- President Obama attended two celebrity-studded fundraisers yesterday, pulling in approximately $4.5 million total for his campaign (CBS News): http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57453702/obama-turns-to-nyc-celebrities-for-campaign-cash/?tag=stack
- The sleepy town of Shiner, Texas has rallied around its resident to beat a man to death for attempting to sexually attack his 4 year old daughter (CNN): http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/us/texas-abuser-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
- Attorney General Eric Holder has agreed to meet with US rep Darrell Issa and turn over emails regarding the Fast and Furious scandal (Fox News): http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/14/house-dems-mount-holder-defense-as-republicans-pursue-contempt-vote/?test=latestnews
*** Be sure to vote in the weekly LME Mitt Romney v Obama poll on the left side of this blog ***
Good morning, everyone. I have to chime in on this.
ReplyDeleteI saw this on Yahoo!: http://news.yahoo.com/sarah-jessica-parker-hosts-obamas-022732730--abc-news-politics.html
It piggybacks off of what the link in this post discussed.
I think it's interesting for a few main reasons.
1. Obama (and the left) labels Romney as disconnected and unable to make any connection to the "average American." I don't know about you, but I will never be able to spend $40,000 on a dinner, and I will never meet and hang out with hundreds of celebrities.
2. Money in politics? It's okay to rail against the republicans' donations while going dinner to dinner, door to door, of Hollywood elitists asking for $40,000 per pop? Am I missing something?
3. This statement: ""The other side is going to spend $500 million with a very simple message, which is 'You're frustrated, you're disappointed, and it's the fault of the guy in the White House.' And that's an elegant message. It happens to be wrong. But it's crisp. You can fit it on a bumper sticker."
It's not okay to blame the guy in the White House... now? But it is okay, three years down the road to blame the guy in the White House from the previous administration?
What am I missing?
Good morning LME!
DeleteI feel like that first question is purposefully obtuse. :( Actions aren't what influences a feeling of disconnect from a person as much as it's the words. No practical American thinks that any presidential candidate shops at Walmart, eats at McDonald’s, and drives a 98 Camry.
You act like someone asked Obama at a conference in a poverty-stricken neighborhood his favorite place to eat, and he said "I like to eat at $40,000/plate dinners" and no one thought twice about it. That would a far bigger deal than simply knowing the fact he attends them. Would it not?
That's practically the equivalence of Romney, in front of a bunch of Nascar fans, being asked whether he likes Nascar and responding with 'I don't watch, but I'm friends with the team owners.' Or telling a bunch of unemployed people in FL that he is also unemployed.
As far as the fundraiser, I see it as far more damaging for Mitt to attend Donald Trump’s fundraiser than it was for Obama to attend celebrity fundraisers. The drop in Mitt's polling surrounding that event speaks to the credibility of that fact as well.
Good morning, RKen - Happy Friday!
DeleteI'm not sure I understand the disconnect. I understand that "no practical American..." comment.
My problem comes from the, in my opinion, talking out of both sides of the mouth part. Obama, yes, mainly the left derides the GOP for "money in politics" and claims of Mitt's disconnect with the average American,... but happily promotes, as I pointed out, Obama's partaking in these "non-average American" activities. I have no problem with Obama going to $40,000 per plate dinners. In fact, I think he is wise to "play the game" he needs to play if the GOP is now showing they can raise money. My problem is, don't rail against it... That's like saying you promote a healthy lifestyle, and you're going to be greatly against smoking, but you constantly eat fast foods (I got that from a South Park episode, if you get the reference :-) ). Obama's "style" isn't the same as Mitt's. Mitt hangs out with sports team owners... Obama hangs with celebrities. The difference is Obama (and again, I know this is actually more coming from the press), gets on Mitt for doing it while Obama does the same style of thing, just in different form.
To me, Obama is doing this a lot. The "I'm going to rail against campaign finance to the supreme court's face, while now participating in a SuperPAC." Or the "don't blame the guy in the White House... unless it was the previous president."
That's my whole point. The not letting the actions follow the words, part. I know neither Romney or Obama are going to pull into a MickyD's (my fav restaurant, btw), and you're right, no one else does either.
What do you think? Am I way off base? You know I always respect your opinion (especially because you, unlike so many people on both sides, maintain civility always)...
I can see your point on the double talk; I think I just misunderstood what your point originally was. There's no denying that it is double talk here, though personally it doesn't concern me very much.
DeleteAnd that's mostly because I feel like these issues just distract from where the real focus should be; the economy, foreign policy, and plans of action. Of course, there's still no harm in debating them. And I don't think you're off base on your points.
RKen - There we go! At the end of the day on a Friday, some HUGE agreement. I 100% agree with what you said here: "I feel like these issues just distract from where the real focus should be; the economy, foreign policy, and plans of action."
DeleteYup and yup. Both candidates should be saying, "here is my plan to fix the economy, immigration, health care, etc," and not all this side junk. The election should really be about voting for a plan that you think would work. You are 100% in what you said. People should be debating Obama's plan and Romney's plan. That's what it really should be all about.
Have a great weekend, RKen!
In perfect agreement with you there LME.
DeleteYou have yourself a good weekend too! :)
In regards to the story in Shiner, TX, first who can blame the father. The main point I would like to make is that anyone that may be supporting Trayvon Martin please note that both men were unarmed (like Trayvon was). Also notice that one guy beat the other guy to death without a weapon. So, do you now see it is entirely possible to beat someone to death? Maybe Zimmerman was thinking he was going to be beaten to death.
ReplyDeleteNo need to reply to post my with: Skittles, iced tea, 911 dispatcher told him blah blah blah. It is irrelevant and I don't really care.
I just wanted to point out you don't need a weapon to kill someone and that it is entirely possible to be beaten to death. There is your proof.