Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
As always, we are here to bring you the burning questions of the day that nobody else is asking. Today's question: What will we call the 2012 women?
We come to you live from the arena, the day after the vice-presidential debate. The lights are being removed, the podiums are gone, and the cleanup crew is sweeping up the tiny, tiny pieces of Paul Ryan which were left all over the stage last night.
Before tomorrow night, we'll be hearing a whole lot of "vice-presidential debates haven't ever mattered," mostly uttered by the same people who told us, a week ago, that "presidential debates rarely change anything." Since these nattering nabobs of negativism (to use a famous vice-presidential phrase) were wrong before, one has to at least consider that they may be wrong again. Tomorrow's debate may matter a great deal to the voters. The first presidential debate was watched by a jaw-dropping record number of viewers (upwards of 70 million), and it's all anyone's been talking about since in the political world (even the Big Bird stories were tied in to the debate). So perhaps quite a few folks will tune in tomorrow night as well, and perhaps Joe Biden and Paul Ryan may prove to move public opinion this time around.
Taking an overview of the 2012 election can quickly lead one to some awfully cynical conclusions, such as "American politics is broken," or the more succinct "Washington is broken." After all, politics is supposed to be about issues, but politicians (especially on the campaign trail) are more interested in high-flown language rather than getting all nitty and gritty with details. The whole situation leaves me with a rather bizarre feeling: missing the likes of H. Ross Perot.
The first presidential debate of the 2012 season happened this week, and (it pains us to say) the only person who called the outcome correctly was Chris Christie. Last Sunday, he predicted a "game changer" of a debate, and that we'd all wake up Thursday with a whole new race and a whole new opinion of Mitt Romney. While we rarely agree with Chris Christie about much of anything, we've got to at least hand it to him -- in the midst of the usual pre-debate expectations-lowering game, he went rogue and predicted a big win for his guy, and he turned out to be correct.
There is a whole lot wrong with the way the media reports debates, on that we can all agree, I think. The overemphasis on who "won" and "lost," for starters. The inevitable boiling-down of ninety minutes into a nine-second soundbite from both candidates (which we'll see everyone agree on by tomorrow morning).
Unsolicited advice to the Romney campaign: this is not the way to convince voters that your candidate isn't Thurston Howell III. I'm just sayin'....
Wouldn't it be amusingly ironic if Mitt Romney only managed to get 47 percent of the national popular vote for president? It would renew my faith that the universe has a sense of humor, that's for sure.
Think about it. At the heart of Mitt Romney's new argument is a complete disconnect with the core, unshakeable tenet of the Republican faith -- "lower taxes for all." What Mitt Romney is arguing, when stripped of heated rhetoric, is that it is a bad thing that 47 percent don't pay federal income taxes, and that it would be a good thing if those people actually did pay federal income taxes -- thus arguing for raising taxes on half of the country. There is no way to escape this -- you are either for raising taxes, or you are for lowering taxes. Mitt Romney is now, apparently, for raising taxes on tens of millions of people. He really can't have it both ways.
Yesterday was a momentous occasion, but I was steeped in crass horserace politics, and so failed to mention it. Two hundred and twenty-five years ago yesterday, the United States Constitution was adopted by the convention called to create it.