and Burn".  The last paragraph:
Was that a mistake?  Should Romney have chosen an ethnic candidate to play the ethnic game?  Or a woman to play the gender game?  Even though they might be qualified for the job?  Or has Mitt Romney understood the essentials and showed up with an F6F Hellcat where Tomasky was expecting an F4F Wildcat to emerge from the clouds?  The outcome of the choice will be revealed in November.
It is also the F-4 Phantom story.  Fight in the vertical, use God's "G".  And never get in a knife fight in a telephone booth.

But, here is the lede:
Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast says that Mitt Romney had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to prove he wasn’t an intellectually dead, boring white guy by standing up, just once, for his inner bipartisan self.  Instead he blew it by caving in to the radical right.  He could have come out and been cool for once; instead he stayed in the closet, clenched and constipated.  “Think of it:  The candidate will be running on his vice president’s ideas!  It’s a staggering thought.  Ryan might as well debate Obama this October, and Romney can square off against Biden.”
I leave the rest to your own pursuit.

In case I have been too subtle, I would have been happy with Condi Rice or Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty, but I am very happy with Paul Ryan.  Governor Romney didn't blow it.  He done good.

Regards  —  Cliff

14 comments:

Craig H said...

Election is done. Romney had a potential advantage leveraging righty energy against liberal apathy, but now Ryan will bring all the lefties out of the woodwork. Game over. Thanks for playing, Mitt.

A vote for Gary Johnson will be more productive.

Anonymous said...

Kad is correct. I think Ryan was an EXCELLENT choice to make, but I will also cede that choosing him just called the election. The apathetic left will go whacko because Ryan's rubric centers on cutting spending...which translates into reduction in the size and availability of the government teat.....lefties want more government because they want the government to do more..and more.....and more.......

Ryan clearly, unmistakably stands for less....and less...and less.

The 51% of the electorate who pay NO taxes are not about to let the 49% who do shift any of the burden back to them. Their savior has just eliminated any requirement for finding a job in order to get welfare....and that is just the start.....why would they let the R&R ticket win?

Jack Mitchell said...

Lectured by the endentured. What? The teat is greener on the other side, Neal?

Ryan is a good choice because he squares the debate on fiscal matters, rather then social ones. That is not to say Ryan is sympathetic to women's reproductive liberty. He is not.

Ryan's policies would hasten the redistribution of wealth, upwards, sapping the middle class at behest of the neo-feudal overlords he wishes to please, It's painfully obvious and America will not be fooled, even as Romney tries to put some light between his so called vision and Ryan's penned "plan."

I'm not ready to call the race. Iwish it were so, but America is never to be assumed. How did Bush 43 get re-elected. Puhleeze.

Anyways, a local writer, David Bernstein, has done a great job summing up the Ryan pick and what it means. I concur with the entire piece, for the most part.

In the current state of interplay between the institutional Republican Party and the movement-conservative marketplace, there turns out to be a highly specialized role that must be filled: the Team Rebel/Wise Simpleton of the House. That is Paul Ryan, who took over from Mike Pence of Indiana after the 2010 election.

This position is required, because the conservative base demands that Republicans act as though they are trying to do the things they promised to do -- balance the budget, dramatically reduce the size of government, rein in entitlement spending, and so on. These things are both politically unfeasible and mathematically impossible, but that is not what consumers of the movement-conservative marketplace believe, and if their elected Republicans don't agree then there are others who will happily replace them in the next primary.

So, someone has to be in charge of making those Rush-listeners happy by putting together and championing a "budget plan." This is different from a "budget," which would include things like how much to spend on the various government functions. A budget plan is more like a children's book in which a child magically travels from his or her bedroom to a fantasy land of Oz or Nod or Never Land or the Land of the Wild Things; you're meant to enjoy the destination, and not think much about the magic that brought you there.
-snip

Ryan has done a nice job balancing both of these contradictions, as Pence did before him (before deciding to run for governor). It's kind of amazing that the conservative base loves him so much, when you consider that he has no experience of any kind in the private sector, spent his entire congressional career voting with leadership for things the base now despises, has never run anything bigger than his congressional office, has backed off of any proposal found to be too controversial for the party, and of course has no history of effectively doing anything -- passing a bill, for example -- to advance the cause of conservative governance.

But he tells them exactly what they want to hear, and comes across with a combination of intellect, self-confidence, and "gee whiz it's really very simple." And that's apparently enough.

It initially occurred to me that Ryan, with his cookie-cutter budget bromides, represents the final endpoint of Mitt Romney's capitulation from the man he once was -- the non-ideological, data-driven, open-the-hood-and-take-a-look manager -- to the political fantasist trying to fast-talk his way into the White House today.

