Here's the thing: during this time of social shift, transparency and qualification is key to society that is basically living through a trust deficit. This is why we see the backlash from the comment arena. Is it that politicos don't see the move toward such values or don't care? Hmmmm....Another small chip away at respect and trust in politicos when these things happen? How will the chips line up? We'll really just have to watch and see. In the meantime, koninchwa, y'all!
Something new in political news this week in the media. Caroline Kennedy seems to be heading to Tokyo to be the next U.S. ambassador to Japan. Kennedy, whose support for President Obama during his 2008 campaign was seen as crucial, had been widely talked about as a candidate for the diplomatic post, but now it seems that all is close to being offical. It won't be the first time that Obama has rewarded a prominent political supporter with a prestigious position. However, media reports have said that Kennedy's thin resume and the importance of Japan make it a particularly crucial example of this practice. It is said that she is not an expert on Japan nor international relations nor has she ever held public office. Kennedy doesn't even know how to speak Japanese. It is reported that Japan is in favor of having an American ambassador of celebrated status. Kennedy’s predecessors include legendary Senate majority leader Mike Mansfield, former vice president Walter Mondale, former House speaker Tom Foley, and former Senate majority leader Howard Baker, all well-known politicans. So, politicos and others think what?
Let's see: she has no diplomatic experience, government experience, or business experience, but she does have the singular distinction of publicly kissing his royal keister at a Democrat Party Convention...
The comment arena seems to see this report as the chess piece it is and in doing so indicate the further divisiveness in our country, for the most part. The actual number and what it means in real terms, without party attachment, is barely discussed. Perhaps this is both a shame but also indicative of how people are being almost trained to think not in terms of real dialogue (as political theorist Benjamin Barber has noted is vital for sustaining a democracy) but more about sides. The real stakes during this election seem to be much greater, then, than most would even whisper.
According to the October report by the Labor Department, employers have added 171,000 jobs across practically every field. This amount surpassed the estimated amount in August and September. The Chairman of Economic Advisers, Alan Kruger, statement that the report illustrated "further evidence that the economy is healing" after the worse economic downturn since the Great Depression. Doest this mean Obama has succeeded, and that whoever wins will acquire an economy in a slight upswing? Or does it give the Romney camp more fuel by saying the number is not on par with what is projected for genuine re-growth. Americans discuss the impact of this report on this coming Tuesday's vote.
...funny how the Republicans consider any jobs number increase as "insignificant", but I'd bet you my last dollar if increase occurred during a republican administration, they would label it as a "great victory", and proof positive that fighting foreign wars and making the richest 1% exponentially richer is good for everyone!
...Republicans stated that their main objective was to make Obama a one term President, that is exactly what they meant. Their actions have paralized they country through refusal to work with the President. Instead they purposed in their hearts to work against him. People want to know why we haven't moved further after four years? Ask Congress...
Polls are so tricky, aren't they? Does one ever really know? If MIT just recently did a study that showed that claims that one can use Twitter to predict election results are flawed, then how do we know that polls are really any more truthful/accurate? The fact that there is a bunch of chatter about this in the comment arena points to yet more value on transparency and accuracy that is placed in this new era. Take note!
According to an Ohio New Organization poll, Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama appear tied at 49% among likely voters. The biggest change is Romney's lead with male voters having increased from 1 percentage point to 12 points. With 27 electoral votes, Ohio is seen as the largest battleground state, and both parties are campaigning furiously. What are Americans saying about this battleground state tie?
...there is one area in which the incumbent appears to have a big advantage: those who have already cast their ballots. Obama leads Romney by 59 percent to 31 percent among early voters, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled in recent weeks. 7% have already voted. That is 7 million according to the average 100 million that vote in a Presidential election...These folks have already voted...More than the Romney camp can say!
The media is blitzing with this story from Fox ...What better time to pull out a story based on data taken mostly from pre debate polls when Romney was leading. It's a distraction from the real polls that have Obama ahead. And attempt to discourage voters. Will the GOP stop at nothing?
....The relevant news about this poll is that 80% of the surveys were conducted before the final debate, so this is last week's poll. Old news. For some reason, they only decided to publish it today. I don't quite understand the reasoning behind this.
More fuel to the fire, here. So this gives the comment arena more to discuss fo' sho'. It's interesting because from a sociology perspective it is said that augmenting someone's name create relationship, no matter whether the name be changed in a flattering or non-flattering way. They can create a specific place of vulnerability, but the interesting thing here is that this has not only made for vulnerability for Romney but for Obama at the same time, as it opens up yet another avenue for criticism. We're just wondering if the Romney camp will come up with yet an even better zinger using the Obama name? Hmmmm.......
