The Republican National Convention

By the way, it isn't only conservative Southern Democrats like Zell Miller that think the Democratic Party doesn't have the stomach to fight the terror war.

Ed Koch, former mayor of New York City who is no conservative at all, also thinks so.

I don't see any Republicans of prominence from the past or present politic crossing to the Democratic side saying Kerry would make the better Commander-in-Chief than Bush does.

Koch also disagrees with Bush on all domestic issues, but he understands that if we don't pursue and defeat terrorism with clarity and conviction, then nothing else matters.

 

DarthMatter, indeed I have heard of the First Amendment. But I notice that your quoting of the amendment does not include the phrase "separation of church and state."

There's a reason why it didn't. It ain't there.


jollydwarf, I don't care if the content of what I write scares you. Truth is, there never has been a complete separation of religion and politics. A Bush presidency isn't a chance for the "Bible-thumpers" to impose their views, it's an opportunity to turn the tide against activist judges who have concocted this idea of complete separation in order to suppress religious expression.


And our founding documents not only acknowledge religions (plural), they acknowledge God.

Singular.


It is clear that a serious REACTIONARY effort is afoot. This isn't about partisanship anymore, and it really hasn't been for the last four years. Heaven, for many of us, is NOT sitting around in robes in vaguely Greek architecture singing bland hymns, avoiding alcohol and profanity and sexuality, while chuckling over today's "Family Cirucs" comic strip, a puffy white mist from the clouds at our feet.

Frankly, I don't care whether you're a Roman Catholic who needs to nurture your spirituality and has "an innate need to believe in 'something more'."

(Funny, I thought Catholics didn't merely believe in "somthing more," but in the risen Christ, God Incarnate. There are very many who do, but they usually don't bash their fellow Christians with such zeal.)

Your ideas about evangelical Christians are abonimable in their ignorance, as bad as the misconceptions of many atheists.

 

Another word.

Jay Nordlinger from NR Online wrote today, "Can you imagine conservatives disrupting a Democratic nominee's acceptance speech? I can't. Am I naïve? Don't think so."

I agree, and there are other things I can't imagine.

I can't imagine Republicans bashing -- yes, bashing -- certain religious groups (or even a-religious groups like atheists) with the ignorance and zeal I've occasionally seen on this forum.


But I digress.

Why in the world did those schmucks interrupt the convention? They had plenty of press coverage of their semi-peaceful, not-all-that-rational protest outside.

And, many of these people are supposedly for tolerance, and yet they simply can't tolerate the idea of Republicans having their convention. They're supposedly for democracy, and yet they want to silence -- not refute, not challenge, not defeat electorally, but silence -- their opposition.



I tell ya, I think they interrupted the speeches for the same reason Kerry quickly planned a midnight rally to announce that he's a Vietnam veteran and to attack Cheney's lack of military service (even though questioning Kerry's service is inexcusable)>

It's panic, unadulterated panic.

After trying to tell yourselves and the world that the election was a fait accompli after the DNC, you now realize that you've elected a lemon.

A Mondale.

A Dukakis.

And he ain't gonna win.

Four more years of George W. Bush is a very, very real possibility, and you just can't get used to the idea.

 

Bubba,

You are correct. John Kerry's inappropriate Midnight Speech was a panic cry. He is desperate. He is thin-skinned. He is indecisive. He is out for NOTHING but politcal popularity. He has no idea how to handle the truth the Republicans presented about his Senate record.

In addition,

even though I consider myself Atheist, I welcome the clear moral clarity of George W. Bush. The nation needs that whether people want to believe it or not.
What's funny is hearing the Democrats complain about his religious influence yet never said a word when EVERY Sunday you would see Media coverage of Bill Clinton waltzing into his church...Bible in hand. Such hypocrisy defines the Democratic Party.

 

As I stated above in my analysis, I must agree with my fellow posters here Qui-Rune and Bubba above. It was a desparation move on Kerry's part and a terrible error on the part of his campaign.

Such a thing has never been done before by the opposing candidate in political history.

Again, it shows just how thin-skinned Kerry is.

Two side notes on Kerry's speech at midnight: One, Kerry mentioned that the Red Sox were 2 1/2 games back. That was wrong. The Red Sox are 3 1/2 games back. Second, Kerry was criticizing Cheney for the deferment issue, but Kerry forgot to mention that he applied for a deferment but was denied. Therefore, he still didn't learn his lesson and continues to make the mistake of dwelling on Vietnam. He will pay the price for it.

