The GOP convention and Isaac

[ApatheticNoMore]

Bae is going as a Paul delegate and has been told, even before he gets there, that his vote doesn't count, never did, and is just some 'pesky problem' that must be dealt with early and quickly. From what I read, there are actually quite a few Paul supporters. Although we all know, including bae, that Paul won't be the nominee, to not even pretend that all voices have equal say is so... Mitt.
I know you don't believe this, but I do sympathize with bae. This is a pretty shoddy way to treat these folks who are also braving this storm to have their voices heard.

Well if that's why Bae is going it's quixotic. But I don't know if such windmill tilting is any worse than posting cynical little quips on the internet about the utter corruption and hopelessness of the political process . Ron Paul isn't even allowed to speak at the convention actually, though a canned speech and tribute to him will occur. Ron Paul will be giving a speech of his own several miles away (much like "free speech zones" no criticism that matters comes anywhere close to the *REAL* power). Ron Paul probably could have given a good little pleasing Republican speech full of talk of liberty and so on with no mention of NDAA, some criticism of the welfare state and made to shut up about the warfare state, he was after a Republican, and cooperative enough I guess, but I guess even that was too much of a risk (maybe the risk is that Paul would outshine anyone else the Reps are running).

Noone ran to the left as a principled challenge of Obama and if they did I'm sure they would have been silenced too. Last time it seems both choices boiled down to war-mongering corporatists (Hillary who was obviously so, and Obama who some hoped would be better, only turns out he wasn't). What would the positions of a challenger to this be? Well I'm not sure you can run hard left in this country and win (either in popular opinion or in the money sweepstakes), so it's iffy to run on socialized (as opposed to corporatized) medicine or something, though maybe worth a try, but you run: a guarantee of no cuts to Medicare or Social Security (possibly moving down Medicare age), food stamps or AFDC possibly in exchange for ending of the Bush tax cuts, serious environmental policy, ending of the wars if not tommorow a serious plan and commitment to get the heck out, restoration of civil liberties. And that's what serious challenge looks like. And none has been allowed to exist on the left either. Heck, they didn't even get as far as Paul did (at least he was visible).

[JaneV2.0]

Can't disagree, ApatheticNoMore. Depressing, isn't it?

[peggy]

I don't really see the Paul delegates as 'tilting at windmills'. Paul has stayed in, this far, and in my book that's really something. In fact, oddly as it seems, I think he is actually one of the 'true' candidates in that he HAS stayed in, despite all the piles of cash Romney (republicans) has thrown at him. Oh I still believe he is a bit of a loony, but, and this is important, he has actually stood throughout for his principles. He hasn't bent, or etch-a-sketched to fit whatever the audience in front of him wanted to hear. I'm guessing this is one of the things bae finds endearing about him. I certainly do. He really strikes me as someone who would be really interesting to sit next to at a dinner, and that he would welcome some debate on his theories. To tell you the truth, I would much rather claim him as a relative than Mitt, who doesn't really stand for anything except what he thinks will get him elected.
I think it's just a shame how his supporters are dismissed so easily. I will watch the convention cause I really like politics (and sausage making!) and I would have really liked a speech from him. I really miss the days of conventions where the passions ran high and the obvious losers gave rousting speeches where they released their delegates to vote for another. Conventions are so canned these days, it's almost not worth it. I'm sure bae will have a good time, but it's just not the same.
And I believe that of democratic conventions. Although it kinda was fun with Hillary and all, it was pretty much a given. I am glad President Obama recognized her talent and gave her an important position in the administration. I was thinking Attorney General, but, well...only Hillary can tell us if this was the best fit.

