Democrats: Democracy? Not So Much

Tags

99%, America, American, American politics, Antonio Villaraigosa, barack obama, boo, booing, boos, delegates, democrat, Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, Democratic Party platform, democrats, dissent, diversity, DNC, Election, election 2012, enthusiasm, enthusiasm gap, favorablitily, fox news, freedom, god, gods, Governor Romney, inclusion, israel, Jerusalem, labels, liberty, mitt romney, movement, nancy pelosi, obama, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, Palestine, pandering, party platform, pelosi, politics, polls, president obama, progress, progressive, Progressives, relatablility, religion, republican, Republican National Convention, republicans, rights, RNC, romney, separation of church and state, Strickland, Tea Party, Ted Strickland, Villaraigosa, voice vote, voter ID, voter ID laws, voting, voting rights, woman, women, young, youth vote

In the days following last week’s Democratic National Convention, there’s been a lot of buzz about the “significant” bounce President Obama received nationally. A litany of polls point to the fact that both the president and Democrats alike have higher favorability ratings and are seen as more trustworthy and relatable on key issues to voters—as compared to Mitt Romney and Republicans. Pollsters and pundits like to attribute this bounce to the “nearly flawless” Convention the Democrats put on. For all the talk of the “enthusiasm gap” among Democrats leading up to the Convention, it seemed the Republicans–with their bland speakers, non-detail specific plans, and most searing, visually, the lackluster crowd—comprised the party with the “enthusiasm gap”. The contrasts between the rousing call to action speeches, actual facts (which former present and all-around charmer Bill Clinton called “arithmetic”), and the diverse and engaged crowd, as compared to the Republican National Convention, couldn’t be starker.

Except that the Democratic National Convention wasn’t nearly flawless. Venue changes and speech scheduling issues aside, the “God and Jerusalem” issue of last Wednesday night is one that I would call a major flaw. Of course Democrats want to brush over it. One need only watch an obviously annoyed Nancy Pelosi repeatedly explain “it’s over” when asked about the event to know Democrats don’t want to talk about it. I bring this up not to taint the Democrats or the Convention. I want nothing more than for Barack Obama to beat Mitt Romney on November 6^th. This event should not be swept under the rug, though. I want to feel proud of my party and I don’t want to think that it stands for fundamental unfairness and oligarchy, which is the conclusion I’ve drawn from the votes I saw and the (sham) presentation at the Convention regarding proposed changes to the platform. Besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the idea of including mentions of God in an American political party platform and I think the idea of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel is an abhorrent display of pandering at best and possible racism at worst, the fact that DNC organizers completely ignored the will of the people is irrefutably shameful and unacceptable. We should all be up in arms about the fact that this can happen in the United States—and on TV, no less!

Some background first:

The original Democratic Party platform contained no mention of the word “God”, and it did not include the idea that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. There were some murmurs about the alleged God snubbing part. I was very excited about this part at the time. I felt like, perhaps, real progress had been made. Perhaps the self-professed “party of inclusion” had finally made an effort to include atheists like me. After all, Obama was the first president to mention “non-believers” in his Inaugural Address. That freezing January day on the National Mall, I was there, and I felt hope. For the first time, I really felt included. This was not to be, however. It was reported that President Obama himself was outraged at the exclusion of God in the party platform and personally—and firmly—requested that it be included. Including the term “God” in the party platform is not just an affront to me—or to atheists. It is often argued that “God” is a generic term; unlike Jesus, it doesn’t denote any specific religion. Rather, it is argued, God is a stand in for a kind of civic religion, an American spirituality. In short, however, it is a belief in some sort of “higher power”, some sort of vague “spirituality”. Even if we were to accept this idea, there are plenty of religious people who don’t believe in the concept of one god, or even the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God referred to in speech after speech by speakers at the DNC, and certainly the one referred to in the revised platform. Sure, this concept of a monotheistic God more or less covers the big three: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The concept of this specific God does, however, leave atheists, agnostics, secularists, polytheists, and others, out in the cold.