 

DM,

Good point about "deferment".
Why Kerry insists on attempting to bash Cheney is beyond me. I could care less about what happened 30 years ago. As I have said in the past:

The hatred and anger that has been portrayed by the Left over the past few years is directly correlated to the fact that today's Democratic Party has NO relevance in our post 9/11 world and they know this!
That is why we do NOT hear them speak of Kerry's 20 years in the Senate. They have to go ALL the back to his 4 months in Vietnam to show the TINIEST incling that Kerry has some idea of Military and Defense.

 

Bush > Kerry. Why? Because after watching both of their speeches at their party's conventions, I have come away knowing where Bush stands and having no clue where Kerry stands. I feel like singing, "You can go with this, you can go with that, you can go with this, you can go with that" whenever I hear Kerry speak. The man has no principles to go on. He just feels out the polls it seems and goes with whatever is popular. That's not a mark of a good leader.

Seriously, how can anyone want to have someone in office like Kerry? The man talks a ton but he gives no clear plan of action for what he will do. His voting record in congress is also weighing heavily against him.

Like him or not, at least from Bush you get the real deal. Kerry is about as fake as they come.

 

If you've bought into the no-holds-barred fearmongering of the Bush administration, then, sure, I can see how the democratic position of engagement with the world, multinational solutions to global problems, and a commitment to balancing security concerns with fundamental liberties at home, not to mention a desire to actually do something about our struggling, job-hemorrhaging economy may seem irrelevant to you. But it doesn't seem irrelevant to half the people of this country. Maybe more than half come election day. We'll just have to wait and see.

I thought Bush's speech was well-done, even though he gave his same old lame dodge instead of actually trying to justify his war with Iraq. I also agree with Bub above that the attempted disruption of the president's speech was distasteful.

I also agree that Bush has done an excellent job giving the impression that he stands for something, whereas Kerry has allowed himself to be victimized by the Bush campaign's relentless "flip-flop" theme.

Maybe Kerry really will deflate like a Mondale or a Dukakis, but it's a little too soon to be making those predictions, not right after the convention at any rate. The last three weeks have been horrible for the Kerry campaign, but we'll find out soon whether Kerry knows how to take back the initiative, go on the offensive. Last night's midnight rally was a good place to begin.

 

It's amazing how quickly people can forget about reality.

Moving into one's castle in the sky is a lot easier than taking a hard look around. I am admittedly partisan, but I'm not stupid, and I have to say, the comments in here from the President's supporters this week have bordered on the asinine.

Here are the facts, for those who are interested:

1) This was W's week. The media, the hype, all of that was played up in the same manner as before the DNC convention. The excitement you all are feeling is exactly the same thing that I felt a month ago.

2) The "core states" have not changed even a little bit on whom they support. Solid red is still solid red, same goes for blue.

3) Swings states are still very close.

4) There are two months, plus three debates, an economic forecast, and quite a bit of campaigning before election day.

5) Bush will go up in the polls. However, unless it is a tremendous surge, or he stays consistently ahead, it will not mean anything more than Kerry's small bounce did. I do not expect this to change.

6) Kerry is going to hit back hard. Giving a rally at midnight is not "desperation" in any way, shape or form, it shows the opposition that he is on his toes. The campaign now begins in earnest. Edwards was in PA yesterday, and it did not even make the news.


How's that for a dose of reality? Let's all come back to earth, folks. Both sides have a real and legitimate shot at the White House, and nothing's changed. It is close, and the reality will be whoever does a better job of getting out the base will win.

The gloves are now off. Things aren't "over", they are just beginning. We should all keep that in mind.

Peace,

V-03

 

our struggling, job-hemorrhaging economy may seem irrelevant to you.

That is technically incorrect. We haven't had a net loss of jobs in well over a year (I think it has been 18 months).

We lost well over 1 million jobs in just the 3 months post-9/11.

However, the economy has rebounded, and (as I posted in the Elections thread) the unemployment rate dropped again in August to 5.4% with 144,000 jobs added. I mean who can be serious and complain about a 5.4% unemployment rate?

6.0% unemployment is considered full employment of a society. 5.4% is very good, and probably the best in the industrialized world.

This type of discussion can be carried over to the Elections Thread...

---

Giving a rally at midnight is not "desperation" in any way, shape or form, it shows the opposition that he is on his toes.

Nonsense, V03.

It's a sign of desparation to stop his hemorrhaging campaign. No candidate has ever done that in history. It's simply desparate, and an absolutely stupid move by his campaign. I would have criticized Bush had he made a similar mistake. His moronic campaign allowed him to once again make reference to Vietnam. I mean that is just plain dumb.

