The thing is, the night was shaping up pretty well for Mitt Romney. The testimonials from members of his church, business partners and political colleagues were heartfelt and often touching. Jane Edmonds, a Democratic member of his cabinet in Massachusetts, made a strong case for his dedication and work ethic. The well-done personal video actually provided some warmth to an often distant man. None of these things were particularly enlightening as to what Romney would pursue as President, but they set him up as a human being with blood coursing through his veins, an adult with a commitment to family and even someone with a capacity for kindness and compassion.
And then, after Taylor Hicks gave a performance worthy of a rich person’s bar mitzvah, out comes Hurricane Clint. And a chair.
The problem is that to the bulk of the country, this was the beginning of the night. To the millions of people who watched the video and read the transcript, this was the only thing that happened all night. Between the @InvisibleObama Twitter feed and #Eastwooding, I completely lost track of what was a pretty good, as I understand it, introductory speech by Marco Rubio. The focus of the night – to embody Mitt Romney with a soul, to make him a credible opponent for a Presidential campaign – was gone.
Winning back the Presidency isn’t all that hard a feat for Republicans. They’re going to have a large money advantage in the final two months. The economy has stunk for basically the whole of Obama’s term. His core argument, that he prevented things from getting worse, is simply a hard sell to the public. So this is all set up for generic Republican X to not talk too loudly, explain the failures of the past four years, offer something better through optimism and good cheer, and notch the victory.
That’s basically what Romney tried to do last night. But nobody cares, because an old film star had an argument with a chair on national television. In terms of pulling focus, this was like the streaker behind David Niven at the Oscars in 1974. Nobody in the world can tell you who David Niven gave the Oscar to. But they can quote Niven’s quip, “isn’t it fascinating to think that probably the only laugh that man will ever get in his life is by stripping off and showing his shortcomings?”
That’s what a trainwreck this was for the Romney campaign. Within a few hours I stopped remembering his speech. It was decent enough. It pulled many of its punches relative to Obama, forgoing the tough language and even dropping criticisms like “you didn’t build that” and the work requirement for welfare. It tried to appeal more strictly on economic grounds, and included a great line about how the happiest day of the Presidency shouldn’t be the first day you voted for him. It devoted almost nothing to policy, and put together a five-point plan to create 12 million jobs (the expected job output if we do absolutely nothing, per Moody’s) that had no short-term punch and is actually the same platform we’ve seen out of the Republican Party for the last decade, whether we sat in economic crisis or not.
But all I remember is Clint. And I suspect that’s all the country will remember. If you’re going to add star power to your convention on the final night, the good thing to do is to give them a script, and tell them to keep it short. Otherwise they might have the whole nation talking about everything but what you want them to talk about – the Republican nominee.
And when that star asks for a prop? Don’t give it to him.




79 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
One of the strangest things I seen anywhere was clint the mans lost it for sure.
I think Clint was right on the money, “make my day”, that is, “make my day in 1971″.
A lost Samuel Beckett play?
I didn’t mind the empty chair, which was a reasonably funny metaphor, especially with the imaginary President repeatedly telling Eastwood to shut up. The problem was that Eastwood was befuddled and not delivering his lines well, so the joke tended to get lost.
As for the plan and whether it is the same-old same-old from the Republicans, or even whether it predicts results that are identical to the results of doing nothing, I think you’re missing the point. The plan didn’t need to be distinguished from either the Republican platform or the probable results of benign neglect. It needed to be distinguished from what we’ll get if we re-elect the current clown.
“And unlike the president, I have a plan to create 12 million new jobs. It has 5 steps.
“First, by 2020, North America will be energy independent by taking full advantage of our oil and coal and gas and nuclear and renewables.
“Second, we will give our fellow citizens the skills they need for the jobs of today and the careers of tomorrow. When it comes to the school your child will attend, every parent should have a choice, and every child should have a chance.
“Third, we will make trade work for America by forging new trade agreements. And when nations cheat in trade, there will be unmistakable consequences.
“Fourth, to assure every entrepreneur and every job creator that their investments in America will not vanish as have those in Greece, we will cut the deficit and put America on track to a balanced budget.
“And fifth, we will champion SMALL businesses, America’s engine of job growth. That means reducing taxes on business, not raising them. It means simplifying and modernizing the regulations that hurt small business the most. And it means that we must rein in the skyrocketing cost of healthcare by repealing and replacing Obamacare.”