The original Democratic Party platform also did not contain the explicit statement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (more on that in a minute)

At the opening of the Convention on Day 2 (or Wednesday, September 5^th), some top Democrats seemed to have changed their minds about the content of their party’s platform. Perhaps they bowed to pressure (especially by Fox News, who, I’m sure, sought to discredit Democrats in any way they could), or they suddenly became alerted to their now-unacceptable omissions. Whatever the case, a voice vote was held. Former governor of Ohio and head of the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, Ted Strickland, was introduced on stage by the Democratic National Committee Chairman (and current governor of Los Angeles) Antonio Villaraigosa. After Strickland talked about how he was an ordained minister and God’s very important to him and to the “American narrative” and how Jerusalem is, of course, the capital of Israel (though he didn’t mention anything about Israelis, Palestinians, or any reason that such a statement should be so important), Villaraigosa put the platform changes up to a vote from those in the audience. After the first vote, the “nays” seemed equal to the “yeas”. Villaraigosa tried again. The same thing happened, this time with the “nays” being shouted even louder. After hesitation and momentary panic—and after a woman on the side of the stage who we can only assume was another Party official said, “I think we’re just gonna have to let them do what they wanna do”—Villaraigosa tried one last time—with (surprise, surprise!) the same result. He then decided that, in his opinion, “two-thirds of the crowd voted in the affirmative”, and the changes were adopted. After this, very audible booing occurred from the audience. This, of course, was ignored, and what was done was done. Music was played in an attempt to drown out the prolonged booing from the audience, and the next speaker was rushed out in an effort to make a seamless transition into the rest of the Convention.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States? Many things, each party would have you believe, chief among them, each party’s differing views on how to move the country forward. This basically amounts to ideological differences in the role, scope, and aims of the federal government, led by either the overwhelming guiding principle of self reliance (Republicans) or the communitarian “we’re stronger together and all help one another” spirit of cooperation (Democrats). But, of course, we are all Americans, and each party will say that we are all united by basic American principles. These principles include that nebulous, but all important concept of “freedom” and that we are united by the shared belief and understanding of inalienable truths–one of those being the near sycophantic undying support for Israel. And, oh, by the way, if you even dare question Israel’s motives or say one critical word about Romney BFF “Bibi” Netanyahu, then you are anti-semitic (never mind the fact that the Semites include Palestinians as well as the Jews of the region), and are dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust. You will be cast out into the political hinterlands like one Jimmy Carter, never mind the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, but so did another US president, Barack Obama. So many similarities! No wonder our poor president felt such pressure to cave. The Republicans might try to weaken him. …Except that Republicans have already questioned Obama’s commitment to Israel (in detestable terms), and will continue to do so. The Romney campaign has blatantly told the public it’s not above lying (the famous phrase by Romney’s campaign that it “will not be beholden to fact checkers”), and campaign operatives know that vitriolic rhetoric plays well with racist, ignorant members of the Republican base.

This is part of what I wrote immediately after the incident at the Convention last Wednesday:

Obama wanted control of the message. Perhaps this will all blow over in the next few days, overcome by a tsunami of enthusiasm following the president’s acceptance speech tonight. I’m sure the Obama campaign staff and the DNC inner circle are betting on the fact that this unfortunate incident will be forgotten as Democrats indulge in the inspiring, empowering speeches of Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Julian Castro, Ted Strickland…except that Ted Strickland was the person who came out on stage, claiming his history as an ordained Methodist minister and pressing for changes to the Democratic platform. He is the face that stared at the panicked Antonio Villaraigosa as Villaraigosa asked the DNC delegation three times if it would accept the changes to the platform. When he confirmed changes, boos rang out. The admiration and affinity I had acquired for Ted Strickland, after hearing his fantastic speech the night before, had evaporated in less than 24 hours. It was replaced by feelings of anger and betrayal. I wonder if this is what Tea Partiers feel like when they claim tyranny of the government. I waited to write this until I had time to let events settle in, and I can’t see it as anything but tyranny. I know I sound hyperbolic, but how else would these actions be explained?