It shows Kerry's thin skin for criticism and his inability to be able to deal with it effectively.

Also, V03 the DNC convention was awash. The RNC Convention was done far better and already is demonstrating to be more effective.

Karl Rove has already proven why he is a master at political campaigning.

You guys should have brought out Carville early, V03.

 

"Moving into one's castle in the sky is a lot easier than taking a hard look around. I am admittedly partisan, but I'm not stupid, and I have to say, the comments in here from the President's supporters this week have bordered on the asinine."


Since you said it, can we debate it?

Joking.

Seriously. I've been put into the "partisan" corner, this and last election. However, and some will see this comment as inflammatory, although I say it with no insinuation towards anyone herein participating:

I don't understand for the life of me how any sane, intelligent, rational individual with a modicum of common sense could vote for John Kerry.

Ed Koch is a notorious Democrat, and, incidentally, a favorite columnist of mine to read, and although I strenously oppose many of his positions (most recently his stance on same-sex marriage), I respect him. He, like Zell Miller, is endorsing Bush over his own party's candidate, and that should speak volumes.

I grew up the son of a Southern Democrat, a now deceased family member was the personal friend of President Jimmy Carter. I don't know that this qualifies as a pedigree of any kind, but I would hope it demonstrates a degree of objectivity. That was then, but today's Democratic Party is not the same, and as President Ronald Reagan stated once, and Zell Miller basically reiterated, my family didn't leave the Democratic Party, it disenfranchised and abandoned us. I won't be voting for John Kerry, nor did I vote for Al Gore, nor Bill Clinton, because my family, my nation, and my principles are more important than neurotic personalities or blindly holding a party-line and risking the world of tomorrow that belongs to my children and descendants. My father, the once staunch and ardent Democrat, arguably very liberal by inclination, will also not be voting for John Kerry.

I can only wonder if the Democratic Party will ever wake up to the fact it is inadvertantly empowering the Republican Party, pushing many of us across the party-lines?

I think that despite the perception the liberal news media is fostering of a "deadheat," that this election
is going to further demonstrate how many citizens are being distanced from 'their own' party by that party, the Democratic Party, which is becoming it's own worst enemy.

 

Ok, here is where Kerry goes on a rant that makes absolutely no sense based on what I read here and here.

So the big question is, does Kerry think he is fooling anyone? He is trying to convince us that Bush has given us no plan for his next four years and that Bush has lost us tons of jobs that only he, Kerry, can bring back. Well according to the second and third links that I have posted alone, Kerry is dead wrong.

 

Darth Mischievous,

Stats, as we all know, can be manipulated. I don't feel confident in the economy, nor do I hold Dubya solely accountable.

Kerry made a statement regarding employment, suggesting that (paraphrasing) the new jobs are lower paying jobs, minimum wage positions, and families cannot subsist on those earnings. I wholeheartedly agree with his appraisal, as it matches the growth in at least my own community. Nationally? I honestly don't know, but I do know many highly educated and competent individuals who've lost jobs to "restructuring" or suffered economic setbacks due to "necessary" reductions in salary. Many people, family, friends, business associates and potentially myself as I await the decision of the execs' of company by which I am employed.

 

I don't think the unemployment rate stat has been manipulated, if that is what you are insinuating.

Of course, the Dems can't complain about the unemployment rate so they have to rely on arguments about quality and outsourcing.

You know, strangely enough, it sounds eerily similar to what Mondale was complaining about in 1984.

 

Just a reminder-

To remain consistent in policy, this thread will be locked later this afternoon. If anyone has any final observations to make, now would be the time.

Otherwise, discussion should start falling back into the elections thread.

 

I do think the comments are legit.
To amend my last post, I work for a national company, as do and did those referred to, not simply geographically isolated small business.

Our mayor not too long ago boasted of creating 600 new job openings, but the openings were all part time, minimum wage positions. The mayor is a Democrat, incidentally, for what it's worth, since I did mention Kerry's statement---which I don't perceive to be a misrepresentation.

On the Convention: Dubya did touch on the economy, but as one of the commentators observed (Tom Brokaw, yes, we know he is very partisan) at the close of the convention, it was somewhat glossed over.

Dubya's speech itself was, overall, excellent. Those who've criticized his ability as an effective and accomplished communicator, in my opinion, have been left with little ground for serious critique after last night. IMHO,'natch.

