Seems like everybody has had their "morning after" say.
I had to work this morning, though, so here's my "afternoon after" say.
The "experts" are pretty much predictably divided on who "won" the VP debate.
Those who think Romney is the anti-Christ are sure that Biden took it.
Those who think Obama is the anti-Christ are sure that Ryan took it.
At this point, I don't think either Obama or Romney are the anti-Christ and here's what I'm sure of.
Those who think Romney is the anti-Christ still think Romney is the anti-Christ.
Those who think Obama is the anti-Christ still think Obama is the anti-Christ.
And none of the above give a shit what the "experts" think.
Present company included.
And present company included.
Friday, October 12, 2012
"...Please Support...Oh, Wait, Not You....Our Candidate..."
Old joke.
New punchline.
Back with both in a moment.
The celebrity vote for Mitt Romney has a potential new member: Lindsay Lohan.
"I just think employment is really important right now," Lohan told press on the red carpet. The issue doesn't appear to be a major issue for the news-making star, seeing that she's appearing in Bret Easton Ellis' "The Canyons," the Lifetime movie "Liz & Dick," as well as "Scary Movie 5."
Nonetheless, her concern means that, at the moment, she's going with "Mitt Romney," Lohan said. "As of now."
If Obama's campaign is disappointed over losing the LiLo vote, however temporary it may be, perhaps they still have time to change her mind. For those who may be surprised by her stance, Lohan explained, "It's a long story."
Old joke.
The definition of mixed feelings is watching your mother-in-law drive off a cliff...
...in your brand new Lexus.
New punchline.
And I suspect some of my hard core Republican friends are writing it just about now.
Saturday, October 6, 2012
"...Better Into The Sunset Than Off The Cliff..."
Wednesday night wasn't about the book of politics.
As it was about the book of Ecclesiastes.
It was a rough night for President Barack Obama and Big Bird at the first of three presidential debates. It was even worse for Jim Lehrer.
The 78-year-old moderator, who is executive editor and former anchor of "PBS NewsHour," was torn apart by critics who said he lost control of the debate, held at the University of Denver, as the two candidates talked over him throughout the 90-minute exchange.
The trouble began early, when Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney interrupted Lehrer—moderating his 12th presidential debate—as he tried to change topics.
"I get the last word of this segment," Romney said.
"Romney just ran right over Lehrer," tweeted Dana Loesch, the conservative radio talk show host.
The New York Times' Ashley Parker described it as a steamroll.
Some compared Lehrer, who came out of semiretirement to moderate Wednesday's debate, to NFL replacement officials. Others said he was like a rug or, worse, an empty chair.
"Lehrer has completely lost it," Reuters' Felix Salmon wrote.
"I feel badly for Jim Lehrer tonight," The Washington Post's Ezra Klein tweeted.
It wasn't long before "Poor Jim" began trending on Twitter.
"Regardless of who you think is winning," ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams wrote on Twitter, "Jim Lehrer is losing."
"New drinking game," he added. "When Jim Lehrer is ignored ... DRINK!"
BuzzFeed promptly produced a sizzle reel of Lehrer's pummeling.
Lehrer's "open-ended questions frequently lacked sharpness," Associated Press television critic David Bauder wrote, noting that at one point Lehrer asked Romney, "Would you have a question you'd like to ask the president about what he just said?"
"I wondered if we needed a moderator since we had Mitt Romney," Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said on CNN.
"It's likely that he knew most of his efforts to move the candidates off their talking points were going to fail," USA Today's Robert Bianco wrote. "Which might be why, fairly quickly in, he seemed to give up."
CNN contributor Erick Erickson tweeted: "I think it is safe to say last night was the last debate Jim Lehrer will moderate."
We are taught, from early on, to respect our elders.
As well we should.
But Scripture kicks in here.
"to everything there is a season".
Time to write books and offer life wisdom from a well earned comfortable back seat, Jim.
And let somebody else drive.
Friday, October 5, 2012
"...In For A Penny...."
First, the latest shocking revelation.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The big drop in the unemployment rate a month before the presidential election brought cries of disbelief and conspiracy theories from Jack Welch and other critics of the Obama administration Friday. But the Labor Department was quick to dismiss such claims.