Religion should be separate from politics, and the United States should not be as involved in Israeli policy. What happened to “freedom” (of thought, dissent, and self determination)?

Everyone is entitled to his or her views. THAT is precisely the point I’m trying to make. The part about God and the part about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel were not originally in the Democratic platform. While I believe these things should have no place in the platform, it’s not up to me–or Strickland or Villaraigosa or Obama–hence, the vote.

These people, who seemed to amass more than one-third of the audience so much so that Villaraigosa asked three times, freaked out, and rammed it through, amidst very audible boos, had a right to be heard, and to be taken seriously. People are right to feel outraged and betrayed.

It is a party convention. The platform must be affirmed and adopted by those delegates in attendance. In this case, a two-thirds majority was necessary, and that number didn’t seem to approve of these proposals being added.

The adoption of the changes to the platform was pre-scripted and passed despite a great amount of obvious objection. Those who take issue with the platform changes, and the way in which they were adopted have no recourse for complaint. These people, the delegates, are representatives of American citizens, and are our frontline of so-called democracy. They are the representatives of our “representative republic”. If their voices are silenced or ignored, what other conclusion is there to draw than the fact that the people don’t matter to the party, that the many at the bottom matter little to those at the top? The voice of the people was overridden. It never mattered in the first place.

This is all the more ironic since the Democratic Party points to the undemocratic practices of its counterpart the Republican Party in silencing people by making it increasingly difficult for them to vote. For all of the talk of people-powered change and the progressivism of the Democratic Party during the convention, when the extension of such ideals was exercised, it meant nothing.

I’m more than disappointed. I’m angry, and I feel disillusioned and betrayed. I feel stung by a party that wants my vote, by a party that will appeal to me as a woman, as a young person, as a 99 percenter, as any number of labels, but that takes away from me the definition of the most fundamental identity of all—that of an American.

Advertisements

My Guide to the 2012 Republican Presidential Campaign Spin

Tags

2012, barack obama, caucuses, communication, defense, democratic, economics, education, Election, environmentalism, gay rights, gingrich, health care, healthcare, immigration, iran, mitt romney, nancy pelosi, newt gingrich, north korea, obamacare, paul, politics, president obama, primaries, reagan, religious freedom, republican, rhetoric, rick santorum, romney, Ron Paul, ronald reagan, santorum, sharia law, spin, women

For all the talk of Republican missteps and unelectable candidates, Republicans do have something the Democrats don’t have—an incredible spin machine. Sometimes these euphemisms are highly effective, as in the case of “Obamacare”, a rebranding so succinct that even Democrats prefer to use it instead of the lumbering Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or “the president’s health care plan”. Other terms are so ambitious they fool only the most ignorant sycophants. Either way, the Frank Luntzes of the world have done much to shape this election season. I decided that in the spirit of (the first) Super Tuesday of 2012 that I would write out a guide to Republican spin this election season.

Guide to Republican Spin in the 2012 Presidential Campaign

Agenda: any conniving plan by any of the opposition, particularly the president; see “socialist agenda”

Anti-American: engaging in any task seen as antithetical to a very specific view of what is typically American, e.g., speaking out against unfettered capitalism, reaching out to other countries using diplomacy instead of bombs, asserting that less money should go to the Defense Department budget, wanting to address inequality by raising tax rates for the wealthiest citizens

Axis of Evil: former Speaker of the House and current House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and President Barack Obama

Bipartisanship: a disgusting, anachronistic term for the bygone days of actually working with Democrats on legislation; see “compromise”

Bleeding Heart Liberal: a name given to any person who believes in compassion for his or her fellow citizens and recognizes that we all live in a society in which cooperation is key; also, someone who doesn’t believe in eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency or doesn’t hunt animals for fun