[iris lily]

You didn't actually look at the link, did you Iris.
Bae is going as a Paul delegate and has been told, even before he gets there, that his vote doesn't count, never did, and is just some 'pesky problem' that must be dealt with early and quickly. From what I read, there are actually quite a few Paul supporters. Although we all know, including bae, that Paul won't be the nominee, to not even pretend that all voices have equal say is so... Mitt.
I know you don't believe this, but I do sympathize with bae. This is a pretty shoddy way to treat these folks who are also braving this storm to have their voices heard. I am truly a liberal in that I believe all voices should be heard, even those I disagree with. Everyone should have a chance to vote, every voice should have equal say.
Besides, why would I want to rain on their party. I'm not voting Republican no matter who wins the nomination. I just don't like seeing anyone disenfranchised.

Please explain to me your view of how this convention is different from any other convention where there is a lead candidate who has it sewn up with the required minimum number of votes before the convention starts. I don't understand your talk about voices for the minority candidate being "heard."

That there is animosity between establishment Romney supporters (and he had to work to reel them in, you know) and upstart Paul people, well, no kidding. Do you remember the Hil & Barak wars? Some nasty stuff there.

My impression of Paul supporters vs Romney supporters here at my local caucus was favorable for both. The Paul people were uber organized and they showed up in big numbers. Having seen their compatriots in the nearby Republican dominated county ousted (probably unfairly) they were ready to take no prisoners here in the city. It was great that they had enough people on the floor to vote in their guy to be the official leader of the caucus. He was young and polished and handled the raucous meeting well. Frankly, I don't even know which Presidential candidate won the votes at our local caucus because I couldn't follow the logic of it, but it might have been Paul in the end.

[Yossarian]

. The amount of hurricanes was actually pretty low this year, lower than average, which no does not disprove man made climate change

It does call into question the predictive authority of the models. Plenty of time left for fireworks this year but recent years don't support the prediction...

[rosebud]

History will bear them out.

I am offended by this and call on the moderators to take action. This is in essence calling the op, and by extension liberals, marxist leninist maoist stalinist communists. I am really sick of the double standard around here and if you want a prime example of toxic and out of bounds rhetoric here it is. I am dead serious about this. This is ridiculous. It is not hyperbole or tongue in cheek. It is the same old John Birch Society liberals are communists &$@$ and frankly I am sick of it. It has no place here. I get smacked on the fingers for the mildest stuff written in jest about the right wingers ariund here but this is allowed to stand? So calling someone a wingnut for dutifully repeating ridiculous GOP talking points is against the rules but basically linking liberals with the worst political catastophes in history is a okay? Really? The OP is a communist? Is she? For sharing a bit of schadenfreude about the hurricane bearing down on the GOP convention? Especially in the context of the theocrats in the GOP always dancing in the streets when natural disasters demonstrate God's wrath on the baby killing fornicating gay agenda values of a fallen America. That makes her Stalin? Really? Enough.

[Alan]

Just curious, has Letterman ever stated where he stands politically? I'm guessing left.....As I remember back in 2008 he grilled McCain pretty bad for blowing off his show.....Apparenty he was supposed to be a guest on Letteman and went and did some other appearance in the same building in NYC and went and blew Letterman off and Letterman was less the pleased about it. Rob

Regardless of his political affiliation, my comment has to do with the date attributed. If you want to consider Sarah Palin a force of nature, you need to wait till 2008.

[iris lily]

I am offended by this and call on the moderators to take action. This is in essence calling the op, and by extension liberals, marxist leninist maoist stalinist communists. I am really sick of the double standard around here and if you want a prime example of toxic and out of bounds rhetoric here it is. I am dead serious about this. This is ridiculous. It is not hyperbole or tongue in cheek. It is the same old John Birch Society liberals are communists &$@$ and frankly I am sick of it. It has no place here. I get smacked on the fingers for the mildest stuff written in jest about the right wingers ariund here but this is allowed to stand? So calling someone a wingnut for dutifully repeating ridiculous GOP talking points is against the rules but basically linking liberals with the worst political catastophes in history is a okay? Really? The OP is a communist? Is she? For sharing a bit of schadenfreude about the hurricane bearing down on the GOP convention? Especially in the context of the theocrats in the GOP always dancing in the streets when natural disasters demonstrate God's wrath on the baby killing fornicating gay agenda values of a fallen America. That makes her Stalin? Really? Enough.