"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," tweeted Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE, Fortune 500). Welch did not respond to a request for further comment on his tweet. But in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Welch said "I wasn't kidding" about his accusations.
The unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in September, down from 8.1% a month earlier. The drop was due to the Bureau of Labor Statistics' survey of households showing that 873,000 more people had jobs than in the previous month. That was the biggest one-month gain in more than nine years.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis criticized the conspiracy theories Friday.
"This is a methodology that's been used for decades. And it is insulting when you hear people just cavalierly say that somehow we're manipulating numbers," Solis told CNN's Richard Quest.
Might as well get it all out in the open.
Barack Obama kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
Barack Obama planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Barack Obama was on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November, 22, 1963.
Barack Obama killed Jimmy Hoffa and buried him in the Rose Garden.
Barack Obama killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and framed O.J. Simpson for the other crime that put him behind bars.
Barack Obama shot J.R.
Barack Obama impersonated Dr. Conrad Murray and slipped Michael Jackson a fatal dose of Propofol.
Barack Obama is actually Bruce Wayne who is actually Batman.
And Barack Obama actually fathered that child that made Maria Shriver kick Arnold Schwarzenegger's ass to the curb.
Honesty is what elections should be about.
Truth will out.
So, there you have it.
Oh, one more.
In the spirit of blunt truth and uncompromised honesty.
Jack Welch and his like minded "critics of the Obama adminstration" are fucking morons.
Truth ain't truth unless it's the whole truth and nothing but.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The big drop in the unemployment rate a month before the presidential election brought cries of disbelief and conspiracy theories from Jack Welch and other critics of the Obama administration Friday. But the Labor Department was quick to dismiss such claims.
"Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can't debate so change numbers," tweeted Welch, the former CEO of General Electric (GE, Fortune 500). Welch did not respond to a request for further comment on his tweet. But in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Welch said "I wasn't kidding" about his accusations.
Labor Secretary Hilda Solis criticized the conspiracy theories Friday.
"This is a methodology that's been used for decades. And it is insulting when you hear people just cavalierly say that somehow we're manipulating numbers," Solis told CNN's Richard Quest.
Might as well get it all out in the open.
Barack Obama kidnapped the Lindbergh baby.
Barack Obama planned the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Barack Obama was on the grassy knoll in Dallas on November, 22, 1963.
Barack Obama killed Jimmy Hoffa and buried him in the Rose Garden.
Barack Obama killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and framed O.J. Simpson for the other crime that put him behind bars.
Barack Obama shot J.R.
Barack Obama impersonated Dr. Conrad Murray and slipped Michael Jackson a fatal dose of Propofol.
Barack Obama is actually Bruce Wayne who is actually Batman.
And Barack Obama actually fathered that child that made Maria Shriver kick Arnold Schwarzenegger's ass to the curb.
Honesty is what elections should be about.
Truth will out.
So, there you have it.
Oh, one more.
In the spirit of blunt truth and uncompromised honesty.
Jack Welch and his like minded "critics of the Obama adminstration" are fucking morons.
Truth ain't truth unless it's the whole truth and nothing but.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
"...All The World's A Stage...And Both Major Party Standard Bearers Merely Players...."
It has been, at this writing, almost twenty four hours since the beginning of the first presidential debate of 2012.
In this instant news culture, that translates to this:
Almost everything and/or anything new that can be said about the performance of the two candidates has already been said.
So, here's politics in plain english.
The consensus seems to be that Mitt Romney outperformed Barack Obama.
And that Obama's performance was surprisingly lackluster, unfocused and, essentially, disappointing.
As to who "won"?
Awarding of that recognition to either candidate is academic.
Because those who supported Romney going in still support him.
Those who supported Obama going in still support him.
But in a culture that measures almost everything in terms of style as opposed to substance, the inferior performance always inevitably must concede "defeat" to the superior.
And though it was most surely not his intention, Barack Obama proved something last night that has been lurking around the edges of conventional wisdom since at least the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, just waiting for the right time to be accepted into the mainstream.