Border Security: one of the most important things that Republicans talk about, especially at debates in southern states when they are pandering to Sheriff Joe Arpaio types; a byword for keeping the Mexicans and other Latino and Latina undesirables out (even though the border with Canada is much larger and more porous and even though many immigrants initially enter the United States legally on planes and don’t cross the Mexican border)

China: evil, North Korea: eviler, Iran: evilest

Class Warfare: the realistic recognition that not everyone is a millionaire (or a billionaire) in America and not everyone is happy with the lack of social mobility and the growing inequality in America and the dissatisfaction at a dimming American dream; the 99% vs. 1% “Occupy” ethic; an attack on Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ (by way of Florida Senator Marco Rubio’s) assertion that “there are no “haves” or “have nots” in this country; just “haves” and soon to haves” ”; an empty statement thrown around by Republicans when they have no real economic plan

Corporations: see “people” (a la the Federal Election Commission vs. Citizens United Supreme Court decision)

Climate Change: possibly the only accurate euphemism for what was overwhelmingly known as “global warming”, used by Frank Luntz to minimize the fear behind “global warming”; however, warming is not the only climactic effect; usually used in a derogatory sense by Republicans who either refuse to accept the reality of climate change or think it’s not anthropogenic in origin

Death Tax: a particularly morbid and inaccurate way to describe the Estate Tax

Democracy: for the few here in the United States (see “plutocracy”, “oligarchy”, and “crony capitalism”), but forced on those abroad–only those we deem worthy based on strategic interests, however; undercut by the enforcement of voter I.D. laws and redistricting/ “gerrymandering”

Education: the prevailing view is that the Department of Education should be abolished; creationism should be taught and environmentalism definitely shouldn’t be taught, yet every American is supposed to score higher on math and–yes, science, hahaha–than every student in the rest of the world

Energy: “Drill, baby, drill!” The only acceptable form of energy is oil. We must kill all the wildlife in places such as the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve. (What is this concept of “conservation”? That’s for “pussies” like Teddy Roosevelt.) Alternative energy and renewable resources are for elitists like Al Gore who are destroying America. And even if the Keystone XL Pipeline is slated to actually kill jobs, who cares? It sounds good. Sometimes, coal and natural gas are touted too if the candidate is campaigning in a state like Pennsylvania or West Virginia or is Rick Santorum.

Entitlement Society: This term applies to anyone who uses any kind of paid government service from social security to unemployment to Medicare to Medicaid to Head Start (and others). But what about taking advantage of tax breaks, you ask? Silly, those don’t count.

Food Stamp President: Newt Gingrich’s pet name for President Obama so given because more Americans have relied on food stamps during the recession, which happened to take place during Barack Obama’s first term; contains racist and classist undertones

Illegal Alien: the name for those pesky immigrants who are taking all of our jobs

Ivory Tower Elites: yet another pejorative for anyone who has gone to college; often used to refer to President Obama by Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum, both of whom are highly educated and the archetype of Washington elites and the former, who was a college professor

Job Creators: anyone wealthy enough to be threatened by the reinstatement of taxes before the Bush tax cuts; wealthy Americans; The logic follows that of former President Ronald Reagan’s theory of “trickle down” economics, which never works; a bullshit title

“Massachusetts Moderate”: Newt Gingrich’s alliterative name for Mitt Romney

Momentum: a make believe concept conjured up by political pundits who attempt to put the science in political science and also to fill in the endless hours spent on back to back coverage with no other real news thrown in

National Security: a concept that has been in existence since before the first city-states but that suddenly became disproportionately important under the Bush administration after September 11th; archetype of the bloated bureaucracy many Republicans love to rail about; a catch all excuse for any action in which ethics might be questioned, e.g., “(Insert issue here) is a matter of national security.”

