2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

In the meantime, Governor Scott Walker said that Eastwood's bizarre speech made him "cringe".

Movie critic Roger Ebert tweeted that Eastwood's routine was "unworthy of him".

Clearly, it was not the veteran actor's finest moment.

[Roy Karrde]

In the meantime, Governor Scott Walker said that Eastwood's bizarre speech made him "cringe".

Movie critic Roger Ebert tweeted that Eastwood's routine was "unworthy of him".

Clearly, it was not the veteran actor's finest moment.

Dude I would like to see ANYONE that has a problem with it, do better improving on a stage for 10 minutes infront of a world wide audience. Remember that, he had no teleprompter, no script, he made it up as he went along. And considering he went up there and did it, he clearly sees the trouble of another 4 years of this Presidency.

[Dark Sage]

I'm not one to speak, but if I was Clint's agent, I would have suggested rehearsing a bit.

Btw, Roy, remember when you said this?

Aww some one a little jealous that the Republicans got a mega star like Clint Eastwood? Don't worry, the Democrats have their own little movie star Eva Longoria from movies like Arther Christmas and The Sentinel.

Nope, not jealous at all. Because he bombed big time.

[Roy Karrde]

Nope, not jealous at all. Because he bombed big time.

Really? We can go into his speech, and how good or bad it was, how genuine or not he came off. But the RNC had interest peeked for a week on who the "Mystery Guest" was, it made news sites and was talked about on broadcasts. It drove people to tune in, especially when it was found out that it was Eastwood much more so if it was just "Marco Rubio" that was going to speak.

A snap poll from Florida shows that 22% changed their vote from undecided to Romney, while only 12% changed their vote from undecided to Obama.

You can scoff, but I have a feeling that Eastwood drove in a few percentage points for Romney from Florida.

Edit: Also to note from the Florida poll 49% liked the speech, only 24% didn't, and that includes a majority of seniors and independents.

[Dark Sage]

Really? I expected the Convention to help Romney better than THAT. Conventions typically tend to do that.

[Plantae]

In summary of the previous discussion, I'll just say that Clint Eastwood could have done better, and that Romney probably won't receive a long-term boost in the polls from his performance. A convention bump is typical for both candidates.

But as I said unmarried women are typically reliably liberal so is that really such a shocker?

I'm not disagreeing with the assertion that more unmarried women are liberal. My point is that if more unmarried women are driven to Obama, and more married women to Romney, is there going to be any measureable effect in the polls, for either candidate? I don't think so.

Dude he wrote in exceptions in a bill that was produced LONG before the thought of him as a Vice President ever came up.

Writing exceptions into the bill isn't the same as personally supporting those exceptions. I was already aware of the bill in question. Ryan believes that banning abortion with these exceptions would be a step in the right direction, but he doesn't believe in the exceptions themselves. Ryan has stated several times prior to his vice presidential candidacy that he opposes abortion under almost any circumstances (except when the mother's life is at immediate risk).

He also co-sponsored the Sanctity of Human Life act, which would declare that personhood begins at fertilization. Not only would trump any legal justification for abortion in cases of rape or incest, it would also outlaw some forms of contraception.

In addition, he has been mum on the subject of whether mothers who unlawfully commit abortion should face jail time or significant penalty. His remarks on the matter? "If it's illegal, it's illegal."

I'm not sure how he could be more extreme.

Yeah.. so a married woman, who's family is suffering, who's living pay check to pay check, who has kids moving back in with them because it is impossible to find a job. Is going to vote for a man who could very well continue the malaise for another 4 years because she likes his views on abortion.

You're missing the point. The economy is the most important issue. But abortion is also an important issue. Voters consider every position a politician may have, not just one position. Also, I wouldn't forget that there are economic issues that underscore abortion rights too.

I think you will agree that it is easier to demonstrate differences in abortion views to the average voter than it is differences in economic policy.

Paul Ryan's views on abortion are evident. Regardless of whether or not it is true, I think it's a lot harder to prove that Barack Obama's second term will result in more economic "malaise."

Views I might add, are actually quite radical, and far more out of the mainstream than Romney

This about the man who said: "nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances." Obama does support early-term abortions, but he also supports a ban on late-term abortions. And he believes that we should provide education and contraception to young people to make abortions more uncommon. This view seems to fit within existing abortion law, as established by Roe v. Wade.

According to this Gallup Poll, as of Jan. 2012, 39% are satisfied with current abortion law, and 18% of those dissatisfied believe that current abortion law should either remain the same or become less strict. In total, 57% of Americans believe that existing abortion law is adequate, or should be less strict. Obama's positions are hardly radical in this respect, and with his support on some bans of late-term abortion, are actually considerably more moderate than the 25% of Americans who say that abortion should be legal under any circumstances.

[Dark Sage]

I'd like to say something if I may.

I have never run a marathon. I am not in good enough shape to do so.

It's not something I'm proud of... But...

Unlike Paul Ryan... I'm telling the truth.

[Roy Karrde]

Really? I expected the Convention to help Romney better than THAT. Conventions typically tend to do that.

Umm Conventions produce a 5 to 6 point bounce usually, anything beyond that is even better.

This about the man who said: "nobody's pro-abortion. I think it's always a tragic situation. We should try to reduce these circumstances." Obama does support early-term abortions, but he also supports a ban on late-term abortions. And he believes that we should provide education and contraception to young people to make abortions more uncommon. This view seems to fit within existing abortion law, as established by Roe v. Wade.

Actually I am speaking of Obama's previous support for late term abortions, up to and including the point that if a baby survives, that it is killed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407882,00.html

If Ryan's "Hidden" support for No Abortions is fair game, then Obama's previous support of Late Term and Post Birth Abortions is also fair game.

[Plantae]

Actually I am speaking of Obama's previous support for late term abortions, up to and including the point that if a baby survives, that it is killed.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407882,00.html

If Ryan's "Hidden" support for No Abortions is fair game, then Obama's previous support of Late Term and Post Birth Abortions is also fair game.

Illinois law already had statutes that ordered doctors to use life-saving measures to support any fetuses that survived late-term abortions. To me, that suggests that the original Born Alive Infant Protection Act was nothing more than a political charade. I won't deny Barack Obama's record on the issue; in 2001 and 2002, it is clear that his opposition to that law was due to the failure to include language similar to that in the federal bill (which passed in 2002).

The real issue is the bill killed in committee in 2003, which did contain this neutrality clause. But even if we could construe this as Obama supporting infanticide, which seems a rather biased interpretation, it doesn't matter.

Your use of the word "previous" seems to be key here. Please point me to anywhere where Barack Obama has demonstrated legislative support of late-term abortions since 2003.

Ryan's views, on the other hand, are not "hidden" and they are not "previous." Even his recent statements support that he has not changed his position; he is merely allowing Romney to set the agenda. As in this recent interview.

" 'I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,' Ryan explained. 'But let’s remember, I’m joining the Romney-Ryan ticket. And the president makes policy.' "

Ryan's exclusion of all abortion exceptions (excluding when the mother's life is in immediate danger) is codified in his support of this bill from 2011. Not, as with Obama, a measure he voted against nine years ago, and has since disowned based on his support of current legislation.

But also based on Ryan's comments, you're right to say that this isn't an issue voters should necessarily be concerned with. As Ryan said, the president sets the policy. Even if Romney were to win the election, then, it doesn't seem likely that we would see legislation passed that bans abortions without the noted exceptions.