Even in this abbreviated form, it’s a huge improvement over whatever the current President thinks he’s up to: stifling energy production, preventing school choice, negotiating no trade agreements, exploding the deficit, and strangling small businesses in taxes and regulation.
What this proves is, that like Reagan at the end of his term, Eastwood is going senile.
Think of what would have happened if at a Democratic convention a Republican President was mocked the same way. Rush Limbaugh’s and Matt Drudge’s heads would have exploded. All we would hear about was disrespect for the Commander-in-Chief during a time when the country is at war. TREASON! They would scream. That Republican crowd sat their and laughed.
All in all, last night the Tin Man tried to show he has a heart, but at the end of the day he is still the Tin Man and nothing more.
It’s like somebody at their first open mic night thinking they’re Cyndi Lauper. Typical inflated self-regard, a puke hallmark. Hope the joke he made of himself never dies.
Clint’s behind the 8ball here. I’ve been talking to empty chairs for years.
GE Smith will be playing venues that won’t include Roger Waters and Bob Dylan. Al Sharpton was right on with the umbrage over ‘Living in America’ by James Brown coopted by those hacks.
ok, but tell me how those things create those jobs, especially that you say you are going to cut the deficit? And how much and what are you going to cut? Sounds like another fairy tale to me.
Sixth we’ll reverse global warming because we are exceptional americans, in the mean time drill baby drill.
That Republican convention was no more than a minstrel show.lThey must have taken every female or Latino politican and had them speaking from the dais. They moved the Puerto Rican delgation to the front to be in camera view. The old rich white guys who write the checks and control everything were in the VIP suites safely out of camera view.
Loved the part about women and how Romney tried to claim that women’s voices should be heard and then he blew it and said he was strongly pro life and wanted would defend a religious institutions beliefs. That says you can talk all you want but we will tell you what you can do with your bodies and, if a religious institutions decides that they don’t want you to use contraceptives, Romney will defend their right to make it as difficult as possilbe for you to get them.
I also really like the part at the end where he wants to go to war with just about ever country in the Middle East and we need to restart the cold war with Russia and China. No wonder he wants to increase the military budget. Oh and that global warming thing? Well a President shouldn’t even think about the fact that the oceans are risings. That’s so out of touch. We really need to double down on our comsumption of fossil fuels, because that is going to create jobs.
All of this opens up a tremendous opportunites for the Democrats at their convention. Think about what he said. He tried to paint a picture of his compassion for the poor, but he intends to gut the social safety net.
Mitt’s campaign proves they aren’t ready for the big time. Handing the mic over to an actor on the most important night of the convention without having a clue what said actor is going to say.. !? Recklessly careless, as seen in the result.
Unshackling energy production alone would create a ton of jobs, as you can see in North Dakota and Texas right now, where luckily the White House hasn’t figured out yet how to shut down O&G production on private lands. Repealing Obamacare would help, too. Get the NLRB to quit obstructing things like the new Boeing plant in SC. Frankly, just ceasing a good deal of what the current administration does and then standing back would be an improvement.
I hear your point on the deficit. It’s a complaint I hear on my side of the political spectrum as well: a lot of skepticism and cynicism about whether a new administration would make hard spending choices. I think they could hardly do worse, but that’s no guarantee of improvement. Nevertheless, I’d welcome an administration that actually believed deficits were a problem rather than some kind of voodoo stimulus.
This is the same warmed over bullshit peddled every election. All of the five points are ‘glittering generalities’ I first learned about in 6th grade Civics back in the early 60s.
Energy independence by 2020? That’s in 8 years. It won’t happen in 80 years. Oil is a world commodity like wheat. Thee oil pumped in this country doesn’t stay here. It never will. We get most of our oil from Canada, the middle east. Coal and gas? Does the term ‘climate change’ or glaciers disappearing or sea levels rising mean anything to you?
Give kids skills they need and school choices? How? Through for-profit schools? Pie-in-the-sky bullshit, too. Doesn’t work.
Point four was just plain gobbledy-gook.
Another point is just a rehash of deregulation and tax cuts.
I don’t vote and I’m politically neutral. Obama is nothing more than a corporatist sell-out and shill. He and Romney are merely two side of the same coin sitting in Wall Street’s pocket.
As the late Gov. George Wallace said, “There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference between ‘em.”
