When Mitt Romney becomes president.... *FLUX THREAD!*

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I don't think what I asked is uncalled for, nor did I ask anyone to divulge who they're voting for. (not that people don't stand up screaming about who they're voting for and why every damn day/all day long anyway). If someone wants to keep it to themselves (and more people should) that's perfectly understood.... But the title of this thread is "When Mitt Romney Becomes President" .... OK then maybe I should re-word this and ask for some speculation as to what will be accomplished "When Mitt Romney Becomes President" .... If we don't discuss the pros and cons of both guys (and other candidates) all we're left with is what comes out of both camps and the media...

[hypehat]

....which is informed by....?

I am voting for Mike Love in this election BTW and I don't care who knows it.

Guitarfool, would you not concede that Mitt has brought this all upon himself? Hell, he brought up PBS and he brought up Sesame Street, and he brought up Big Bird. Like I said, it's incredibly stupid politics - he singled out the thing that would irritate the most people himself, and Obama didn't have to say anything (and he didn't until after). Obama has also managed to make that the enduring sentiment from a debate that Mitt was thought to have won. If politics in this modern day & age is about media manipulation and controlling the message I'd say Obama has 'won' the debate. Insomuch as the bar for Mitt was set incredibly low.

And as if O's campaign is in trouble. I haven't been reading worried articles quoting Democrats who prefer to remain anonymous about the inner workings of the Obama campaign for this past week, let's put it that way. (inb4 'liberal media bias', it's a country where Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are allowed to roam free)

Again, PBS do not fund Sesame Street. They distribute it. Can't you find a PBS station everywhere in the states, for free? For something like Sesame Street, that's exactly what you want. And they can choose whoever the hell they like to distribute it.

And it's not like dumb adverts are the sole province of the Democrats - I've been watching some Republican adverts and Jesus, I don't know how you guys can even watch television in a swing state. Not saying Democrat ones are any better, but still.

Erik, dude, you could stop hectoring us for having a free-flowing conversation and actually join in for once. Like, if you want to have that discussion, you could just have that discussion with us instead of interviewing anyone reading the thread. Just saying.

[guitarfool2002]

Romney did of course mention Big Bird in the first debate, there is nothing to concede there because anyone watching the debate heard it. However, the shitstorm that followed came directly from the same mentality which stirred the exact same pot in the mid-90's as I described on the last page. When the newly-elected GOP-led Congress began talking about trimming the budget, the Democrats and several reporters began picking out all of the potential hot-buttons, among them Sesame Street and "killing" Big Bird, and the potential as expressed by a high-level WH official at the time for veterans' benefit and disability checks to "bounce" and leave them in the street if the so-called "cuts" were passed.

It was scare-tactic politics, pure and simple, again as outlined on the last page. For the most effective scare tactics, target those who scare the most easily, in this case pre-school age kids who don't wish to see their friend Big Bird killed and veterans who rely on disability payments to live every month who were in fear of their checks bouncing if the GOP got its way.

Fortunately cooler heads prevailed all around.

I can't say the same about 2012.

I don't concede much on this topic, to be honest. I enjoy PBS, I watch PBS, I think the programming ranges from dreadful to among the best on television today. But I do NOT think an organization that has pulled in hundreds of millions in profits from licensing and merchandising and an organization that can afford to pay whatever they call the public-television version of a corporate "CEO" close to a million dollars per year in salary should be receiving federal money from taxpayers who do not have a choice in the matter.

Romney mentioned it, and it is worth mentioning becaue many taxpayers in America share my feelings on PBS funding, where they enjoy it and may even pledge money to support it financially, but in no way feel that a self-sustaining television empire which boasts one of the bigger icons of children's toy sales and marketing and one who has proven, consistent success in the competitive free market, should be receiving *any* taxpayer funding.

He's not to blame for the reaction to the issue. And that reaction is literally going back perhaps 15 years ago to the exact same playbook and attack plans the DNC had already used and had worn out when people cooled down and actually looked at the issue at hand rather than the emotionally-charged rhetoric.

If we see a supposedly successful, winning, and "well run" Obama campaign who uses a passing comment made in a debate to fuel a full media blitz based around Big Bird, especially in light of all the other pressing issues (the emerging truth about what happened in Libya when the US embassy was attacked versus the White House's version of the story, for one...), that campaign is either misguided, in trouble and grasping at straws, or a combination of those two.