The art of politics has been forever replaced.
By the art of performance.
And candidates will no longer be required to sell us on their ability to do the job.
But simply their ability to play the part.
In this instant news culture, that translates to this:
Almost everything and/or anything new that can be said about the performance of the two candidates has already been said.
So, here's politics in plain english.
The consensus seems to be that Mitt Romney outperformed Barack Obama.
And that Obama's performance was surprisingly lackluster, unfocused and, essentially, disappointing.
As to who "won"?
Awarding of that recognition to either candidate is academic.
Because those who supported Romney going in still support him.
Those who supported Obama going in still support him.
But in a culture that measures almost everything in terms of style as opposed to substance, the inferior performance always inevitably must concede "defeat" to the superior.
And though it was most surely not his intention, Barack Obama proved something last night that has been lurking around the edges of conventional wisdom since at least the first Kennedy-Nixon debate in 1960, just waiting for the right time to be accepted into the mainstream.
The art of politics has been forever replaced.
By the art of performance.
And candidates will no longer be required to sell us on their ability to do the job.
But simply their ability to play the part.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
"...Not Necessarily An Actual Alternative...But An Incredible Likeness..."
There's, like, a very, like, important issue, like, at play in, like, the current presidential, like, campaign.
It, like, goes like this.
Name your favorite flavor of ice cream.
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that your answer is vanilla.
Now, I'm going to ask you why you like vanilla more than any other flavor.
I can't begin to imagine, obviously, what you will say.
But I can predict, with dazzling accuracy, what you will not say.
You will not say it's because you don't like chocolate.
That response would, also obviously, seem silly, even a little stupid, to the both of us.
This flavor fracas forumulated in my frontal lobes the other day as I saw yet another of my Facebook friends/peers/co-horts and/or co-conspirators indicate, with the applicable click of the applicable button. that they "like" Mitt Romney.
Bringing the total of those who, in that context at least, "like" Mitt Romney to a pretty, like, healthy number.
Not being a professional pollster, I couldn't begin to tell you what John or Mary Q. Public are thinking as they determine who they like, why they like or what makes them like whatever it is that they, like, like..
And Joe The Plumber is obviously sitting this year's ballot battle out, so no insight to be found there.
Some of the aformentioned Facebook family, though, are people that I actually know, people that I consider friends, peers, co-horts and/or co-conspirators.
So, there's a case to be made that I might have a reasonably acceptable perspective on where they're coming from in the whole, like, process of liking.
And, in more than just a couple of cases, knowing those particular cases the way I do, I'm willing to predict, with more of that never ending supply of dazzling accuracy, exactly why they like Romney.
Because they don't like Obama.
Despite the admittedly deserved perception that I very much enjoy the sound of my own voice and the rhythm of my own rhetoric, I really do spend a lot of time reading, pondering, studying and, yes, naysayers, listening to what people have to say, what people are thinking, what people are, like, liking.
Frankly, I'd offer that any good writer couldn't be a good writer unless they had a capacity for hearing what's going on around them, given that without that input, their river of material would dry up pretty damn quick.
But, that's a position for another paper.
Can't, and won't speak, for you.
But here's what I'm hearing.
A lot of people who say they like Mitt Romney.
But almost nothing in terms of what they like about him.
Or what they like about, like, what they expect him to do when, and if, elected.
Or, like, what they see as the fundamental, and critically important, differences between what he will bring to that table in the Cabinet Room as opposed to that brought by Obama.
And, like, just for the record, although it's, like, frankly a little wearying to always have to throw in the obligatory disclaimer, here's, like, the obligatory disclaimer.
This piece is not an obvious, nor veiled, thinly or other wise, endorsement of Barack Obama for a second term.
That said, I will say this.
It seems a little silly and stupid that it would seem a little silly and stupid to choose vanilla over chocolate simply because one didn't like chocolate and yet it doesn't seem at all silly or stupid to choose Romney over Obama simply because one doesn't like Obama.
In the course of the aforementioned reading, pondering, studying and, yes, naysayers, listening to what my Facebook friends, family, peers, co-horts and/or co-conspirators are offering up in the way of a rationale for liking Romney, I have yet to read/see or hear a detailed articulation of why they do, in fact, like him, beyond, of course, the rationale that he, if nothing else, isn't Obama.