Pick your poison.
Nothing like hitting the accelerator on the highway to hell with you.
Fighting fire with gas works every time.
texan99@#4
that 5-point plan you’ve outlined has pretty much been implemented in TX. how’s it working out for you?
When everyone works for a dollar an hour at the whim of their employer, who will by your $ 4 a gallon product ?
Will the military take up the slack with the crusades expanding ?
Honest question…how likely is it that the R masters of public performance mistakenly put Eastwood on vs. sabotaged Mitt’s big convention night? I can’t imagine anything like Eastwood happening to Bush. Perhaps I’m being overly cynical, but…
That drought and heat wave have nothing to do with global warming, just god showing his warm affection for those Texans down there.
Do you dispute this part of David’s post?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/08/30/factcheckerromneys-12-million-job-promise/
http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/romney-will-solve-crisis-exact-same-gop-plan-2008-2006-2004
We need to be realistic. The vast majority, and I mean probably all, of the people who will cast a vote for a Romney/Ryan ticket didn’t hear a fucking thing Clint said. They were just starstruck that Dirty Harry wanted Mittens for president.
Clint’s flop last night will do absolutely nothing to move the needle for Mittens, one way or the other.
People who vote Republican don’t change their minds because somebody did something awkward, or because somebody lied, or because somebody is batshit crazy. Most Republican voters are mindless cowards who vote in fear of the welfare queen, or the black rapist, or the brown job stealer.
To be fair – our drought conditions have lessened this year as the rest of the country has gotten worse.
We have a 4.7″ surplus rain total year to date in Central Texas.
I see your point, though :)
Ah yes, the great unshackling.
In the period between the end of WWII and 1976, when we had marginal tax rates at 70% and higher and the finance industry was tightly regulated we built a middle class that was the envy of the world. Wages went up with productivity. Things improved so rapidly that people could see the value of hard work in their own lives from year to year.
The great unshackling actually began with Jimmy Carter and the trucking and transportation industries. But it was accelerated by Reagan in a major way and has been expanded by both parties ever since through the radical deregulation of the financial industry under Clinton and Bush.
The median wage has been stagnant for thirty years. Financial crises, which were virtually absent during the period of regulation, are so common that we only count the major ones like the savings and loan crisis and the financial meltdown associated with the housing bubble–itself caused by deregulation.
The more conservative the country’s policies become, the more damage liberals do to the economy. God save us from liberals.
The pipe line from Canada will temporaliy increase jobs, but not anywhere near the number we need or what the Republicans are claiming. This idea of mining more coal is truly chilling. There is no such thing as “clean” coal. The mining operation leaves nothing but an environmental disaster in its wake.
As for you comments on the deficit. Republicans have never shown any ability or inclination to balance the budget. Look at what Romney proposes, a 20% tax cut beyond the Bush tax cuts. I guess he thought those worked so well in the Bush administration . Of course, he doesn’t want to talk about what is going to get cut. Of couse, we can’t cut the defense budget and of course, we have to leave in place the oil subsidies. So what’s left? Only stuff that helps the middle class and the poor.
Here’s the logic. Romney will transfer wealth from the poor and the middle class to the wealthy and with that additional wealth he expects the wealthy “job creators” to, well, create jobs. Of course the poor and the middle class don’t have any money to buy anything, so demand for the products these “job creators” produce will fall. They will then decide that the best thing for them to do is to lay off people and pocket their tax cuts. This is exactly what happened under George Bush and every other Republican that tried this STUPID idea.
What Romney will do is pass his tax cuts under reconciation and he will say he’ll delay the spending cuts until later. We will be told that the confidence fairy will create jobs that will raise revenue and those spending cuts may not even be necessary because the tax cuts should grow the economy at unbelivable rates.
What will actually happen is that deficit will explode and we will be in a a lack of demand depression that will make the 1930s look like the good old days that Republicans like to was on about. That’s what’s at stake in this election.
You don’t imagine for one instant that I’m dissatisfied with the direction Texas is taking in comparison with the rest of the country, do you? I do live here by choice, you know.
Yes, but there are plenty of Independent voters who want a change in policy but will look at that Eastwood spectacle and decide to go with the status quo rather than the R’s who put a guy on stage who talks to a chair. For rational people embroiled in financial calamity, this is no time for teh crayzee.