Obamacare: a favorite term used by the Tea Party to encapsulate all that is wrong with President Obama; a derogatory name for the Health Care Reform Act which was signed into law by President Obama in 2009; synonymous with “government overreach” and “illegal mandates”; has somehow made the idea of providing more affordable health care to U.S. citizens on par with a crime against humanity; deemed a “monstrosity” by any Republican running for office who actually expects to win in the current political climate

Primary-palooza: I made this one up. It’s a term to describe a. the entire day or days leading up to a primary/primaries or a caucus/caucuses b. from about May or June 2011 until November 2012 (is the vast majority of all news shown and the major story talked about on nearly every news source)

“Pro-Life”: synonymous with “anti-abortion”; curious self-identifier for people who believe in the rights of fetuses, but not necessarily in preventative health care for children and adults, believe in the death penalty, believe in killing “our enemies” at any cost, and do not even consider the lives of animals, which may result in them engaging in such wonderful endeavors as shooting endangered wolf species from helicopters

Reagan Democrat: I’m guessing these are disaffected Democratic voters who voted for Ronald Reagan in either 1980 or 1984 or both? Do these people actually exist? Maybe they’re like unicorns. I’m guessing most of these Democrats would vote for Ron Paul, anyway, who really doesn’t claim a strong affiliation with Ronald Reagan at all.

“Real” America/Americans: Sarah Palin’s favorite phrase for far flung, sparsely populated areas of America like Wasilla, Alaska; an assertion that some places, especially such places as New York City, Chicago, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Hollywood, Las Vegas, Vermont, Hawaii, and almost the entire East Coast, are where the fake (?) or lesser Americans live

References to San Francisco and that Gay Coddler “Princess Nancy” Pelosi: When a Republican wants to talk about destructive “liberalism”, he or she invokes the name of that hedonistic hell known as San Francisco. The Congresswoman for San Francisco happens to be Nancy Pelosi (or “Princess Nancy” as Herman Cain so lovingly called her)—double points.

Religious Freedom: a real thing, though, sadly not used properly; now used to prevent health coverage including contraception; often invoked by Santorum and Gingrich, who claim that Catholics have become an oppressed minority in the United States (never mind the tax-free status of the Church and the fact that Romney is the one who actually suffers from religious prejudice)

“Sanctity of Marriage”: no same sex couples because they are a threat to religious convictions/indoctrination about the holiness of matrimony between a man and a woman as their god intended

Self Reflection: I’m just kidding. Most Republicans don’t understand this concept.

Sharia Law: Muslim religious law; Republicans are terrified that these laws will gain traction in the United States and usurp the Constitution

Slut: a woman; one of the names Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke that was not actually repudiated by any Republicans

Socialism: (comes in the varieties of European style, communism, Nazi [which really makes no sense], and Saul Alinksky-esque); a style of governing that recognizes the rights of not only those who own corporations or make millions of dollars off of investments and recognizes the existence of a thing called poverty

Swing State: This is used to refer to a state that does not necessarily vote for either Democrats or Republicans in a predictable pattern, not a red state or blue state, aka a “purple state” such as Ohio; now, seemingly every state

Tyranny: a hyperbolic term used to describe any governmental power whatsoever; no longer applicable if said Republican is in power

Voter I.D. Laws: ostensibly put in place to prevent “voter fraud” except that voter fraud is so incredibly rare that everyone knows this is a smokescreen intended to disenfranchise voters who vote overwhelmingly Democratic such as the disabled, the elderly, Hispanic voters, black voters, and young voters

Slimy Newt, the Latest Flavor of the Week

Tags

2012, al gore, barack obama, bill clinton, cain, climate change, clinton, congress, dean, debate, democrat, donald trump, gingrich, global warming, herman cain, house, house of representatives, howard dean, huntsman, iowa, jon huntsman, media, mitt romney, nancy pelosi, nasa, newt gingrich, obama, pelosi, policy, politics, president, president obama, presidential debate, primaries, primary, republican, romney, speaker, speaker of the house, trump, white house

Newt Gingrich is the latest Republican presidential candidate to beat. Aside from the fact that he’s “not Mitt Romney”, I don’t understand what about him appeals to potential voters. He’s not particularly charismatic or charming—in fact, he’s downright condescending. He doesn’t have impeccable conservative credentials. He doesn’t even have catchy soundbites.