Maybe it's just me, but I think "if nothing else" is a pretty weak foundation on which to build a choice for President of The United States.
Meanwhile, I really would welcome, and assuredly praise, any detailed articulation any of my friends, family, peers, etc, would care to pony up.
Working without that, for the time being, I can only fall back to what seems to be the only conclusion my friends, family, peers, co-horts and/or co-conspirators are making available at, like, this time.
With Romney, you're not sure what or when or how or how much or, even if.
With Obama, you pretty much know what.
Like it...
...or not.
It, like, goes like this.
Name your favorite flavor of ice cream.
Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that your answer is vanilla.
Now, I'm going to ask you why you like vanilla more than any other flavor.
I can't begin to imagine, obviously, what you will say.
But I can predict, with dazzling accuracy, what you will not say.
You will not say it's because you don't like chocolate.
That response would, also obviously, seem silly, even a little stupid, to the both of us.
This flavor fracas forumulated in my frontal lobes the other day as I saw yet another of my Facebook friends/peers/co-horts and/or co-conspirators indicate, with the applicable click of the applicable button. that they "like" Mitt Romney.
Bringing the total of those who, in that context at least, "like" Mitt Romney to a pretty, like, healthy number.
Not being a professional pollster, I couldn't begin to tell you what John or Mary Q. Public are thinking as they determine who they like, why they like or what makes them like whatever it is that they, like, like..
And Joe The Plumber is obviously sitting this year's ballot battle out, so no insight to be found there.
Some of the aformentioned Facebook family, though, are people that I actually know, people that I consider friends, peers, co-horts and/or co-conspirators.
So, there's a case to be made that I might have a reasonably acceptable perspective on where they're coming from in the whole, like, process of liking.
And, in more than just a couple of cases, knowing those particular cases the way I do, I'm willing to predict, with more of that never ending supply of dazzling accuracy, exactly why they like Romney.
Because they don't like Obama.
Despite the admittedly deserved perception that I very much enjoy the sound of my own voice and the rhythm of my own rhetoric, I really do spend a lot of time reading, pondering, studying and, yes, naysayers, listening to what people have to say, what people are thinking, what people are, like, liking.
Frankly, I'd offer that any good writer couldn't be a good writer unless they had a capacity for hearing what's going on around them, given that without that input, their river of material would dry up pretty damn quick.
But, that's a position for another paper.
Can't, and won't speak, for you.
But here's what I'm hearing.
A lot of people who say they like Mitt Romney.
But almost nothing in terms of what they like about him.
Or what they like about, like, what they expect him to do when, and if, elected.
Or, like, what they see as the fundamental, and critically important, differences between what he will bring to that table in the Cabinet Room as opposed to that brought by Obama.
And, like, just for the record, although it's, like, frankly a little wearying to always have to throw in the obligatory disclaimer, here's, like, the obligatory disclaimer.
This piece is not an obvious, nor veiled, thinly or other wise, endorsement of Barack Obama for a second term.
That said, I will say this.
It seems a little silly and stupid that it would seem a little silly and stupid to choose vanilla over chocolate simply because one didn't like chocolate and yet it doesn't seem at all silly or stupid to choose Romney over Obama simply because one doesn't like Obama.
In the course of the aforementioned reading, pondering, studying and, yes, naysayers, listening to what my Facebook friends, family, peers, co-horts and/or co-conspirators are offering up in the way of a rationale for liking Romney, I have yet to read/see or hear a detailed articulation of why they do, in fact, like him, beyond, of course, the rationale that he, if nothing else, isn't Obama.
Maybe it's just me, but I think "if nothing else" is a pretty weak foundation on which to build a choice for President of The United States.
Meanwhile, I really would welcome, and assuredly praise, any detailed articulation any of my friends, family, peers, etc, would care to pony up.
Working without that, for the time being, I can only fall back to what seems to be the only conclusion my friends, family, peers, co-horts and/or co-conspirators are making available at, like, this time.
