Paul Krugman writes, "Mitt Romney has a gift for words - self-destructive words. On Friday he did it again, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference that he was a 'severely conservative governor.' ... of words that most commonly follow the adverb 'severely'; the top five, in frequency of use, are disabled, depressed, ill, limited and injured."
Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Severe Conservative Syndrome
13 February 12
Mitt Romney has a gift for words - self-destructive words. On Friday he did it again, telling the Conservative Political Action Conference that he was a "severely conservative governor."
As Molly Ball of The Atlantic pointed out, Mr. Romney "described conservatism as if it were a disease." Indeed. Mark Liberman, a linguistics professor at the University of Pennsylvania, provided a list of words that most commonly follow the adverb "severely"; the top five, in frequency of use, are disabled, depressed, ill, limited and injured.
That's clearly not what Mr. Romney meant to convey. Yet if you look at the race for the G.O.P. presidential nomination, you have to wonder whether it was a Freudian slip. For something has clearly gone very wrong with modern American conservatism.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Or Robert Ostrich?
Many of these policies that are being put forth are the SAME policies that Republicans supported. and put on the table.
If Obama's policies are flawed, they sure are working. In spite of nuts who think people are crazy enough to beleive that you or any of the Republicans have a problem with "policy" we can read and hear and see.
The Republicans have no policy except do whatever necessary to fill the pockets of the rich.
The Republicans are working with a "Plantation" mentality and it's not just Mexicans, Blacks and other "Different" people that they intend to work on that Plantation, it is EVERYBODY who is not in the 1% .
Hopfully Obama's "flawed Polices" will continue to be "destructive" to the REPUBLICAN "Plantation" policies.
Ya'll hear now? No Mint Julips for the 99%.
I know who I will vote for, even though voting is mstly an empty gesture unless many people get the same idea -- I'm going to vote socialist, even if I have to write them in. It's the only really sane way to go.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/elec-f13.shtml
Socialist Equality Party announces US election campaign
By the editorial board
13 February 2012
Emphasis on "Fundamentalist" Christian?
You are right about keeping religion out of politics. How and why the Reublican candidates got that so wrong in 2012 is the question of our time. They appear to be proud of their misinterpretati on of the constitution. Romney saying he is "severely conservative" expresses the ridiculousness of the Republican platform which is focused on the candidates fighting over whose the most authentically conservative rather any authentic issues. It is obvious the Repugs care more about winning approval from the "Tea Party" than doing anything to help the people.
President Obama seems like a breath of fresh air compared to these "extremely" unelectable clowns. Consider volunteering in your local Obama 2012 campaign office or be part of the problem that is named a republican presidency.
Excuse me, I hate to butt in here with aome facts that are apparent to me. FIRST, the people in my "blue collar" shop who are against the President, are first and foremost against him because of his color. They don't get in to his policies a bit, but cite the Faux talking points they see on TV and use among themselves. Their points sound eerily like the ones you cite here.
SECOND, please allow me to point out that all bills involving appropriations of Government money originate in the House of Representatives - not with the President. Your insistence on how the President spends money pretty much discredits everything else you might submit for consideration here.
Oh, and from now on, I won't keep giving you a thumbs down. I'll be skipping that futile exercise, but I *might* read your amusing posts.
Bloody great comment from somebody who lives in the real world.
Thanks Bro' for both recognizing a truth-in-case: I see the same attitudes in a local "blue-collar" bar-. And for joining me in encouraging the others on this site to quit responding to the empty vessel who keeps trying to get it's "tripe" out here 'cause we are so "Liberal" and free-speech oriented.
O' wad some power the giftie gie us, to see ourselves as others see us!" Robert Burns.
An intellectual would realize you can't keep borrowing & spending w/o inevitably falling further into the quicksand of debt. Under Bush Jr., it was not only a borrowing free-for-all, the financial sector (surpassing maunufacturing in the U.S. economy) was profiting off the debt, e.g., through toxic mortgages & credit card debt (charging high interests rates tantamount to usury). But the Bush regime encouraged the public to spend, spend, spend by borrow, borrow, borrow. According to the Huffington Post (10/07/08), by Sept 2008, "the national debt broke the $10 trillion" mark. "This debt problem is getting worse. We're adding to the debt at mindboggling rates. We're spending more on interest on the national debt than we're spending on the Iraq War." Additionally, "The Congessional Budget Office project a $400 billion deficit this year [2008], a $400 billion deficit next year and the year after that, with further deficits for the next decade." But before the Bush regime, the U.S. had a federal budget surplus of $230 billion. (allpolitics.com, 9/27/00) You're not too smart when it comes to cause & effect: Obama inherited the Bush debt, although it's obviously increased, but we can thank the Bush regime for most of it; the smirking incompetant who took a surplus & turned it into debt. Re. the U.S. constitution, Bush, Cheney, etc. ushered in the overt tearing asunder of it. Obama is behaving like Bush Jr. in contributing to the tearing.
As usual, you are being very selective in metting out guilt. It's quite clear that the $10 trillion debt under Bush was passed onto Obama. But you blatantly ignore this. And the fact that Bush went from a surplus to massive debt. It has to be the biggest mismanagement of funds by any adminstration in U.S. history. It's not necessarily Obama himself you're against; it's anyone, in this case Obama, who is part of the biggest (loyal) opposition to the Repubs. Even if Reagan were currently the Dem president, you'd be demonizing him. For you, it isn't about issues or content, it's about condemning, according to the badly written script of the Right, who is the biggest "threat" to the Repubs' chances of trying to impose the mutation of a 19th century/Medieval-like agenda. So according to the script it's bash, bash, bash w/o using too much brains, brains, brains. Meanwhile, you don't really focus on the real nagatives of Obama, e.g., his "art of compromise" (i.e., caving in) & his sometimes Bush-like behavior (eg., signing the "defense" authorization act). Also, his "McDeal" w/ Wall Street/the banks where the latter will get a pass for criminal activities. But the Repubs don't mind, while publicably putting on a show of "morality" against Obama. Further, w/ the current crop of crazies, a vote for the Repubs will mean going from bad to worse. But you'll adhere to the dumbeddown script, thus being further entrenched in supporting the 1%.