Obama told a crowd of 9,000 people in Washington that he was concerned about Romney, "I mean, he's changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping, we've got to name this condition that he's going through. I think it's called 'Romnesia'". Biden also spoke about this 'condition' in Florida, and claimed that Paul Ryan has contracted this "communicable disease" as well. The Romney camp has dismissed this as today's "new gimmick". Gimmick, or not, does it hold any truth as Romney attempts to move cover all of his bases?
I feel ashamed to call Obama our President. A president should be someone we can respect and be proud of not someone who bullies and stoops so low that they have to come up with these comments, or should I say name calling, just like a child, to try to get to peoples vote. Shame on you Obama, you are an adult and the President, act like one...
Is transparency in the eye of the beholder? One might think so according to this sample we bring you now from the grand comment-sphere. Obviously demonstrates the further divided country in which we are currently living and the issue of which direction we want to go and under what leadership. Thing is, if Pew Research Center stats are correct in demonstrating that Romney has one of the lowest favorable ratings ever of a prez nominee, do tax records really matter one way or another at that point? Let's watch the numbers but watch the comment soup even more and see just where the numbers even are this year for actual voter turn-out no matter who the candidate. In the meantime, we bet H&R Block wasn't the team behind the Romney tax returns. Wish we could all get such pro counseling!
The Mitt Romney 2012 Campaign team has finally released the nominee's full 2011 tax returns, and displayed his tax rate at 14.1 percent last year. Voters always knew he was rich, but this release of information so late in the game is puzzling to strategists and democrats. Romney swore he never payed under 13 percent in income taxes, therefore when Romney aides went over the records from the past 20 years they decided to release the information to quell doubts before the first debate against Obama. Do voters think this uncovering of information illustrates his transparency, or do they think Romney still has something to hide?
The corporate national media is refusing to report what everyone knows. ROMNEY IS A TAX CHEAT. My guess is that about ten days before the election, we are going to see Mitt's real tax returns...Public relations 101: if you want to put a scandal behind you, you put all the information out there and rip the band-aid off in one go...Instead he's continuing down the path of dribbling out partial info inviting the question in new news cycles as to what he ISN'T revealing. Mitt's going to be the poster child forever more in political science classrooms of how not to run a campaign...
Although Romney’s word will not be sufficient for Democrats, and even though his furtive attitudes suggest some sort of cover up, Romney’s base will not lose faith in that word, and may even suggest that he is now some sort of martyr for the conservative cause. Even though the waters remain muddied, it will afford Mitt the cover needed for him to hide...It is also uncertain how many swing voters actually judge this issue, and, they may not dessert Romney in numbers large enough for him to lose...
How pathetic that the Democrats have to resort to a smear campaign in order to increase Obama's chances of winning the election. For instance, just look at the TV commercials that both campaigns have been airing. I live in a battleground state, and the Obama campaign has only been airing attack ads. Whereas the Romney campaign ads focus on what Romney can do for the country...
More class warfare? Looks like Mitt has placed himself in yet more hot water with this statement. Reminds us of a French goverment official not long ago who was asked the price of a baguette and was so far out of touch that the amount quoted was laughable. What happens in a society when those who wish to run it are not aware of the intricacies of the society itself? This may not really be about criticizing Romney in as much as it's about being cautious about options that appear when choices provided seem incompetent or irrelevant. There's a hot article on economic gap (since the French Revolution!) between politicians and constituents in "The New York Times" from a few months ago. Will such/are such patterns being questioned now in the new era?
In an interview on ABC's Good Morning America, Mitt Romney argued that he would not raise taxes on middle income Americans, leading show host George Stephanopoulos to question whether Romney's definition of middle income consisted of individuals making between $30,000 and $100,000. Romney replied that middle income, in his opinion, is actually between $200,000 and $250,000, which in reality is actually in the top 2 or 3 percent. The Romney campaign team later clarified, saying that Romney's numbers were actually for household income, not individual income. What are Americans saying about this gaffe, and how it relates to his party position?
That is not, nor is it near, "middle income" by any possible reasonable definition. Mitt Romney's world view is severely off-center, and his identification is with people a lot richer and greedier than you and me...he was born with a silver spoon, and never had to pay tuition, a student or mortgage loan, or for medical bills. He is out of touch with reality.
I went to college, i have my master's, i got a job doing what i love, but guess what? I don't make $250,000 a year! People in my field of work are significantly underpaid. This guy lives in an elite little dream world...just because i don't make $250,000 a year does not mean I'm some slacker with a minimum wage job that does not have any ambition!
Not surprising, the comment-sphere reflects the division of the country. Acceptance speeches such as these typically seem anti-climatic. It's all about formality in an era where less and less formality reigns. As the SmartPower tribe continues to re-define the social dynamic between us, watch for more shift in such spectacle that does not give new thinkers what it really wants.
The Massachusetts Republican accepted the nomination of his party as its nominee for president this Thursday evening, thereby being the first Mormon to achieve such a position. In his speech, Romney emphasized the need to 'turn the page', and highlighted that President Obama's time is over, and has been over for a while. Now Romney is in a two month sprint to November 6th. So how are Americans feeling about this nomination and, more importantly, its implications?
