Skip to main content

View Diary: Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone: Mitt Romney Wins BS Contest (114 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They're Looking to Pick a Leader Not a Thinker (14+ / 0-)

    which is why style, reacting realtime and bearing matter as much as they do. These aren't academic debates.

    I don't know how Obama can do much better if he doesn't address the lie and policy-reversal problems somehow, in the debate. But he's also got to look like he's in charge whatever his tactics are.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 01:22:05 PM PDT

    •  Obama "lost" because... (3+ / 6-)

      ... he was a pussy.  He came across as a pussy.  He didn't call Mitt out once or with any level of passion.  He looked weak and unprepared for the totally predictable bullshit thrown at him.  Mitt lobbed a bunch of easy pitches that the president could have swatted out of the park, but instead he stood there and took called strikes.

      Obama needs to go ahead and tear Willard a new one in the next debate.  He can do it, but he needs to get a little angry and show us that he can run shit.

      •  I believe there is a grand strategy.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jalenth, vcmvo2

        Romney needed a knockout and he didn't get it.  There are two more rounds (3 with Biden vs Ryan).  So the champ let the challenger show his "strengths" on the 1st round.  And now he is going to pounce.

        Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

        by Shockwave on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:33:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Name calling - (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        and the "angry black man" thing is what he's trying to avoid. The race card and its trumps are still in play after all. 'Sides, the POTUS is as "cool as the other side of the pillow" (in my best @ESPNStuScott voice) in almost all occasions; pretty much seems to be his character. I noticed you got hr'ed... Probably for the kitty cat references, but I'll give some latitude. Seriously if Mitt wins because of debates, me and mine are moving to Canada (if they'll have us...)

        "In the battle of existence, Talent is the punch; Tact is the clever footwork. Wilson Mizner -7.25/-5.64

        by mikejay611 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:42:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who said anything about being angry? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          And why should he avoid it anyway?  I'd like to see an angry black man challenge the likes of Mitt in an intelligent way, but that's irrelevant.

          He didn't need to show anger or even annoyance to win this debate.  He just needed to be a bit better prepared to deal with the predictable bullshit thrown at him.

          •  Perhaps, deep in the underbelly of our society (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            there remains a racial divide on the question of who can get away with charging whom with lies.

            Consider the white legislator--sorry, I'm blocking his name and office--who called out President Obama with "You lie!" at a State of the Union address.  People were shocked at the break in decorum, but in the end it cost the rude white man nothing.  White privilege to exert judgment over a black man had been preserved.

            President Obama, in contrast, gives euphemisms and rhetorical evasion a work out every time he accuses Romney of lying without every actually saying bluntly, "He lies."  Why is that?

            Historically, in this country, black men who accused whites of lying got lynched.  And, if Harper Lee's novel To Kill a Mockingbird is at all accurate of the Jim Crow south in which Lee grew up, she has shown that, yes, the American judicial system has participated in such lynchings. White jurors in her novel reject the circumstantial evidence of the black accused's physical disabilities that make the rape with which he charged, by a white girl and her father, impossible for him to commit. Although the black character does not speak in his own defense, the implied charge of "You lie!" that his body makes on his behalf is ignored by the southern justice that convicts him and the angry town that tries to lynch him before he can be transported to a safer jail far away.  

            While, yes, enough black people today get away with calling out white people's lies in other social arenas, President Obama seems well aware that he is differently situated than they are.  He seems to have chosen, quite conscientiously, to avoid behaviors that activate negative racist stereotypes and to adopt others that set the most positive precedent he can create for being the United States' first black president.

            Sure, he can be better prepared to deal with Romney's predictable bullshit...if there is an intelligent way shut down someone who says nothing but lies. I doubt that will involve saying the words, "You lie."

            No one elected Grover Norquist anything. If everyone ignored him, he would dry up and blow away.

            by vahana on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:38:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Ya'll are hiderating (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        For what?

        There are no sacred cows.

        by LaEscapee on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:50:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't but... (4+ / 0-)

          I understand the sentiment.

          Letting "he was a pussy" enter legitimate public dialogue does three things:

          I: Reframes the terms of any debate on their terminology. I can't tell you the number of "Mitt bent Barky over and had his way with him in front of 60 million people" kind of comments I've seen on right wing websites in the last few days. (Pretty much verbatim.)

          II: Reframes the political style vs substance debate as "You looked like a girl/homosexual/bitch." Equating these things as weak losers compared to the awesomeness of the alpha male is intrinsically passing judgement.

          III: Add I and II and you end up with, basically, Alpha male = awesome, homosexuals and chicks = lame. Style vs substance gets reduced down to rhetorical rape, and rape = totally freaking awesome.

          There are far more salient ways to analyze the substance vs style issues without buying into their mindset. Hell, I'm completely fine with discussing that mindset and using their terminology to call out what they're doing. I'm not ok with internalizing it and using it as our own argument.

          •  Yeah still (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Shawn Russell

            not seeing and I"m a huge fan of the term and the item, maybe it was indelicatly but at least it was honest and didn't deserve punishment for being shall we say "contentious"

            There are no sacred cows.

            by LaEscapee on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:28:36 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Get over yourself (0+ / 0-)

            What is the "legitimate public dialogue" and who made you the arbiter of what is acceptable within it?

            So you have a problem with the word "pussy."  Fine, substitute with "wimp."  Nobody wants the president to be a wimp.  When you let yourself get beaten up by a bully like Mittens, you come across as a wimp.

            As for the rest of your comment, it's convoluted and says more about your own psycho-sexual hangups than it does about any point relevant to this topic: why Obama "lost" the debate.

            •  Alright man (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Shawn Russell, CharlieHipHop

              I was there for ya don't flip the fuck out

              There are no sacred cows.

              by LaEscapee on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:30:12 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I do appreciate the defense, but seriously...

                III: Add I and II and you end up with, basically, Alpha male = awesome, homosexuals and chicks = lame. Style vs substance gets reduced down to rhetorical rape, and rape = totally freaking awesome.
                Using the word "pussy" to convey disdain for a lack of fighting spirit in a bare-knuckled brawl (politics) really, truly does not lead to whatever sort of hangup you're expressing in the above.  Using the word "pussy" does not make one a fan of rape or a misogynist or a homophobe.  

                I would have called Hillary a pussy if she had performed like that in any situation, but I've never had to use that word or anything close to it with Hillary because she's a bad-ass.  

                In this case, I'm going to stick by what I said: "Get over yourself."  It's not because I wish you any harm or dislike you.


                •  I get it man (0+ / 0-)

                  totally agree with every point made I'm walking a rail here at this point for calling bullshit. Soon, soon we can call em as we see em

                  There are no sacred cows.

                  by LaEscapee on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 12:20:06 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I take it you don't read many right wing sites? (0+ / 0-)

                  Anyways, I didn't HR and while was laying out the logic, I also tend to fall on the crass 'say what I think' side myself. Someone wondered why the HRs and I posted what I thought was one line of reasoning based on what I've been seeing outside the kos bubble in the last few days. Which is a lot of rape/fag allusions.

                  I think you might be the one taking your own opinion too seriously if you can't handle discussion about it without freaking out. I might even call you pissy and melodramatic, but that would probably open me up to charges of hypocrisy . =p

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site