While I’m certainly not a Newt Gingrich fan, I don’t agree with the reasons why he’s being attacked. “Personal baggage” is how pundits have put his personal transgressions as well as what are seen as his media missteps. There is plenty to disagree with Gingrich on politically (whether you’re a prospective primary voter or you’re a progressive like me who’s taken an interest in the candidates because if Obama were to lose you’d want it to be someone who is at least potentially palatable as president). If, however, the focus is to be on Gingrich’s personality flaws, I’d like to focus on issues that should be of much greater importance to voters than Gingrich’s multiple marriages, the affair he had while his previous wife had cancer, his hypocrisy during the skewering of Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky affair, or—worst of all in the eyes of conservative pundits—Gingrich’s “Al Gore sponsored” commercial about using alternative energy to power America because of the devastating effects of climate change with none other than that she-devil Nancy Pelosi (gasp).

A quick word on the Pelosi/Gingrich commercial: Whether you personally like Nancy Pelosi or not, the reason both politicians were in the commercial was not accidental. At the time of the commercial (beginning in 2007), Pelosi was Speaker of the House. Gingrich was a former Speaker of the House. A not so subtle parallel was to be drawn. This commercial was supposed to be post-partisan. It was a step forward. Both Pelosi and Gingrich admitted that they may not agree on everything, but they agreed on renewable energy for the country they both served. How refreshing. Remember the days when members of Congress could actually agree on things and cross party lines? Yeah, I don’t really either. This commercial, however, was a glimmer of that long lost time. Now, after being dragged through the mud for appearing in a commercial with Herman Cain’s “Princess Nancy” about that liberal myth meant to bankrupt America by the hippie commies known as climate change (double gasp), Gingrich has back pedaled on his participation in the commercial and with the organization behind it.

What happened to principles? What happened to leadership? Taking allegedly unpopular positions because you know they would benefit the country and the world—as opposed to cow towing to the extremes of the party—is true leadership. This is the kind of thing I want to see, and it should be the kind of thing that Republicans want to see, as well. And since when did believing in science become a disqualifier for attaining the nation’s highest office? Jon Huntsman, who is a definite conservative on the traditional issues that matter to Republicans, has been labeled a moderate in no small part because of his open support for evolution and for his belief in anthropogenic climate change. Especially in an election where the true differences between Democrats and Republicans are supposed to be on the economic front, punishing a candidate—whether it be Huntsman or Gingrich—for supporting “Al Gore’s agenda” is ridiculous and shameful.

Newt is sleazy. He is an immense political opportunist. He is arrogant, self-serving, and snarky. In a word, he is not presidential. He wants Americans to look at his record. A standout point from said record was the way he conducted business while in the House of Representatives. Before ascending to the Speakership, he fed his popularity by giving passionate speeches to the chamber. These speeches were televised on C-Span, a method Gingrich purposely employed in an effort to use broadcast media to his advantage. These impassioned speeches seemed to defy opposition. So good was he that he captivated the esteemed room. The only problem was that he was being entirely disingenuous to both the audience and the other House members. Gingrich purposely gave long, secret, after-hours speeches to empty House chambers in the late 1980s. He did this so that his ideas would not be opposed, and he would come off seeming like some kind of invincible genius. This Karl Rove-esque trick is no longer allowed to occur in Congress. It was cheating. You can read about Gingrich’s sneaky tactic here: http://books.google.com/books?id=NmCL26aE00wC&pg=PA169&dq=%2Bgingrich+%2Bcspan+%2Bafterhours&hl=en&ei=NFTdTs3GBcf30gGV7pzSDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ

Watch Newt Gingrich in any debate and you will see how he responds to his fellow candidates. I had the special pleasure of seeing him debate Howard Dean at a George Washington University event a few months before he formally declared his candidacy. He oozes disregard and condescension. Republicans love to call Barack Obama an elitist. Newt Gingrich is the elitist archetype.