Renee said...

"Women's reproductive liberty"

And this is why the far left is just as bat sh!t crazy as the far right...

We now have all forms of contraception on demand free of charge... while everything else has to be charged and accounted for in health care.


Fine I'm grumpy spent the last week with four kids traveling, can't even take a break in my own bedroom. I don't know maybe I should of never been open and respectful of my reproductive capacities. That's life..

I get it as human beings, we have free will and if we want to ignore and be ignorantly willing, that is our choice. Reproductive liberty BS.... call it by its name.

Again sorry to jump down your throat... four years ago when Democrats went wacky over Palin it is hard to take the party seriously. It just feels like jr high bitchiness of mean girls.

Fine I suck with stupidity like Bristol Palin... I must hate myself as a woman, oh because I never sterilized myself and I still cling on to that mother/father relationship is important to offspring thing deep deep down it is my homophobia because really deep deep deep down I supressing my homosexuality.

No really that is all I see from the Democrats, you just sit there and rip people apart.

Again sorry...

C R Krieger said...

Jack writes:
QUOTE
That is not to say Ryan is sympathetic to women's reproductive liberty.  He is not.
UNQUOTE

When do we get to the baby's rights?  Is it minutes or hours after birth?  Or is it days or weeks?

I am figuring that if the Mother doesn't want the outcome it is minutes to a couple of hours.  If the child has a physical defect it is hours to days.  At least we aren't at the days to weeks level.

Is this something decided by courts or do we turn the decision over to the medical staff?

So, Renée is correct when she questions the term "Reproductive Librerty".  That sounds like a rallying call on Mainland China, not here.  The vast majority of the People belive abortion should be legal.  A vast majority is looking for some responsibility in the application of that rule.  Put another way, being ignorant AND heedless should not automatically entitle you to an abortion in the third trimester, or entitle the medical staff to let a live birth die.  I am sure such things are rare, but there ought to be a law.

Regards  —  Cliff

C R Krieger said...

Someone asked about George W Bush's reelection.  If I say Kerry, will it help?

But, to Mr David Bernstein, who was quoted as saying a balanced budget is mathematically impossible, I ask if a sustained unbalanced budget is possible?  Put another way, how long will Greece be allowed to hang on and who is our EuroZone?

Regards —  Cliff

Renee said...

Obama's political ad "It's a scary time to be a woman" is just creepy. No it is not scary to be a woman in America. We got issues to work out sure, but no it is not scary to be a woman in this country. First I thought it was a PAC ad.

Jack Mitchell said...

Like fish in a barrel...

Liberty includes your choices, too, Renee.

As for the timeline of abortions. Thats tough. The state kills adults. Most run under a different flag, so there is that caveat. But, we do have capital punishment, here and there. In Texas, I here they even kill retards. So, timeline is iffy. I know what I would recommend, if I was asked.

As for Mr. Bernstein, I don't recall this in the text, "a balanced budget is mathematically impossible."

I took his words to mean he blows smoke up your skirt and you smile and ask for more. Anyways, show me the quote. I think you are side stepping the point.

We know a budget can be balanced. Didn't Clinton get us there?

Renee said...

Thank you for using the term abortion. If you are ok with the choice of abortion just say abortion in the commercial. My heart goes out to women, some of the most vocal pro-lifers are post abortive. Pregnancy is scary, especially if your support system is rejecting you for being pregnant.

It is so common in the Catholic Church that mostly the woman is never fully responsible for the sin of abortion, usually a third party (husband/boyfriend/parent) is more responsible for that choice. A priest will have to clarify and even point out that this choice was done more out of coersion then free will.

C R Krieger said...

QUOTE
This position is required, because the conservative base demands that Republicans act as though they are trying to do the things they promised to do -- balance the budget, dramatically reduce the size of government, rein in entitlement spending, and so on. These things are both politically unfeasible and mathematically impossible, but that is not what consumers of the movement-conservative marketplace believe…
UNQUOTE
I am note sure what "movement" means in th context, but I think we are close to "mathematically impossible".

Regards  —  Cliff

Jack Mitchell said...

movement = mob

Grover Norquist enflamed, Milton Friedman inspired.

Renee said...

I blame the invention of the Internet Meme for the mob mentality.

Craig H said...

All this arguing over whether a woman or her fetus should enjoy primacy of attention... It's terrifying to me that both sides arguing this issue feel that it is government's business who is pregnant and what is to be done about it. Terrifying.

Renee said...

Come on, you have children, you cared about them in their fetal stages. And yes the government has an interest because parents have legal obligations to parent, so we care when a woman is pregnant who is the man equally responsible. Sorry to give crap... as a member of the human species.