As Carville said back in the '92 campaign, a statement more true in 2012 than '92: "It's the economy....". Or in the case of Obama's campaign, it's Big Bird. Decide which is more important.

[hypehat]

RE: funding, it's a pittance relatively speaking. It's less than one percent of the federal budget, as I've repeatedly stated. Of several avenues wherein you could actually cut public spending.... why that? What would that achieve? But then, someone campaigning on an explicit rhetoric of public sector cuts might not be so appealing.... although it's worked over here so I guess not as bad as I think.

Also, IDK the specifics of your nineties example, but if the veterans cheques thing was indeed true then hell yes they should have employed those kind of tactics. Anything necessary. And I don't have that much of a hard-on for the military, but there's something in the 'serving the country' thing that should be honoured by a government.

Anyway, back on the modern day - I guess it's the rhetoric that's the problem? You do seem wilfully blind to a lot of much worse things that the Republicans say, or do - the perplexing existence of Todd Akin in party politics, Mitt's various gaffes, the campaign caller who left a answerphone message saying Obama was a Muslim - and picking on Democrats running adverts with celebrities in them or social media rhetoric about PBS becoming an issue. I don't know if you think you're exposing some mass hypocrisy, but it's not quite the same thing. Not attacking, just trying to figure out where you are coming from on all this.

Feeling very bummed about the state of the world now that my government is offering a not-so-optional choice for people starting work to get shares in their new company.... in lieu of nearly all employment rights. As a young man in varying states of employment, f***. that. sh*t.

[guitarfool2002]

RE: funding, it's a pittance relatively speaking. It's less than one percent of the federal budget, as I've repeatedly stated. Of several avenues wherein you could actually cut public spending.... why that? What would that achieve? But then, someone campaigning on an explicit rhetoric of public sector cuts might not be so appealing.... although it's worked over here so I guess not as bad as I think.

Also, IDK the specifics of your nineties example, but if the veterans cheques thing was indeed true then hell yes they should have employed those kind of tactics. Anything necessary.

Feeling very bummed about the state of the world now that my government is offering a not-so-optional choice for people starting work to get shares in their new company.... in lieu of nearly all employment rights. As a young man in varying states of employment, f***. That. sh*t.

The veterans checks bouncing issue was definitely, 100% not true, and that's why I raised it alongside the PBS funding issue from the same era of discussions. When the proposed budget was being debated, there were people who went through looking for the "hot" issues which they knew would scare people.

The possibility of veterans' checks bouncing was, please take this part of it away from my post, completely *false*, and it was a disgusting scare tactic being used by people who should have known better in order to score political points in the budget debate.

Here's the deal: If we were to cut PBS funding tomorrow, just pull the switch and say it's over, the metaphor of "killing Big Bird" would still not be true in any way, since, once again, the groups who put him out there are self-sustaining, highly profitable organizations who make enough profit to keep him around. It would be as untrue to say Big Bird will end if funding is cut as it was explicitly untrue for those people to even hint that a veteran's check would bounce if the GOP got its way.

Again, the check-bouncing story was a scenario cooked up by political hacks designed to scare older veterans, of which my father was and is one of them, and it stands in my mind as a low point of the political discourse of the 90's era. It was not true, there are safety valves built into the system to prevent things like that from happening and leaving people with bad checks that cannot be cashed.

[hypehat]

I get you (cutting PBS would eliminate Sesame Street's infiltration* so it is in some sense true), but i edited the post a wee bit while you were replying - check the new para?

*why on earth did i type that. distribution, i meant.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm merely commenting on issues that catch my attention. I used this metaphor on another discussion, but to counter your new paragraph: If we're discussing how much we love chocolate ice cream, is the discussion lessened if we don't add to that discussion how much we dislike another flavor of ice cream? I can also say "hey, I really don't like Pepsi Cola" and not expect someone to say "yeah, so tell us how you feel about Coca Cola!". The two are unrelated.

if I catch a comment or a topic that interests me, I'll comment on that without feeling the need to "balance" it in any way with my own comments! I'd basically be arguing with myself!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

....which is informed by....?

I am voting for Mike Love in this election BTW and I don't care who knows it.