With Romney, you're not sure what or when or how or how much or, even if.
With Obama, you pretty much know what.
Like it...
...or not.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
"...And Now, The Vogues And Their Great Campaign Song, 'Turn Around, Look At Me'..."
Political consultant Alex Castellanos understands rock and roll.
Mitt Romney does not.
Pudding full of proof momentarily.
(Alex Castellanos for CNN) -- If I named the conservatives who've done the most for freedom and the conservative cause in my lifetime, I'd include William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, and not necessarily in that order.
Mitt Romney does not.
Pudding full of proof momentarily.
(Alex Castellanos for CNN) -- If I named the conservatives who've done the most for freedom and the conservative cause in my lifetime, I'd include William F. Buckley, Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, and not necessarily in that order.
I'm not sure Rush has ever run a political campaign, but he's a hell of a radio host. The man has enthralled 20 million listeners three hours a day, nonstop, without guests for nearly 30 years.
Reliably, I'm one of them.
Turning afternoon soliloquies into a national institution for more than three decades cannot be easy.
No one has duplicated it. His unique work requires a prodigious brain and a matching ego. Rush is not particularly fond of any idea that isn't his; when he was growing up, I suspect he was not allowed to play with other kids.
A few days ago, on his radio show, Limbaugh took exception to a suggestion I made on CNN that Mitt Romney add a little variety to his political campaign.
Right now, to these experienced old eyes, Team Romney appears to be doing the same political event over and over again. They ride the same bus, show up at the same political rally, deliver the same message to an identical looking crowd, at an indistinguishable venue. As a result, we are force-fed the same cookie-cutter campaign on TV news.
It has become a snoozer.
Rush took a little license in interpreting my remarks, saying, "Alex Castellanos -- our good buddy, the Republican strategist on CNN -- is upset at these big crowds. He wishes Romney would make the crowds smaller. I'm not kidding. I'm not kidding you. Not kidding you. Well, he says it doesn't look presidential."
What I actually said was the following:
"Every time I turn on my TV, it's the same political rally with Paul Ryan and the same crowd around him, state after state after state, and it looks like a political beauty pageant. And it looks like politics, not like governing. You don't want to run for president looking like a candidate. You want to run for president looking like a president. Go to where the problem is, Mitt Romney, go to an inner city and find out what's happened to the American family that's falling apart. Go where the problem is, go to an unemployment line, talk to some people."
It looks like a political beauty pageant. And it looks like politics, not like governing.
That is not exactly urging smaller crowds -- and it was not a suggestion made by someone who has never run a political campaign.
So how is the endless parade of rallies working for Romney-Ryan? In the swing states Team Romney is executing these displays, he is further behind than the rest of the nation. Nationally, where Romney is not campaigning via an interminable series of rallies, Rasmussen daily tracking has the race tied.
This would recommend that Romney have more rallies in Alaska and fewer in Ohio, where the CNN poll of polls puts Romney at 7 points down, requiring him to gain a few votes to win.
Apparently there is also a Rush radio listener named Rick Wilson who feigns expertise in these matters and also prefers that Romney maintain his same rally-round-the-clock approach. Wilson admonished my "astonishingly dumb" idea, explaining, "The people who show up to those events are committed. They're believers."
Well let me slap myself on the forehead. Why did that not occur to me? That's exactly right, Romney is talking to believers -- which is one reason I would urge Team Romney to add a little variety to their menu.
If they are believers, that could mean Romney already has their votes. It's called preaching to the choir. And such rallies make for relentlessly boring television for the persuadable voters watching the news who chose not to attend.
Over the years, I've seen lots of candidates get trapped in a loop, campaigning to their own supporters. A procession of love fests makes the candidate happy, which makes the campaign staff happy. Rallies, as organizational events that motivate your troops and display their whooping support, are often wonderful campaign tools. But is that the only news-making activity we can recommend?
This unusual year, Republican voters are already intensely motivated to get out to vote by a fellow named Barack Obama. GOP intensity is at record levels.
Constructing the same redundant rally to motivate people who are already motivated is trying to set fire to a fire. Perhaps we could conceive a better use of the candidate's valuable time, like trying to get votes he does not have?
