A breathtaking double standard. "Obama has to keep his "simmering disdain for Romney" under wraps

[NRaleighLiberal]

during the debate because otherwise, he would lose his "likability"". Yet Willard can put his obvious disdain for the President on stage for all to see in front of 50 million plus people, and it is a glorious, gutsy thing.

Another thing that struck me this morning (yes, I am still hopeful Obama will be reelected. No, I am not particularly hopeful about this particular version of American humanity). Willard's lie fest was made in the fullness of realization that many Americans believe what they are told (again, as I've said a zillion times here, think about the effectiveness of advertising). Think Rove and Cheney's repeated lies throughout the eight years of hell. Once the lies are out there, so much energy goes into battling them that it defeats the purpose - the belief in the lies becomes cemented and the actual truth can't penetrate - especially if it reinforces the paradigm of the voter.

Are we screwed? Life will go on, each one of us plots our individual paths through life. But is this a low point in terms of truth, the media actually serving the public, and where we are as a people? I think so. And it is disgusting to behold.

here endeth my Sunday morning rant...

[global1]

1. Again - To Reward Rmoney's Lies With A Debate Victory Is.....

goes against all we are taught about being a good person and being truthful. What kind of message does this send to children?

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. same kind of message we've been sending for a long time. victory at any cost.

not "we" as in Democrats, but it's out there everywhere, all over TV, social media - it is a loss of moral compass to satisfy greed.

the problem is that many people are intellectually lazy, so perception is their reality.

[lunatica]

5. There's been a definite trend towards worshipping money and unleashed power

It's been building for decades. The monster is created and now we are left with dealing with it.

[magical thyme]

3. do you have a context for that quote?

a link? was it on a Sunday morning program?

[lunatica]

4. Perhaps it's actually the OP's quote?

I think it's the OP's opinion.

[NHDEMFORLIFE]

6. Must reading

"What Liberal Media?" by Eric Alterman, 2003.
The post-debate coverage is the quintessential example of the media's laziness in focusing on form over substance and its love of covering the horserace rather than the public discourse.

[Bluenorthwest]

7. No one can closet you, you have to closet yourself and anyone who tells you you

must 'seem' more like another group of people is telling you to legitimize the bigots by trying to please them. As a gay man, I find the argument that 'he has to be X' to please bigots seriously disgusting and craven and yes, even bigoted.
Anyone who wants to tell me that I'd best not say or do something because it's 'too gay' and will upset homophobes will hear me say 'good, I like to upset bigots' not 'if I butch it up enough, will the right love me?'
It is a choice some make to try to present a personality that they think is the personality that bigots want them to have. That's called 'living in the closet'.
When it comes to TV, such as the debates, the fact is that unless one is extremely gifted, one best be their honest selves, becuase trying to be what others want you to be does not come off as anything but false. Unless you are Meryl Streep, your choices aer 'be yourself' or 'look fake'. If yourself is a bit pissed off, better to show that than to seem like a faker. If your opponent is a liar, faking up a false composure as a scheme to please bigots will just make you look like the other liar.
I say be who you are, how you are and let the bigots deal with it. Attempts to seem like 'one of the good ones' for bigots legitimizes the idea that others in our minorities are somehow wrong to be 'too angry' or 'too gay' and it suggestst that the bigots are correct, 'those others' are too this, and too that, but not me, no sir, I'm one of the good ones. I'm calm and I wear flanel shirts and I play golf, damn it, golf!
Does the GOP like Obama more when he is 'not angry'? No, they don't, they say 'he's without passion'. Does the GOP praise his bipartisan efforts? No, in fact they claim he refused to work with Congress, refused to speak to Republicans. So, is there really any sort of 'if...then' relationship between Obama's actions and the GOP's view? No, there is not. He can say 'yes' they simply say 'Obama yelled NO, NO!'. He can remain calm, they will just say 'he was livid'.
When you refuse your own being, you have now allowed the oponents to craft your image freely. It looks all 'safe' but it is suicide.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

8. Yes. There it is. Because when you're defined as an "angry black man"

to start with, that's what you live under: double standards. Anyone else who isn't black can have the nastiest public hate campaign ever permanently launched against you and that's just fine. But YOU better not utter an even slightly annoyed WORD or you are being the proverbial "angry black person".

Same with women. They are defined as "overly-emotional", "unreasonable", "PMS'ing" and "crazy" right out the gate. So they live under the same horrendous double standards. If a woman shows ANY emotion AT ALL under any circumstance, she's deemed "crazy" and "overly-emotional" (and it matters not what was done to her to cause said reaction). It is a method of oppression and gaslighting that labels unreasonable and invalidates the reactions and behavior of certain segments of society (blacks, women) in order to make invisible and to excuse the behavior of other segments of society (in just this example, white men). Sadly, it works. The media peddles it. The public buys it.

[NRaleighLiberal]

9. Bingo - + 1000000