The GOP Convention MegaMittensThread!

[CountDeMoney]

Pretty much, yeah.

They should've booked Arnold.  Hell, Nancy Reagan would've been more lucid, and would've brought the fucking house down just standing there.

[Valmy]

Romney called out Obama for hurting Medicare...so he plans to maintain Medicare and the massive defense budget while balancing the budget?



Glad to know he is going to stop Iran somehow.

[derspiess]

They should've booked Arnold. 

Arnold's GOP star ain't nearly as bright now.  I still like him personally, but politically I don't really see him as much different from a Democrat, even in the context of California politics.

[The Minsky Moment]

Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc.  But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you.  Why stop now.

That's not really an answer.

If the question were asked (for example) what causes the business cycle, it would probably come as no surprise that I find Keynes' answers more persuasive than say Milton Friedman's or hayek's or Lucas.  But I would not accuse Friedman/Hayek/Lucas/etc or anyone who adheres to their theories of being stupid - on the contrary I've read much of their work and they were all very brilliant. Economics is very complicated and it would be the height of arrogance to claim certainty as to the right answers.

OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge.  It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them.  Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision?  The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.

[dps]

Commentators over here say it's been a "meh" speech. Not much in terms of goal setting and even less about how those goals should be achieved (e.g. creating 12 million jobs). One commenter said that it was rather anti-climactic and after the very good build up to it, and said that Romney rather played it safe than taking any chances.

Well, sweeping policy initiatives wasn't the goal;  the goal was to show that he actually had a heartbeat and not a warranty card. In that vein, it sorta worked, what with all his family stuff.

Some of his message was a bit off.  His foreign policy stuff was off the mark, accusing the Administration about "throwing Israel under the bus", not doing anything about Iran, and I'm not sure where the circa 1982 anti-Russian stuff is coming from.  Then again, Psycho John Bolton is practically guaranteed to be his Secretary of State, so there ya go.  While he and Ryan tinker with the economy like it's an Ayn Rand living lab, they're going to hand off foreign policy to the Dubya neocons.  Yikes.

But, as usual, the people running his campaign managed to get their candidate lost in the mix;  only this time, it wasn't a gaffe or the message of a bad commercial.  Today, people are talking about the Clint Eastwood meltdown, not their candidate.  That last night was almost a disaster.

But, it was just another a variation on a theme, more pandering, less policy.

He may get a bounce, but only for a few days:  Big Barry's got the stage starting Tuesday.

I think that the last time policy instead of pandering featured at either party's convention was the 1948 Democratic convention.

And Syt, Romney is the ultimate play-it-safe-don't-take-any-chances candidate, so him playing it safe here should hardly be a surprise.  Don't take that the wrong way--I don't think you were surprised.

[derspiess]

Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc.  But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you.  Why stop now.

That's not really an answer.

If the question were asked (for example) what causes the business cycle, it would probably come as no surprise that I find Keynes' answers more persuasive than say Milton Friedman's or hayek's or Lucas.  But I would not accuse Friedman/Hayek/Lucas/etc or anyone who adheres to their theories of being stupid - on the contrary I've read much of their work and they were all very brilliant. Economics is very complicated and it would be the height of arrogance to claim certainty as to the right answers.

OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge.  It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them.  Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision?  The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.

I guess you & I are just seeing different things in his speech.  Particularly seeing how he delivered it (and the big reception it got from the crowd), it's obvious to me that he was trying to diminish what he seems to believe is small business owners' inflated sense of accomplishment-- particularly how he went on about how they're not so special for being smart or hard-working since there are "a lot of smart people out there" and "a whole bunch of hard-working people out there".

[derspiess]

And Syt, Romney is the ultimate play-it-safe-don't-take-any-chances candidate, so him playing it safe here should hardly be a surprise.  Don't take that the wrong way--I don't think you were surprised.

And I don't think candidates usually use their acceptance speeches to outline specific policy proposals.  Seems like that usually comes out in other campaign speeches & in the debates.

[Valmy]

And I don't think candidates usually use their acceptance speeches to outline specific policy proposals.  Seems like that usually comes out in other campaign speeches & in the debates.

And usually not even then.  And yes this is why I wonder why conventions are newsworthy events at all.  We learn a whole lot of nothing.

[CountDeMoney]

And I don't think candidates usually use their acceptance speeches to outline specific policy proposals.  Seems like that usually comes out in other campaign speeches & in the debates.

Exactly; the debates are where the real policy stuff emerges.  Policy planks at conventions died out ages ago, kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960; Bob Dole '76 developed the Veep-as-campaign-hatchet-man model we have today.

[Valmy]

Exactly; the debates are where the real policy stuff emerges.  Policy planks at conventions died out ages ago, kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960; Bob Dole '76 developed the Veep-as-campaign-hatchet-man model we have today.

Well that used to be the case but the debates had their teeth removed for awhile.

[Razgovory]

Nobody is claiming we don't need education, roads, etc.  But by all means continue to call the other side stupid for disagreeing with you.  Why stop now.

That's not really an answer.

If the question were asked (for example) what causes the business cycle, it would probably come as no surprise that I find Keynes' answers more persuasive than say Milton Friedman's or hayek's or Lucas.  But I would not accuse Friedman/Hayek/Lucas/etc or anyone who adheres to their theories of being stupid - on the contrary I've read much of their work and they were all very brilliant. Economics is very complicated and it would be the height of arrogance to claim certainty as to the right answers.

OTOH the kinds of things Obama was talking about in his "build that" speech is really not very complicated or controversial, as you acknowledge.  It would indeed be pretty stupid to deny them.  Since no reasonable person could disagree on the substance, how then to reconcile the odd fact that a convention full of delegates is holding up these uncontestable concepts as something worthy of contempt and derision?  The only possibilities seem to be that either they are deliberately misconstruing the comments or they really are so clueless as be claiming that which you agree no one sensible could claim.

I guess you & I are just seeing different things in his speech.  Particularly seeing how he delivered it (and the big reception it got from the crowd), it's obvious to me that he was trying to diminish what he seems to believe is small business owners' inflated sense of accomplishment-- particularly how he went on about how they're not so special for being smart or hard-working since there are "a lot of smart people out there" and "a whole bunch of hard-working people out there".

So there aren't a lot of smart and hard-working people out there?

[derspiess]

Exactly; the debates are where the real policy stuff emerges.  Policy planks at conventions died out ages ago, kinda like how nobody's used the Veep pick to secure a region's electoral votes since 1960; Bob Dole '76 developed the Veep-as-campaign-hatchet-man model we have today.

Well that used to be the case but the debates had their teeth removed for awhile.

They do at least like to use it to drop policy proposals.  How many times have you heard "...and that is why I am proposing..." at a debate?

[derspiess]

So there aren't a lot of smart and hard-working people out there?

Leave it to you to only focus on literal meaning.  The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special.  Which in a sense I'm fine with him saying-- I just don't understand why you deny he's saying it.

[CountDeMoney]

The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special. 

Well, you heard wrong.

[derspiess]

The way I heard it, the president is essentially telling small business owners they're nothing special. 

Well, you heard wrong.

Given the big reaction he got from his crowd with those words, I don't think so.  He was playing up to his crowd, off-teleprompter, and I think just got carried away with himself.