No employer sets wages by whim, any more than employees do. As for gasoline costing $4/gallon, why do you think conservatives favor increasing O&G production and lowering taxes? We’re not the ones advocating for higher gas prices. Prices do what they always do: get set by supply and demand.
…and DDay is right. Today, everyone is talking about Eastwood, not a decent, if mostly unremarkable acceptance speech to kick off the heavy part of election season.
Isn’t that exactly what I responded to in my first comment?
Well put as always.I’ve been told that these speeches are mainly to “rally the troops”, to “hit the streets” and “storm the phonebanks.” Conventions don’t move many undecided voters nowadays.
Here in Se Texas/Houston, we’re over about ten inches too. And, Isaac went to LA. Apparently God is no longer mad at us.
I think it was Perry he was mad at all the time anyway.
I used to be a big Eastwood fan. Same with Charlton Heston until I saw him speak at the NRA convention.
Republicans continue to shoot themselves in the foot. Not that that is a bad thing, you know.
I thought Eastwood’s bit was sort of funny. His distorted subject matter was to be expected–look at the audience he was playing to. I liked his “I can’t tell Romney to do that to himself” joke the most. But I think he blew a perfect opportunity to be really funny by bringing out that chair. He should have brought out a stool instead, and kept referring to Obama as “a stool.” Now that would have busted me up (it’s sort of like how fart jokes are [always] funny; sure they’re cheating by going after the easy laugh, but they’re still funny). Oh well, I guess “A man’s gotta know his limitations.”
Are you kidding me? Supply and demand has little to do with setting oil prices. Oil prices are set on the commodity exchanges and is more a function of speculation and trying to make a quick buck. They say that speculation adds about 25% to the price of a barrel of oil. There is no way light crudes should be trading $10-$15/bbl above heavy crudes. That’s why all the refineries on the East Coast are in trouble.
Worst thing we ever did was to remove Glass-Steagle and allow the banks to take depositers money and sink it into speculative investments. Dodd-Frank tries to control this, but isn’t anywhere close to what’s need. Of course, Romney wanta to get rid of Dodd Framk, which makes another big bank blowout probable, and of course another massive taxpayer bailout very likely. So much for those conservative principles.
I wasn’t really clear in my question. Do you dispute that since the “12 million jobs” will happen with or without Romney’s plan, this doesn’t provide a reason for voting for him? And do you dispute that the long-standing similar Republican platform proposals have created and/or failed to solve the problems we face, and thus also provide no reason for voting for Romney?
The only reason you give is that Obama’s plans are somehow worse, but his support for fossil fuel extraction and disregard for global warming, support for privatized education, pretending the deficit is what’s holding back the “job creators,” – much of that is in Obama’s plan and not working any better than it ever worked for Republicans.
Pretending that one of these 2 candidates is significantly more or less planning to do anything but continue the upward transfer of wealth and income, military intervention around the world, and environmental catastrophe is as unrealistic from Romney voters as it is from Obama voters.
Eastwood is a dramatic genius and this was his greatest act. Awesome.
OBAMA=ROMNEY,CLINT, gorgeous and brilliant.
At this rate the next Republican National convention will be held in a meeting room in a Holiday Inn somewhere in the deep South, and media coverage will be limited to a teenager with a webcam on a cheap tripod.
It’s nothing short of amazing how fast the Republican Party is imploding.
My iPad would only give me audio, but after about 3 minutes of Rubio, I had to turn it off. His voice and delivery were on the level of insincerity of some pandering, bleating televangelist. Robert Tilton and Creflo Dollar come to mind.
I was incredulous. Even the rubes aren’t that that stupid, are they? We are deep, deep trouble.
Are you being deliberately obtuse about oil production or don’t you really understand how the oil market works? Let me spell it out for you. The oil pumped from Texas to Alaska does NOT stay in this country. It is sold worldwide. It is estimated by experts that if every drop of proven reserves were pumped out and sold strictly in the U.S., it would only last two, TWO years at present rates of consumption.
What is driving oil prices up is two simple things: speculation and the demand in China and India. No way in hell is there any way to energy independence unless all U.S. cars go electric soon. That will happen when pigs fly.
You are aware oil and gas profits have soared under President Obama? “Shackled” energy production? Hardly. In fact, you’re disproving your own words – you say Obama is bad for oil and gas production, and then you cite the booming business. Pretty lame.