I'll bet he does.
You notice he thinks Paul's commentary was only three paragraphs long? Turn the page, man!
Sorry, I'm severely (or is that "severally") political small-talk burned-out!
And feeling deplorably, dysfunctionally discombooberate d!
Anybody for some issues and substance?
But don't feel too satisfied, Dems and progressives - the right wing will do anything to get rid of this competent, intelligent guy we have for a president. Time to gird our loins and join the fight - not just to re-elect Obama, but to support him by winning the House and Senate too.
May he TiP ("Tripe in pustule") no answers are the best in this case.
On to issues, please.
Will the self-professed "liberals" please tell us what they advocate liberating?
And "progressives"...what are you progressing toward?
- Conservs are trying to conserve the old society where upper class (and clergy) ruled, workers worked and knew their place. There are 2 kinds of conservatives: those who ARE the upper class and want to preserve that status; and those who are NOT the upper class but are hoodwinked into thinking being the underclass is good because it stands for upholding family values and such.
- Liberals are for a liberal society where people are free to speak freely, worship as they choose (or not), believe in and vote for government for the people and by the people.
- Progressives are those who see people being crushed under the heel of those in power, and work for policies that would alleviate this suffering. They are usually to be found amongst those who are of the liberal persuasion.
To which of these do you belong, futhark??
Much of the confusion arises, I think, from the fact that the ideals of the American Revolution were those of Enlightenment intellectual liberals (freedom of speech, the press, religion, etc.), as enumerated in the Bill of Rights. American conservatives who really value conserving, preserving, protecting, and defending these values would have my support. Many modern day so-called "conservatives" use the Constitution and Declaration of Independence as icons worthy of veneration, but violate their substance. They are counter-revolutionary contemptible hypocrites.
We live in a revolutionary society. Our history books so co-mingle the War for American Independence with the American Revolution, that many people think the Revolution ended in 1783, with the war. Not so. The truths of the Revolution need to be continually advanced because there are always social elements who seek to centralize political and economic power, both of which are counter to the ideas of liberty and sovereignty of the People. We always seem to recognize the continued advancements of the Revolution retrospectively , but each progressive step has been actively opposed by counter-revolutionaries at the time. Emancipation of the slaves, female suffrage, recognition of workers' rights, the civil rights movement, and the anti-war movements are high points in the continuing American Revolution. To promote, participate in, and celebrate these contemperaneous ly is in the best American tradition and should be done by Americans who value their Revolution. We should be conserving our liberal values and traditions.
Does this make me a liberal, a conservative, or a progressive? Or maybe just an American who still believes the American Revolution ought to continue?
Tragically, today's gang of rightist radicals have given conservatism a bad name for a whole generation.
The traditional and useful role of conservatives, at least it has been in my lifetime, was not to strike poses and hoodwink people, it was to act as a sober brake on the compassionate human impulse to act in the moment.
That is, when a Congress moved to help the needy loses sight of everything but that, legitimate conservatism reminds them to move carefully and don't give away the store. If you pass out too much grain today, the silo will be empty tomorrow.
Folks on both sides of the aisle respected each other within my living memory. And so, as you might expect, people would complain that they were too much alike!
I am a retired senior on social security and a pension. God help them if they try and take it away from me!
Yeah, me too in all cases including the latter. I watched with almost nausea at the struttin' li'l Duce-Bush glowing with health and sun-tan, making whoopee for the "First tee" charity (not a bad thing in itself) at Pebble Beach this weekend.
Instead of serving time in Abu-Grahib where he belongs for life, he is glowing with his own self-importance and golfing away to his heart's content, shaking hands with young military personnel, whose peers and predecessors he sent out do be rubbed-out or maimed for his now-admitted lies: -makes you wonder about Karma.
I enjoy fact and issue-linked debate but it is seem always to be one-way. I've now given up on putting this to a certain rightist who butts in here far too often and whom I've dismissed unto silence and encourage others to do the same.
I mean, try to get on a right wing outlet of any kind (I have repeatedly) and you'll see what I mean. Whereas the left or center tends to allow a certain amount of respectfully directed free speech in opposition to it's views and positions without censorship, the right shouts down or casts off any but direct adherence to it's ever-hardening stance, like dictators everywhere.
"They" are after a one-party takes all, "My way or die now" system of total control. If you think the current rapidly - merging and non-representationa l (of the people) two party set up -and I use the term "set-up" advisedly, is hard to rationalize, just let these power-drunk wannabe's get it all but have y'r passport and "refugee" status lined up first and hope you are not on a "no-fly" list.
I know that you realize this and say so -this is just my typically long-winded way of agreeing with you and reinforcing it from a perspective and example fairly close to all of here or RSN.
The likes of Reagan or Romney, just 'buy loss making' cattle herds or park their money in the Caymens. Paying tax for the rich in America also seems to be voluntary.
The severity of their anger and posturing is what turns on many ignorant white people(many of whom, unfortunately are working class.) It's the old "Southern Strategy" and it works.
But what is now different from 20-30 years ago is that people are (ever so slightly) waking up. I don't think the whole angry routine is going to work this time. I am fairly severely certain of this.
RSS feed for comments to this post.