Did you expect him to say no? It was a done deal befroe he got there, what a joke the convention is...it's a pep rally not a nomination vote. The system is broken...so why spend the millions just to pat yourself on the back...This is who is going to save us money...Please!
Mitt and the GOP got it right...wish we could move fast forward to November 6th and vote out Obama...Mitt has the resume, whereas Obama was a plant by the democrats to see how America could be brainwashed with 'hope and change' while hiding the candidate's background which is STILL hidden 4 years later...I am looking forward to see the hit movie of 2016: Obama's America.
In looking at the comments, primarily people seem to think this is no biggie. Another case of the media expanding upon coverage to which most readers seem indifferent. Disconnect? You betcha. Could it be any reason why citizen journalism is on the rise (according to Pew Research Center). Hmmmm.....
During a campaign visit to Commerce, Michigan, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney marked his local roots by saying that no one ever asked him for his birth certificate because everyone knew both Romney and his wife were born and raised in the area. Shortly after, the Obama team posted a short video on YouTube stating the country did not need a Birther In Chief. The Romney campaign said this was a joke and no one has any doubts whatsoever that Obama was born in the U.S. What do the people think?
Funny how the disclosure requirements change once it becomes about the right. Two years of tax returns is all Mitt needs to release but thirteen years of Obama's tax returns and his birth certificate ... and the right still thinks he's hiding something. ...
Ouch. Not very good feelings surrounding this one if you look at the comment-sphere. What is actually happening here? For so long institutions have defined how the individual should behave and think, but there is more and more of a push-back against this strategy and a very aggressive tearing down of those currently associated with the same structures which are believed to be creating great suffering. Sociologist Albert J. Reiss says that typically there are contracts-of-sorts made between the two entities, but now those contracts are seemingly being broken and examined via exchange across comments. But there are still many who are on the side of status-quo. Let's observe and see how Clinton may be judged given exactly what he says at the Convention.
Well, the formal announcement has been made. Bill Clinton will reportedly formally nominate President Barack Obama as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee for the 2012 election. Clinton will speak on September 5 at this year’s Democratic National Convention, which will be held Sept. 3-6 in Charlotte. A campaign adviser told The New York Times that Clinton was chosen because he can explain to the people why Obama’s economic policies will help the nation. Let's see if "the people" agree with that statement.
What a hypocritical dirty business politics is. … Bill Clinton not too long ago wanted Hillary to run. The democrats did not back him. Bill is not a friend of the president nor of Democrats who sold Hillary out. … Yes, Bill Clinton's economy was the greatest last moment of the US while China was rising and computers now have invaded every aspect of the world, man is becoming useless. …
Bill Clinton worked with the Republican Congress and they together got the economy on a sound footing. … Together they had a surplus in the Treasury. It's sad that Clinton will stand before the "New Democrat" Convention and hail Obama … and ask the country and its people to extend by 4 more years what can only be called a mini-Depression. … Bill Clinton, don't do this. You have a pretty good reputation to protect.
A former president impeached for having been caught with his pants down in the Oval Office. A man who has 'shared' more than 15 scandals in the past 20 years with his lying wife. … A man who charges $80,000 per speaking engagement and has become a multimillionaire. … Those poor misguided, ignorant Democrats won't know what hit them when he opens his mouth. … We are ashamed and embarrassed that someone like this is speaking at a political national convention in the once great nation of the United States of America.
Distraction? Latest PR move to keep the media coverage going? Who knows for certain. The real interest here is that the fact that gender can still, in 2012, make for a shocker in politics. And when will we move past using representatives of groupings of people as opposed to a more organic synthesis of the actual group instead? At any rate, doesn't seem many from commentsphere are moved too much probably becuase they've seen it all before - and are actually more interested in issues this time around rather than appearance. For sure though, the female factor - even mere specualtion of it - has created the spotlight once again. Let's continue to track.
Mitt Romney’s lips have been sealed regarding his vice presidential search; but just a few days ago his wife, Ann, presented CBS News with a clue about what he may be thinking. Mitt is considering a woman for the VP ticket. It has been rumored that New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte could be a possibility. Will this potentially “competent, capable and willing to serve this country” running mate solidify Romney’s chance of seizing the presidency, or contradict his stance on women’s issues? Inquiring minds not only want to know, but discuss.
The VP dressage show tells us nothing. Mitt uses these tactics whenever there is a dip in the polling…last week Rubio was the window dressing. There are no candidates with a ‘similar personality’ because Mitt has no personality...he doesn’t even agree with most versions of his former self…
There is no woman out there that can save Mitt Romney with women because it is the Republicans policies that are turning off women voters. Mitt needs to tell his party to stop passing anti-women bills then… Mitt can get some women voters.