AAR

[Eliza]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/opinion/brooks-ryans-biggest-mistake.html?hp

ETA: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/should-we-have-elections/?hp

[dick]

@eliza: Interesting articles. Re the second one: Not sure Socrates was a good choice; he had to drink hemlock.

[Eliza]

[dick]

LOL

[LizE]

I agree with Tee. This is a terrible election--I wouldn't even write Hillary in, she's far too much of a hawk for me. Dick, I'm with you that it's a pretty cold world when we just declare survival-of-the-fittest, but I can see the other side, too. Once you let the government into your life, they want to take it all over--from deciding what you can eat or drink to constant surveillance to stop and frisk to state-mandated breastfeeding and on and on. So when at least some people say they want the government to go away, that's what they're talking about--not that they want to stop using our tax dollars to help fellow humans in need. But somehow the argument keeps getting framed so it's all-inclusive--you want to help folks out? Ok, then, you're for big government and that means you have to put up with surveillance and micro-management and horrific deficits. Not sure how this came to pass for logic, but I don't see it stopping anytime soon--no matter who wins this election.

[dick]

I agree that often, the Feds propose regulations that are downright silly. For example, my wife and I bought a new gas-stove, which, by federal regulation had to be attached either to the floor or the wall to prevent its tipping over. I suppose, on occasion, gas-stoves do tip over, but why make everybody have a stationary stove because once in a while, maybe, perhaps, on occasion one tips over. I'll admit that the federal government often resorts to overkill.

But I also participate in Medicare and would most likely be a lot poorer were I not. I think, in most instances, most Americans can get around the silly regs, such as as the gas stove tie-downs, but I don't think I could, on my own, have afforded the procedures I've had. It's a toss-up.

Somewhere there must be a centrist, a reasonable person who can straddle the line between Conservative and Liberal, or right and left, or this or that. I just wish one would step forward.

[Tee]

[erhea13]

Those sane centrists are too smart to run for the crappy job that is President of the United States of America. They also know that they have no chance in Hell because the hallmark of the true moderate is a distaste for pandering and pandering is what the voter wants. The voter wants to hear that he or she is wonderful, not at fault for the problems of today, and that the candidate plans to make life easier. It's not horrible to me that candidate buckle and pander in this manner, I am horrified by how readily the electorate eats this crap up.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen

[dick]

The electorate actually have very little to say about who becomes a candidate for office. The problem, I think, is less the voter than the two-party system, which has got a strangle-hold on politics. Even the choices of candidates, as in primaries, are to a great extent determined by the parties...and money, a problem made clear by the Tea Party's dismay at the way the Republican convention was orchestrated. By the time it gets to elections, voters' choices are limited. So yes, they probably do vote for whichever candidate's pandering provides what comes closest to what they want their government to do, whichever they are most comfortable with.

[maryskl]

As to Ryan - Just GAG!

[Tee]

[Eliza]

[Eliza]

Speaking earlier about Socrates and "truth telling," I found this in the new Gail Collins and David Brooks weekly NYT column which is on the R. convention this time:

GAIL: Speaking of Randians — I’ve been wanting to ask you about Paul Ryan. You’ve written about how Ryan made a terrible mistake torpedoing the Simpson-Bowles plan for deficit reduction. But in his speech he attacked President Obama for — failing to support Simpson-Bowles! That was, I believe, after he criticized the president for closing a Wisconsin auto plant that closed under George W. Bush.

DAVID: It was weird. Part of the speech was compelling and sounded very much like Paul Ryan — the indictment of the stimulus package and Obamacare. Part of it sounded like it was written by people with the intellectual moorings of jellyfish.

The stuff about the G.M. plant was stupid on many levels. Ryan voted for the auto bailout; the plant in his hometown was closed pre-Obama; an elemental fact of capitalism is that sometimes corporations close plants and are right to do so. If you’ve got a guy famous for truth-telling, why feed him a bunch of semi-deceptions?

Two other comments made by David:

DAVID: The larger issue is that both campaigns have decided that deceptiveness carries no penalty. I know from conversations I’ve had that both campaigns do rigorous fact-checking. When the candidates say something partially or wholly false, they know exactly what they’re doing.

DAVID: The whole thing was like a Junior Achievement convention. It was all about small business, as if commercial activity is the only sphere of American life.

Here's the entire column:
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/01/between-the-acts/?hp

---------------
ETA: Even Fox was on Ryan's case--

Sally Kohn, a contributor to Fox News, said: “Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.”

Business Insider called it “factually shaky.” A Washington Post blog called it a “breathtakingly dishonest speech.” Salon’s Joan Walsh said the speech was “stunning for its dishonesty” and contained “brazen lies.” Jonathan Cohn at The New Republic used the headline: “The Most Dishonest Convention Speech ... Ever?” You get the picture.

[LizE]

Besides their disregard for facts, the campaigns have something else in common--well, a lot of things, actually, so many that they are reduced to debating just a few topics instead of the many that concern the American people. These include: what are we doing about Iran, what the heck is our policy on Syria, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and a bunch of other places, what's up with all this surveillance, what's in that secret memo that Obama says gives him the power to execute American citizens without a trial, and why can't they prosecute anyone responsible for either the Bush torture regime or the crimes committed by Wall Street? Instead we're talking about the economy as if it exists in a vacuum and repealing Obamacare is the most burning issue in the history of the nation. I'm not saying it's not important, just that it's not the only important thing.

[Tee]

Just came across this quote recently and thought this thread's participants may appreciate its wit.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." ~Winston Churchill