The Republican Convention

Another good one - Artur Davis.

I didn't fall for The Annointed One, but I can understand why some did.

What I can't understand is how intellectually honest people who voted for Obama based on promise can maintain support for him despite how he has not only broken his promises but rendered them the claims of a flim flam man.

Nikki Haley - meh.

The one issue she raised which needs broader and more intense communication is the assault on South Carolina middle-class Americans by the Obama Administration at the behest of the Union Boss pals: the suit against Beoing.

Observed Silly Sign: "We Love Women!"

"What I can't understand is how intellectually honest people who voted for Obama based on promise can maintain support for him despite how he has not only broken his promises but rendered them the claims of a flim flam man. "

as opposed to Romney who doesn't understand that taking a position on an issue is not a game of musical chairs...



I don't want to argue with you, finny.

you just looked lonely over here all by your vitriolic self...

Thanks

One thing the networks won't show, was Code Pink activists in vagina suits trying to arrest Condeleeza Rice.

You can't make this **** up.

I read Santorum's speech, HuffPost has an AP transcription of it. It's a bunch of vapid, feel-good, substanceless crap. He repeats, several times, the lieing ight-wing meme that Obama is gutting thw welfare work requirement. That's simply not true. Obama's offering states the flexibility to come up with ways to implement it (which a number of governors, including Romney, who was then our egregiously awful governor, asked for some years ago; give Republicans what they want and they claim it's not what they want). He ignores the fact that hard work doesn't get you much anymore, since all the increased income over the last three decades from
Reagan on has filtered upward to the rich, rather than to those who work hard and aspire and to the middle class. America now has less upward mobility than virtually all of the other major developed nations. Santorum doesn't even acknowledge that, let alone offer any solutions. He goes on and on about two-parent families, and says Romney and Ryan will bring them back. Yeah, right. Some suggestions as to how, Rick? Just vapidity. And that is, clearly, just the usual veiled code for rejecting same-sex marriage, which a majority of the country now supports. You're easily gulled by gossamer fantasies, Finn.

I expected more from Ann Romney's speech.

She really didn't do much to humanize Mitt for me--at all.

Not to mention the crap about welfare reform in general, which worked because it was put in place when the economy was growing under Clinton, and then for different reasons during the bubble which disastrous Republican economic policies allowed to grow until it got so fragile it popped, which devestated our economy--for everyone except the rich who developed and sold the crap financial products and got the shameless multi-million dollar bonuses for selling the crap. Now that right-wing economic policy has devastated the economy, the people who need welfare, the people who were thrown out of work, don't have the safety net, thanks to Republican stoneheartedness, and poverty in America is reaching levels not seen in decades. Obama;s Keynesian economic policies started the recovery, but again Republican stonewalling has limited progress. Sntorum of course touches on none of that. The truth would totally obliterate his airy-fairy picture.

I agree that her speech wasn't all that much, but then I think too much is expected of such speeches.

Don't get me wrong, I would have loved to have heard a "home-run" speech, but I didn't expect one and wasn't dissappointed.

If somone was sitting on the fence waiting to hear his wife prove he's human, chances are they were never really thinking about voting for him.

Romney, not his wife, must convince people to vote for him.

Since he doesn't agree with your assertions (amazingly enough there are millions and millions of people who don't) why would he express them in his speech?

I certainly don't expect Obama to include in his speech expressions of my position.

Romney spent twelve years running for office in Masschusetts. Everything he told us he was for in those twelve years, he was against when he was finally elected governor and when he first started spending the next six years running for president. He's not human, he's a Borg. It is impossible to humanize a Borg.

Finn, you asked for critiques of his speech. That's the critique. The speech is largely untrue crap, and those are the reasons why it is.

Are you arguing that he isn't familiar with the wording of the legislative welfare reform that Clinton signed, but didn't fashion?

The legislation explicitly prohibited the Executive Branch from waiving the workfare provision, no matter what the reason.

Presumably you think the Obama Administration need not abide by the law as written, if its motive is good (not-with-standing the fact that the flexibility requested was not relative to the definition of "work").

Sounds like the sort of Administration you so often ranted about from 200 - 2008

It's not waiving the requirement. It's asking for creative new ways to meet it. you will note, of course, Finn, that all the political fact-checkers have given this Republican meme their most emphatic versions of thumbs down for adherence to truth.

You've ignored the argument that irrespective of the reason, the Administration was not legally permitted to provide the waivers.

Rule of Law? Big deal.

From Sullivan:



You're so full of ****, Finn

Cycloptichorn

Read the quote in cyclops' post, Finn, especially the first paragraph.

I don't know who "Sullivan" is but I'm sorry, I don't know why I should accept him as an authority, particulary when he reflexively introduces the charge of racism.