Guitarfool, would you not concede that Mitt has brought this all upon himself? Hell, he brought up PBS and he brought up Sesame Street, and he brought up Big Bird. Like I said, it's incredibly stupid politics - he singled out the thing that would irritate the most people himself, and Obama didn't have to say anything (and he didn't until after). Obama has also managed to make that the enduring sentiment from a debate that Mitt was thought to have won. If politics in this modern day & age is about media manipulation and controlling the message I'd say Obama has 'won' the debate. Insomuch as the bar for Mitt was set incredibly low.

And as if O's campaign is in trouble. I haven't been reading worried articles quoting Democrats who prefer to remain anonymous about the inner workings of the Obama campaign for this past week, let's put it that way. (inb4 'liberal media bias', it's a country where Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are allowed to roam free)

Again, PBS do not fund Sesame Street. They distribute it. Can't you find a PBS station everywhere in the states, for free? For something like Sesame Street, that's exactly what you want. And they can choose whoever the hell they like to distribute it.

And it's not like dumb adverts are the sole province of the Democrats - I've been watching some Republican adverts and Jesus, I don't know how you guys can even watch television in a swing state. Not saying Democrat ones are any better, but still.

Erik, dude, you could stop hectoring us for having a free-flowing conversation and actually join in for once. Like, if you want to have that discussion, you could just have that discussion with us instead of interviewing anyone reading the thread. Just saying.

I hear ya, and all I was trying to do is to steer the convo back to one simple question. The intent was not to interview but to steer the discussion back to..... oh, nevermind. I'm getting the feeling my simple question is basically impossible to answer....

[hypehat]

Man, have the conversation. What do you think people see in Mitt?

[Shady]

Great hair 

Speaking of PBS, this is a must watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MXOr3KELqE&list=PLns_c6hz6XWZksF68Xnvr78dCDZvpv_yF&index=1&feature=plpp_video

[Jason]

And this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOvmSxvpGnA

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Man, have the conversation. What do you think people see in Mitt?

NOTHING other than that he's not Obama.

Nor do I consider answering one's own question as having a conversation..... However, talking to oneself does seem to be a running theme on this thread.....

[guitarfool2002]

The issues are being put out there on the table, commented on, and discussed. I thought "the issues", and the lack of focus and debate on specific points in favor of broad declarations and overreaching statements from politicians was what voters wanted to focus on more. PBS is but one on a long list, worthy of a close look to see where these candidates stand and how you feel about those positions.

Offering reasons why one candidate is more favorable to another is what can be found on any number of outlets, and ultimately doing that amounts to debating personal opinions of those individuals over the issues, and it's akin to arguing over someone's opinion of a band or a song. It all comes down to personal preference and what you take away from whatever you're seeing.

If you collect all the points and discussions about the issues relating to the candidates and what they have said, done, or proposed, it would seem to me to outweigh anyone's opinion of how they feel about a candidate and why they should or should not get a vote. Add it up, and see which candidate's actions on these issues lines up best with your own, then vote accordingly. It's a way to avoid saying my opinion on the candidate is better or worse than the opinion of someone else when the issues themselves are the topic of discussion.

[guitarfool2002]

Re: The two PBS video clips posted today - No one is disputing the quality of PBS programming when it is at its best. That Mr. Hooper clip still tugs at the heartstrings even though millions of kids watching Sesame Street for decades after I remember watching Mr. Hooper on the show minding his store don't even know who he is or was. Frontline can vary in quality from topic to topic, but ultimately it is an excellent and informative program which I do watch.

One of the issues that was bubbling under the original "Big Bird" debate during the budget battles of the 90's was the tone of certain programs. I'll add no more to that other than to offer a question:

No matter how much the amount, PBS still receives funding from the taxpayers. Would those in favor of continuing if not increasing this same federal funding to PBS have the same opinions if Sean Hannity had replaced Bill Moyers, if Michelle Malkin had replaced Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air, or if Bernie Goldberg had taken the reporter/anchor chair from Jim Lehrer?

[hypehat]

So Biden apparently trounced Ryan in the Veep debate? That's what I'm hearing, at least.

[guitarfool2002]

So Biden apparently trounced Ryan in the Veep debate? That's what I'm hearing, at least.

Where did you hear this?

[Jason]

I gained a new respect for Paul Ryan's sheer patience when confronted with a jackass like Biden. Biden, like a true neocon, did nothing but interrupt and try to talk louder than his debate opponent.

He is from Scranton, PA...so his behavior is to be expected. Apes have more civilized behavioral patterns than he does.

[guitarfool2002]

I find it more than curious now to have a question asked about Biden "trouncing" Ryan in the debate, so is that like suggesting without having actually seen the debate that this is what happened at the debate? Or is that the line coming from Huffington, or what?