As if these aren’t turnoffs enough, Gingrich’s cozying up to Donald Trump is downright sickening. It’s shameless opportunism. Seeking out Trump’s endorsement and courting Trump on both his recent trip to Manhattan and lauding Trump’s debate makes Gingrich look desperate and low.

Gingrich’s smugness knows no bounds. His “look at me” ethic and his constant declarations of “I’m going to be the nominee” belie insecurity shrouded in arrogance.

One thing I like about Newt Gingrich is that he is the only candidate to come out publicly in support of NASA. It seemed like he would be for increasing funding to NASA, and at the most recent Republican debate in Iowa (Saturday, December 10, 2011), Gingrich responded to a Romney jab by saying that he remembered growing up during a time when children could dream about being astronauts. He declared that he was unapologetic about wanting to encourage science and math and promoting missions to the moon and Mars. He seemed stronger on this issue than Obama.

I’m not a one issue voter, though, and it’s times like these that I have to remind myself that Gingrich wants poor kids to work janitorial jobs in schools and doesn’t believe in financial aid payments for college. One can’t forget his stance on not taxing the “job creators” and his complete denigration of Palestinians (which is a whole other issue that I could spend hours writing).

My Reactions to the 999th Republican Presidential Debate

Tags

2012, bachmann, cain, cnbc, gingrich, gop, gop debate, hunstman, nancy pelosi, obama, paul, pawlenty, perry, politics, republican debate, republican presidential debate, romney, santorum, stocks, twitter, white house

Jon Huntsman: I’m always impressed with Jon Huntsman. He is diplomatic, likable, and I’m attracted to him. He’s able to use phrases like “diminution of trust” without sounding elitist, and he admits that his opponents have oversimplified serious issues from the housing crisis and foreclosures on families to America’s economic relationship with China. I don’t agree with Huntsman on everything, but he’s definitely my favorite.

Rick Perry: You were doing soooo well…and then you couldn’t remember the third federal department you’d “get rid of”. And you laughed about it…oh, Perry. I was willing to give you a break on your previously poor debate performances, but this was truly terrible. You sabotaged yourself on your own terms. Since “overreach” has become the buzzword since the Tuesday elections, I’d say that Perry certainly overreached, and subsequently failed. He finally remembered (several minutes later) that he meant to say he’d get rid of the Department of Energy along with the Department of Commerce and the Department of Education. He also wants to rebuild the Environmental Protection Agency. I was starting to like Perry in that kind of “he’s down and out and there’s something more appealing about him when he’s not all macho Texas in your face” Perry. Oh, well.

Herman Cain: “Princess Nancy”? Need I even say more? This is so ridiculously sexist. And when Cain said this, many in the audience laughed and clapped. I don’t expect Republicans to agree with Nancy Pelosi’s policy positions, but it’s absolutely unacceptable to denigrate her in such a way. Herman Cain has been given a free pass. He is certainly cut much more slack than the others in the race, and why? He’s not a career politician? He’s black? By not holding him to the same standards as his opponents, the media and his supporters do him and the country a huge disservice. There is no excuse for Herman Cain being as ignorant as he is in terms of pretty much everything that isn’t his “9, 9, 9” plan. He should be expected to give clear, concise answers on issues such as his views on abortion, he should have a working knowledge of foreign policy and American history, and he shouldn’t be encouraged when he relies on clichéd quips instead of answering real questions. He’s running for President of the United States. Play time is over. And don’t even get me started on his response to the sexual harassment allegations against him…

Newt Gingrich: You haven’t been in school in a very long time. Your comments on working 20 or 40 hour weeks for a college in the Ozarks? I’m not even sure what you were talking about, but it’s unreasonable to expect college students to work at least 20 hours a week while taking a full roster of classes to minimize crippling debt after they graduate. You’re such an arrogant asshole. You can tell Newt Gingrich thinks he’s so above everyone onstage and doesn’t even need to pay common courtesy to the panel asking questions.

