A contrarian view of the debate and the election
Andrew B. writes:
I thought Romney was very aggressive and spewing his lies in the debate. The NRO types are excited because they are big into prevarication and lying in the interests of gaining power and recognize a like mind when they see one. It did not appear that Obama entirely expected this, and he seemed torn between responding to the lies (thus his grimaces) or having a chance to issue out his own lying nonsense. It seems that early on he chose to focus on pushing his own lies, but kept enough focus on Romney that Romney spent most of the debate spewing crap and failing to slice apart Obama’s record because he was so excited about being able to issue out crap without rebuttal. Did you notice much of what Romney said was arguing that he has similar positions to Obama? This produced 40 minutes of future Romney vs. Romney commercials for Obama.Andrew B. continues:
Funny, I went over to Daily Kos it after writing you, and came across this:LA to Andrew B.:
I don’t necessarily agree with your view, but it’s a strongly argued view and worth posting.
The debate went into details that I’m not extremely knowledgeable about, but I tend to dismiss the Al Franken-esque “lying liars” analysis of Republicans, when the worst I saw from either was standard political spin. I don’t know what exactly the “big lies” Romney told were.Andrew B. writes:
In response to the anonymous reader, when politicians aren’t lying, they are misrepresenting. You can tell because their lips are moving. A politician who tells the truth and believes in objective truth has always been a complete rarity. I guess modern conservatives have forgotten about Diogenes, Caiaphas, and Pontius Pilate, as well as Winston Churchill’s remark on the necessity of a bodyguard of lies for the truth. People expecting truth in a televised political debate are fooling themselves.October 5
A reader writes:
I am not sure what the point would be of devoting much resources to a state that hasn’t gone Republican since 1988, especially when the Romney campaign has been struggling to get ahead in a former red state like Virginia.A reader writes:
I only watched part of the debate, but I got the impression that it was almost exclusively focused on the economy. I suppose I understand why and I don’t discount the importance of that discussion. But it’s such a short-sighted view, one that is dishearteningly prevalent amongst the Romney-type Republicans, that seems to ignore the connection between social views and economics. For example, the government has, through unfettered spending, created an entire false black middle-class per the demands of multiculturalism. Or the flooding of the job marketplace by women, many of whom work in inefficient and wasteful departments such as HR, social planning, and public relations, abdicating their duties of motherhood and pursuing the Sex and the City lifestyle.LA replies:
But before multiculturalism, American presidents spoke of America as though it were nothing but an economy. GNP and other economic measures were treated as though they were the sole thing about the country that mattered. I remember thinking that, and about how dead it made America feel, well before multiculturalism arrived as an official ideology in the late 1980s.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 04, 2012 09:26 PM | Send