If you look at the polls, some say Biden won, some are split in the margin of error, and some say Ryan won. So it's all over the place, and honestly I don't take a poll of 400 people to mean anything beyond what those 400 people think. CNN gives the victory to Ryan by 48-44, I don't think that's accurate either.

My own take: The only losers were the people watching. Biden was annoying and at some points infuriating with his giggling, cackling, and constant interruptions (not to mention the endless bullshit about his hard-scrabble Scranton blue-collar connections), and Ryan was trying to play the "slow and steady wins the race" routine and he ended up sounding too flat, too unaffected by being interrupted constantly by Biden, and too much into the "talking points" of the campaign instead of his own thoughts.

They both showed the more annoying elements of Al Gore back in the 2000 debates. Ryan played the over-informed and too-on-message policy wonk, and Biden took Gore's harumphing, eye-rolling, and other annoying body language to new heights of arrogance and cluelessness.

So it was a draw - the debate overall was a ground out. I think many Americans probably changed the channel to a baseball playoff after hearing Biden cackling and Ryan saying "Romney" a bit too often.

[hypehat]

I gained a new respect for Paul Ryan's sheer patience when confronted with a jackass like Biden. Biden, like a true neocon, did nothing but interrupt and try to talk louder than his debate opponent.

He is from Scranton, PA...so his behavior is to be expected. Apes have more civilized behavioral patterns than he does.

Funnily enough,that's all I read from various rightwing pundits - whining about Biden. Not saying how Ryan actually did, but that Biden was being mean. Which speaks volumes, I think.

That's why I asked, Guitarfool. I'd read about it on another forum, and the BBC story seemed to be saying Ryan was rather limp and Joe Biden was coming on strong. I was just asking for another opinion.

[guitarfool2002]

That's why I asked, Guitarfool. I'd read about it on another forum, and the BBC story seemed to be saying Ryan was rather limp and Joe Biden was coming on strong. I was just asking for another opinion.

I think a lot of people who could even make it through this debate probably share my take on the affair: I was just curious to see if anyone or anything was claiming that either one of those men "trounced" or even won last night. Because if anyone is suggesting that, they are full of sh*t, to be brutally honest about it.

Ryan was flat and detached, and Biden was a pain in the ass. I don't know how either "side" could be happy to have witnessed that, and I will add in as non-partisan a way as I can, that if anyone enjoyed hearing and seeing Biden act that way in a debate, their standards of how to debate and interact in a public and/or professional setting like a national debate are pretty low, and that is sad.

I say it all the time, so much for bringing back civility to politics if it ever existed anyway, and I blame Ryan as much for not attempting to take some kind of stance against Biden's crap as I do Biden for playing up the "Give 'em hell, Joe!" role which he relishes so much. There are times when you need to speak from the heart and address the situation you are confronted with, in this case a loudmouth cackling and interrupting constantly, and that reaction resonates with voters more that the endless blather about touting your message and talking points.

[hypehat]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/12/1143502/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Roundup-Biden-wins-debate-proves-Romney-Ryan-ticket-is-a-joke

I mean, this just got tweeted my way, but hey.

[guitarfool2002]

  Thanks for proving my point with that link: The Daily Kos is full of sh*t, as I said in a previous post. And if any opposing right-leaning forums and websites are claiming the opposite, they are similarly full of sh*t. People who watched know this.

The Daily Kos...(cue a sample of one of Biden's fake belly laughs from last night). f*** 'em.

[Jason]

It's safe to say who won and lost the debate last night. The establishment won and the sheeple lost.

[Jason]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2215532/My-sisters-cervical-cancer-misdiagnosed-30-times-mother-wrongly-told-suffering-anxiety.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The sad truth of socialized medicine...death panels? YOU BET.

[hypehat]

Sadly, the Daily Mail isn't the paragon of journalistic evidence that would actually make that assertion hold any water. It's a rag. With no compulsion about doctoring stories. Especially to further its Middle England right-wing agenda, that would be privatising the NHS in spite of the fact that it is an immensely unpopular, with the public and doctors alike, and unwise decision. And that is not a minority opinion. It would be akin to me quoting Fox News on the birther thing.

Pardon me, guitarfool, but I was linking that Kos piece for the things it quoted. I've actually never heard of it, but yeah, pundit roundup.