Ron Paul: Sure, he’s an ideological purist, but he’s completely out of touch. His charm and particular idealism didn’t shine through in this debate like it had in previous debates. He mentioned auditing the Fed, and ultimately getting rid of it, which garnered much applause, but he also said a bunch of things so out there that even the moderators didn’t know what to do with him.

Michele Bachmann: Omg, your fake laughter and commentary while the other candidates are talking is unimaginably annoying. The only semi-exciting thing that happened pertaining to Bachmann was when she started to say “shit” after what was assumed to be a difficult question given to Mitt Romney. I have a problem believing anything that comes out of Michele Bachmann’s mouth—especially when she throws out statistics. Even if she’s saying something completely factual, she has depleted the basic reservoir of trust I would normally have as a default because of all of the ridiculous things that have come out of her mouth.

Mitt Romney: He pandered much like his performance in other debates. He didn’t directly engage Perry—perhaps a sign of how far Perry has fallen? I actually miss the days of Romney vs. Perry. Romney vs. Cain would just be painful to watch. Yes, I think much more highly of Perry than Cain. I suppose Romney’s shining moment was when he was asked directly about his flip flopping, and he claimed that his true north is his family and his faith. (I’m paraphrasing as I don’t think what he said was that memorable, but I do believe him when he says this.) He later said that compromise is crucial to the presidency. This is true, as well. On a side note, the candidates pounced on Obama for not trying compromise. And no one called them out on this. Yeah. Obama is a secret Muslim. Check. Obama was not born in the United States. Check. Obama doesn’t love America. Check. Obama has tried to work with Republicans. This is the part that the Republican candidates think is crazy and refuse to admit. They say this while also calling him a flip flopper and complaining that he isn’t a leader. Inconsistencies abound.

Rick Santorum: Santorum didn’t have a breakout performance by any standard. He didn’t screw up, but he didn’t shine. There isn’t much to say about him. He brought up his record in Pennsylvania and no one paid much attention to him. If Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain can have a “Lincoln-Douglas debate”—yes, that’s what their debate on Saturday, November 5 was officially termed—then Rick Santorum should be able to have a debate with another candidate, if only so that people will pay attention to him. I think he’s suffering from Tim Pawlenty syndrome. I do miss my T Paw.

Pros of the Debate: The tweets on the bottom of the screen! I watched the debate on DVR, but I wish I had watched it when it was on during primetime because I would’ve tweeted in. Some of the tweets were very entertaining. One notable tweet: “Herman Cain: I know nothing about Italy. If you’ve ever had my pizza, you would know that.” Hahaha. Another mentioned that “Princess Nancy” was trending and good luck to Herman Cain if he ever expected women to vote for him. Jim Cramer was one of the moderators, and he was animated, as always. Maria Bartiromo also asked strong follow up questions. The other moderators were alright. Major pluses for the fact that opening and closing statements were cut out of the debate “in the interest of saving time”. As long as I don’t have to hear about Michele Bachmann’s 5 biological children and 23 foster children yet again, then I’m happy. There were also only a few commercial breaks during the two hour period (contrast this with the most recent CNN debate) and the breaks weren’t very long, making for longer actual debate time. This might be seen as a con, depending on how you look at it.

Cons of the Debate: Because the debate was on CNBC, the stock ticker scrolled across the screen the entire time. This was enormously distracting for me, especially when I tried to figure out what some of the companies were based on their abbreviations. It’s like a movie with subtitles when the subtitles go too quickly and you can’t fully concentrate on what’s going on on the screen above because your eyes are glued to the words below. Maybe I’m the only one who felt like that, but I’m not one for stock tickers. Also, because it was on CNBC, the moderators made a point to remind viewers every five minutes that the debate was focused solely on the economy. This is actually untrue. The debate questions deviated from the economic platform several times. Regardless, we get it. The stocks scrolling across the screen let us know you’re a financial network.