Isn’t orignal to me (I read it online) but Eastwood’s performance was the perfect metaphor for the arch conservatives of today…A old man yelling at an empty chair.
I think Clint is preppig for his debate with Mike Gravel.
I though the “idea” was a good one. The delivery was lacking and I think the timing bad. Shoulda put him on earlier.
Speculation is a kind of demand. Some people want to buy fuel, not to put it in their tanks in the next ten minutes, but to hold on the belief that it will be more valuable later. I’ll bet speculators wish it were true that they could consistently and reliably raise commodities prices this way, because if it were true, it would be a guaranteed way to make money. Try it yourself sometime, and you’ll find that the 25% price spikes are matched by 25% price collapses.
Obama’s support for fossil fuel extraction has exhibited itself how, exactly? All I see are moratoriums, permitoriums, and pipeline obstruction. I’ll happily stack up Romney’s probable activity on that front against the President’s record. Likewise, if Obama had a disregard for AGW, he’d rein in the EPA. If he supported vouchers, we’d know it. And the deficit is ruining the whole economy, not just the specific aspect we call job creation, though it’s not helping there, either. Yes, I know you guys all buy the MMF thing; I don’t, and thank Heaven most voters don’t, either.
If Romney were absolutely neutral and inert on all these issues, he’d still be an improvement on Obama’s active harm. I’m not having any trouble making a choice, even though there are many things I’d change about Romney if I could. I can’t even imagine the mindset that would lead me to say “six of one, half dozen of the other.”
That is one reason why I wonder if there was some sabotage going on. Surely everyone in the convention planning office knew what was possible with Eastwood. Yet, they put the poor guy on just before Romney?! Doesn’t seem right, IMO.
Whether it’s true that 12 million jobs are inevitably going to appear even if the government does nothing, I don’t know. Unfortunately, even if it is an accurate prediction (not a fact, obviously, but an opinion about the future), we don’t have that option available. Obama is not going to let the government do nothing. I don’t believe for an instant that 12 million jobs will appear if Obama stays in office, unless perhaps the Republicans take veto-proof majorities of both houses of Congress and somehow shut down the President’s Executive Order machine. All Romney has to do to improve things is undo the things Obama is doing to screw them up. It’s not the government that creates jobs, its the private sector. The government is a brake on the process.
This isn’t a close call. Even if Romney failed to undo any of the Obama/Reid/Pelosi mistakes, he would improve things just by not doing whatever horrible nonsense Obama has planned for his second term. And personally, I believe he’s likely to achieve some if not all of his goals.
I didn’t see the speech, and tuned in just in time to see a sputtering Rachel Maddow acting in a very bizarre manner and muttering something about Eastwood being 82 years old.
In reading the coverage of that speech, I’m struck by the possibility that Eastwood is crazy like a fox. How else could someone get a GOP national convention to cheer for bringing the troops home tomorrow and for criticism of starting that war in the first place?
I’m withholding judgement, until I watch a rerun of the speech.
Well I didn’t “see” the speech either. I heard it from the other room and since the voice sounded shaky, nervous, and unhinged, I walked in to make sure it wasn’t Mittens.
Honestly, I was reminded of Perot’s VP–what was his name? Admiral or General Something?
Guess we’ll have to prove some more reserves, then. I don’t think that’s going to happen under Obama, who thinks reserves are evil and should be prevented.
I don’t really care if we succeed in becoming independent. It would be nice to move in that direction, obviously, but the point is not independence, it’s creating jobs by exploiting the energy reserves that we have and the new ones we can find. Pursuing independence means increasing exploration and drilling, which is what I want. That and nukes. If it makes us more independent, that’s gravy.
I expect you’re right that speculation and demand in China are driving oil prices up. That’s how prices work, as I said: supply and demand. Increasing supply tends to depress prices. Suppressing exploration and production does the opposite.
Okay.
Best line on this I’ve seen or heard anywhere.
Kudos.
What have profits got to do with it? It’s not lack of profitability that’s holding companies back from exploiting all the O&G resources we have, it’s federal interference. And yes, the business is booming in all the areas where neither Obama, Reid, Pelosi, nor the EPA have yet figured out a way to stop it, which is to say in North Dakota and Texas on private lands. I don’t know how long I can count on their keeping their noses out of those successful areas, and I’m not willing to take the chance. What I know for sure is that they will continue to obstruct offshore drilling and the Keystone pipeline, while Romney will reverse their policies the instant he hits the Oval Office.