I am happy that moderation of content is pretty loose here these days. I think you might do better here if you'd participate in other forums on this website, and would stop doing hit and run posts in the politico that rachet up heat.

It's entirely your choice how you participate here since the "rules" are fewer and heavy handed moderation a thing of the past, and no one is going to insist that you go over to the Environmental board and comment about too many pencils required by teachers. Your posts here are a little hysterical. Perhaps you, yourself, are not. But that's hard to glean.

You defend "a bit of schadenfreude" by referencing matching actions by crazies on the fringe right. Look, I don't expect this to be a peaceful and no-conflict place (that would be dull!) but a pet peeve is railing against nameless nutjobs and then tying that to posters here. What was unique about that "bit of schadenfreude" is that it was the expressed sentiment of people in this online community. It wasn't something spoken by a leader in the Democratic party. Someone called them on it. So what? The response WAS hyperbolic, and if there are convenient illustrations of atrocities on the left, well, are you arguing with history? I'm pretty sure there are equal numbers on the right as well, and if you want to continue a tit-for-tat conversation, post those rightie examples here. But tit-for-tat conversations aren't very interesting.

[creaker]

I am happy that moderation of content is pretty loose here these days. I think you might do better here if you'd participate in other forums on this website, and would stop doing hit and run posts in the politico that rachet up heat.

It's entirely your choice how you participate here since the "rules" are fewer and heavy handed moderation a thing of the past, and no one is going to insist that you go over to the Environmental board and comment about too many pencils required by teachers. Your posts here are a little hysterical. Perhaps you, yourself, are not. But that's hard to glean.

You defend "a bit of schadenfreude" by referencing matching actions by crazies on the fringe right. Look, I don't expect this to be a peaceful and no-conflict place (that would be dull!) but a pet peeve is railing against nameless nutjobs and then tying that to posters here. What was unique about that "bit of schadenfreude" is that it was the expressed sentiment of people in this online community. It wasn't something spoken by a leader in the Democratic party. Someone called them on it. So what? The response WAS hyperbolic, and if there are convenient illustrations of atrocities on the left, well, are you arguing with history? I'm pretty sure there are equal numbers on the right as well, and if you want to continue a tit-for-tat conversation, post those rightie examples here. But tit-for-tat conversations aren't very interesting.

I think the whole left / right thing as if there are only ever two sides gets a bit old. If Stalin had called himself a socialist, or a capitalist, rightist or leftist or anything else I expect he would still have been a ruthless dictator.

[Alan]

I am offended by this and call on the moderators to take action. This is in essence calling the op, and by extension liberals, marxist leninist maoist stalinist communists. I am really sick of the double standard around here and if you want a prime example of toxic and out of bounds rhetoric here it is. I am dead serious about this. This is ridiculous. It is not hyperbole or tongue in cheek. It is the same old John Birch Society liberals are communists &$@$ and frankly I am sick of it. It has no place here. I get smacked on the fingers for the mildest stuff written in jest about the right wingers ariund here but this is allowed to stand? So calling someone a wingnut for dutifully repeating ridiculous GOP talking points is against the rules but basically linking liberals with the worst political catastophes in history is a okay? Really? The OP is a communist? Is she? For sharing a bit of schadenfreude about the hurricane bearing down on the GOP convention? Especially in the context of the theocrats in the GOP always dancing in the streets when natural disasters demonstrate God's wrath on the baby killing fornicating gay agenda values of a fallen America. That makes her Stalin? Really? Enough.

LOL, the irony here is palpable.

The post you find so offensive is an historically accurate representation of my tongue-in-cheek statement " Pfffftt!! Anyone who'd let a little collateral damage ruin their blood lust is not worthy of their progressive bona fides!", a comment directly attributable to several poster's desire for a hurricane to disrupt the GOP convention, seemingly out of a desire to blame and punish Republicans for the tragedy of hurricane Katrina.

Now, my question to you is, how much collateral damage do you want to impose on those of us who point out such things?