If Romney's rallies were expanding his support, like Obama's coliseum-fillers four years ago, keep doing them! When you are behind in Ohio, however, it might help to stop throwing the same pitch to the batters every inning. Throw a change-up.
By the way, whom do people hate these days with a revulsion beyond that earned by pedophiles and car salesmen? I'll suggest the answer: Politicians. Politicians who look like politicians, politicians who politic, politicians who hold rallies.
I do not expect to win the Nobel Prize for this, as our president did for even less, but here is an insight I've gleaned from years of campaign analysis and decades of experience: Political rallies are political.
And the recommendation we would make to Mitt Romney now is to look more like a politician?
In these last few weeks before Election Day, both campaigns will increase their ad spending. Their TV commercials will flood the airwaves. Political ads will become wallpaper, an endless series of Obama and Romney spots, interrupted by the occasional program. Imagining and creating news events will become more important than TV ads.
With six weeks to go, our audience is at home, in their seats, absorbing the news, munching popcorn, watching the gladiators. One great moment, like Reagan's "I paid for this microphone, Mr. Green," can elevate a campaign and change the world.
My advice to the Romney campaign remains this: Create those great moments.
Get serious. Get presidential. Elevate our great problems and demonstrate your solutions in front of us. Firemen go where the fire is. So do leaders. On this, Rush Limbaugh and I may agree.
In the same program, Rush suggested, "By the way, if Romney is to go where all the problems are, he's got to go to every Democrat congressional office. You want to go find out where there's unemployment, go find a Democrat. If you want to find out where the inner city is crumbling, go find a Democrat or go talk to Al Sharpton. America falling apart, unemployment line? Go to the White House."
Yes! Exactly. Which is why, for months, I have publicly urged team Romney to go to Washington and campaign in the belly of the beast. Go to the center of Barack Obama's government-centered society. Tear down the columns in government's temples.
Let Washington know that the next president of the United States is going to stop growing Washington's economy and grow America's economy. Let Washington know you are going to sell every other government building and replace them with three good websites. Let Washington know Kinko's better get some new copying machines because they will soon be printing a lot of old bureaucrats' resumes.
Let Washington know you are going to cut taxes and spending and take money out of its pocket, and put those dollars in the pockets of the American people, where they work, where they live, where they shop, where they invest, so we can grow this great economy bottom-up, naturally and organically, not top down, politically and artificially from Washington.
Let Washington know that the seeds of growth cannot flourish in the barren concrete of our capital.
Only debt and inefficiency grow there. Tell them Mitt Romney is going to plant those seeds in the fertile soil of the American economy so we can renew the greatest economy in the world.
If Team Romney does, they will not only make news and drive social media in Ohio, as they might with a local rally, but they'll also make news in Ohio, plus every other swing state.
Our greatest American playwright, David Mamet, understands a little bit about storytelling. In his book, "The Three Uses of the Knife," he notes this: "The power of the dramatist, and of the political flack therefore, resides in the ability to state the problem."
Sometimes the best way to get a job is to start doing the job, not campaign for it. Two suggestions for Mitt Romney: Go where the problem is ... and kick the problem's butt. And every day, listen to an hour of Rush. It's good for what ails your campaign.
A few television seasons back, I observed that, judging from their performances, it seemed like that year's crop of American Idol contestants seemed to have one somewhat disconcerting quality in common.
It appeared as, opposed to actually winning the thing, their primary goal had been to, simply, get on the show in the first place.
I was reminded of that reading Castellanos' observations of the Romney campaign.
Being neither a professional political operative nor qualified expert, per se, in the campaign arts, I can only offer a layman's take on Alex's P.O.V.
Agreed.
And whoever is running Mitt's campaign is clearly missing the lesson easily learned at any decent sized rock concert.
When the band on stage is so enamored of itself that it starts playing to each other, it's only a mere matter of moments before the audience begins the process of seeking out someone who will play to them.
Hey, Mitt! We're out here.
And if you guys don't turn around and enthrall us pretty soon, we're going shopping.
We hear tell of a group down the street fronted by a guy named Barack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