Just search YouTube for “clint eastwood rnc” to see the performance.
Please do not equate Gravel with Eastwood.
What Mike Gravel for principle, at great personal risk, did took enormous courage.
What would be Romney’s motive?
Drill, Baby, Drill: Obama Opens Up Offshore Drilling and Exploration
U.S. exempted BP’s Gulf of Mexico drilling from environmental impact study
U.S. Opens Alaska Reserve to Onshore, Offshore Drilling
I’ve never understood conservatives’ Obama derangement syndrome – in a lot of ways he’s one of yours
It would be sabotage *of* Romney, not by him in my little wildly speculative scenario. And just to be clear, I’m not even convinced by my own argument. Heh.
Republicans are really good at putting on a good show of unity, freedom porn, and jingoism. Eastwood was totally out of the norm, so I just have to wonder out loud if it was a deliberate effort to mess with Mitt.
Perhaps it’s because I want to see whole-hearted support for O&G production rather than the occasional lapse from obstruction. From your point of view, he’s being dangerously lax because he doesn’t consistently do every single thing he can do to obstruct production. From my point of view, that’s not good enough, and I confidently expect a great deal better from Romney.
You’re pretty naive. The oil commodity market was originally set up to serve as a place for producers and consumers to trade oil and set a fair price. The banks and hedge funds lobbied to get the rules changed so that anyone could trade oil futures. These guys seldom lose money and the volume of paper shuffling drive up the price at the expense of the consumer. Why should banks and hedge funds, who have nothing to do with the production or consumption of oil, be allowed to trade paper barrels and determine the price of oil?
Oil supply and demand has been in balance for quite a long time and the price should be realtively flat. We had a price spike in oil in the 1970′s due to the Arab oil embarge. Oil prices stayed relatively stable though the 80′s and 90′s until the change in the rules. Then it’s pretty much been straight up. With the exception of the fall due to the financial meltdown in 2008.
Love you Repubs and your belief that the free market solves everything. Yes, repeal Obamacare and let the free market regulate healthcare. That’s how you will bring the cost down. Every other major industrial country in the world has “socialized” healthcare and guess what? They cover all their citizens at half of what we pay with 50MM uninsured. If this is “socialized” healthcare, where do I sign up?
It’s not like there aren’t many documented instances of Obama catering to the interests of fossil fuel extraction and use, but I guess if the goal is to destroy the planet as quickly as possible for (as tremoluxman @40 has pointed out) a 2 year supply of fuel, then for you Romney may be a better choice.
I’d like to see much of what Obama has done be undone too, for different reasons than yours, but then we’d be back to 2008, at which point you propose that we then do or don’t do whatever it is you think Romney will do or not do, without any reason to think Republican plans will work when they never have before. Neither candidate and neither party have put forth any ideas that will work.
Thanks for geting to the point on fossil fuels way better than I did.
Amy Goodman is going to have a piece on the Clint speech; maybe some of you will catch it.
Around here, they have something called the Carnac Rule You don’t get to pretend you can read people’s minds. It’s cause for expulsion – so be careful.
However…
Thank you for stating clearly your view that oil production trumps every other concern. Does that include health, safety, the environment and risks to human life?
You never know what goest through the minds of the PTB at the GOP. THose guys think they a really smart. Ut sometimes, I think they are “Maxwell Smart” smart. “Missed it by that much”. They certainly did this time.
In the whole scheme of things, the tax returns are gonna be what sinks him in the end.
I thought it was pretty cool to watch an aging, senile, hollywood legend take the main podium at the Repub National Convention; drop trou, squat down and take a dump on stage, and then turn around and eat it. :o)
Bwahahaha. Release the forms!
“…included a great line about how the happiest day of the presidency shouldn’t be the first day you voted for him.”
David, I could hug you. It IS a great line, and I don’t care if Martin Bormann, alive and well in the Argentine, said it.
It’s just TOO damn true…as is your excellent paragraph about how Obama and his “leadership” have created a political climate in which a generic republican should be able to walk up to the front door of the White House, throw his shoes inside, and then follow them in.
Another Norman Mailer: “No more bullshit!” award, to put on your crowded mantelpiece. Thank you……
Just…thank you. :o)
Agree. That was a really good line. It’s true, and is exactly how I feel about O.
‘m interested in this notion that the speculating banks and hedge funds “rarely lose money.” If only that were true. You know there are two sides to every trade? Everybody can’t be making money all the time.
There is almost no such thing as prices that are stable long-term. Something always happens to perturb the supply, the demand, or both. I don’t mind that, but I prefer that prices not spike as a result of the government squeezing down the supply.
As for where you sign up for the fabulous socialized healthcare that’s both cheaper than ours and of better quality, that’s easy. Go to one of those countries.
That was sort of my own take on the matter.
It seemed to me as if he were really using the convention to make some valid complaints:
Of course, given where he was he had to be a bit subtle about it, and as long as he came off as critical of Obama, he could get the GOPers to cheer for anything.
No, but we may differ considerably on what the risks to health, safety, human life, and the environment are and how best to address them. I don’t consider CO2 a toxin, for instance, and I think the best approach to disasters like the BP spill is very different from the one we saw in action. What little faith I had left in the EPA’s effectiveness or good faith was shattered in that episode.
The Carnac rule might prompt you to wonder whether I even implied a belief that oil production should trump every other concern. I doubt seriously that the White House’s obstruction of O&G production can even ben explained, let alone justified, by genuine environmental concerns. Sometimes it’s really hard to tell what they think they’re trying to achieve. Mostly, though, I try to assume that some kind of environmental theory, however misguided, must be in play.
Well, I’m glad to hear that you feel risks to health, safety, the environment and human life matter.
Perhaps you could define what you mean by “genuine” environment concerns.
If energy independence were of such importance; would it not be desirable to increase the efficiency of our cars, build and expand mass transit in urbanized areas and to plan communities that were compact and zoned for mixed use to minimize sprawl? Yet all of these things are opposed by drilling proponents as a matter of political principle! It appears that for a group of people claiming faith and understanding of the principles of supply and demand the republican rank and file has been taught to accept only supply-side solutions- with the possible exception of pricing a sizable portion of the country out of driving! Could it be that the real goal of the originators of these ideas is to make sure that the interests of entrenched big businesses are treated as sacrosanct?
I mean concerns that are not a pretext for some other agenda, such as taking sides in union disputes when we should be concentrating on getting all available oil skimmers out on the water. Also, concerns that are based on legitimate science rather than political fads. We have huge environmental problems, but somehow the ones that get political traction are the least credible among them, while we gloss right over the ones we could actually do something about without wrecking the economy. As a result, environmentalism itself has become widely discredited, and that’s not good.
As we’ve been discussing in the context of safety issues, independence is important but not all-important. Not every single social project that might decrease the demand for fossil fuels is worthwhile in context. But now we’re touching on an area where our differing values may dictate a different approach to solutions. I prefer to see hundreds of millions of people make their own individual trade-offs regarding the price of fuel and the choice among conflicting goals like freedom of movement, commuting time, and suitability of neighborhoods for raising families. I don’t assume that the central planners can make better decisions about these things. It’s not a question of treating entrenched businesses as sacrosanct. It’s a question of letting people decide for themselves rather than be dictated to by planners who think they know best. I have a preference for private, voluntary institutions over public, mandatory ones in all but a very few cases.
You asked for exact examples of Obama’s support for oil and gas extraction – which I provided.
Your turn.
What concerns that are a pretext for some other agenda….exactly.
I’m not equating Gravel with Eastwood. OTOH, it’d be a helluva debate. Mike is a friend of mine, and a friend of firedoglake.
Pretexts are hard to establish, by definition, but from circumstances, I can develop reasonable suspicions. What could possibly explain corn subsidies and the ethanol/gasoline program except electoral and fund-raising considerations for which environmental concerns are only an unconvincing pretext (ethanol costs more in fossil fuels to produce than it saves in the gas)? How could Solyndra make sense to a sane man on pure environmental grounds without factoring in the political impact and the payoff to cronies? Was the EPA suddenly jacking with Texas’s state air-quality protocols a couple of years ago because the air-quality picture had changed (it had not), or because someone had a bone to pick with Rick Perry? Why did we shut down offshore drilling here but loan $2 billion to Brazil to support offshore drilling there?
These are not the actions of an administration that is primarily concerned with the environment. Whether their environmental concern is most often compromised by ignorance, cronyism, an anti-business slant, or political pandering would be hard to say — perhaps in most cases it’s an unholy mix — but it’s not simple environmentalism.