 

I placed this in my above post as an edit, but I thought it was more appropriate on its own after the above post:

Brooks: I guess it depends what field you are in concerning your confidence. I am very confident in my employment situation. I can get jobs anywhere and at my own terms (it helps my employment situation that there is a rather large nursing shortage, which is only going to get worse). My best friend, a professional engineer (who is very liberal), is also very confident in his job situation at the current time (he hates to concede that, by the way, in political terms).

---

I also thought that the center stage thing came across really well. It seemed to help Bush who is as we all know (indluding the man himself) not the most eloquent of speakers.

 

I can't believe no one has mentioned Pataki's horrible speach, yet. It was pretty bad, and severely effected my opinion of him.

The appropriation of 9/11 during the RNC has been tacky, at best.

 

DM,

Funny, you mentioned those particular areas, as three of the individuals I had in mind are professionally degree'd in the medical and engineering fields. Two are engineers and one a physical therapist.

 

Opinions, opinions, MMMM. I know Kerry's your man to begin with (or you're leaning that way for sure), so I don't expect positive analysis.

It was the defining moment of Bush's Presidency and relevant to what's going on now.

If a Democrat were in office when that happened, I would fully expect him to talk about it as well. I wouldn't criticize them either about it, as it is in context of national defense.

It was an appropriate demonstration of the type of leader George W. Bush is during a time of national crisis.

However, I will agree that I thought Pataki's delivery wasn't all that great. He is the Governor of New York, though. I expected the substance of the speech. It was his vocal tone in delivery that I found lacking.


---

Brooks:

My salary has gone up 17% in 3 years.

 

DM,

Just noticed your sig. HILARIOUS!


MMMM,
I'm a big fan of Heller and Catch-22!

Reasonably, all things considered, the Democrats are just as guilty of "appropriating 9/11" but in order to use it as a political cudgel, wouldn't you say?

I mean, the sword cuts both ways.

Reasonably, all things considered, how in the heck wouldn't Bush speak of 9/11? All things considered.
(Extreme understatement here on my part.)

 

That's a valid question I think.

I mean, how could any President NOT mention something like 9/11 during the election process? It would be similiar to people criticizing FDR for mentioning Pearl Harbor.

I don't think anyone ever said the political process should be completely neutral in its focus. If that was the case, why even have the process?

Kerry certainly has the right to present his opinion on the administraion, just like the President should be able to discuss those same defining moments.

At the core, that's the definition of politics.

 

"...your quoting of the [1st] amendment does not include the phrase "separation of church and state. There's a reason why it didn't. It ain't there."

I know it ain't there, Genius The first clause of the First Amendment MEANS there will be a separation of church and state. Part of the reason the US was founded was for the freedom from religious intolerance. The First Amendment is what guarantees that Atheists can speak freely, and it's what keeps the government from becoming a Southern Baptist Church, even now.

 

I found his blame of Clinton for the attacks to be unnecessary and shoddy. Certianly I have argued that the previous administration made mistakes, but the speech to introduce Bush for his second term is NOT the place to air those grievences. Especially when parading the attacks around so prominently, when you are already running the risk of partisan exploitation.

That's the first thing off the top of my head, but I thought it was a poor speech in tone, content and delivery. The good news, for the GOP, is that Bush was very solid/strong in his speech, and his is all that will matter.


In the end, though, months from now and especially years from now, Bush's strong speech is going to be overshadowed by Miller's rant.


"I mean, how could any President NOT mention something like 9/11 during the election process?"

Granted, of course. However, clearly there is sliding scale, here, and what some people are comfortable with, others will disagree. I'm not in the camp that says it shouldn't be mentioned, but some of the rhetoric that has been employed on Mr. Bush's behalf has been 'over the line', in terms of partisan/exploitation of a national event.

Think back to Miller's speech, when talking about the GOP and WWII, not making it an issue. At the same time, it would not have been appropriate for FDR to go overboard, in using the war exploitatively, even though he needs to use it to build his candidacy. The sword cuts both ways

...and 'the other guy would have done it' argument is a big reason why politics are so screwed up in this country, and this messageboard.




"I know Kerry's your man to begin with (or you're leaning that way for sure), so I don't expect positive analysis."

Uhhhhhhhhhhh....

I'm actually quite undecided at the moment. I'm sure Kerry supporters think I'm a pro-Bush guy, too, though. If I'm not on 'your' team, I must be rooting for the other guy, right?

 

MMMM,

"In the end, though, months from now and especially years from now, Bush's strong speech is going to be overshadowed by Miller's rant."

I don't know if I agree that it will have been overshadowed, but I think Zell's speech hit home with both Republicans and many Democrats. Like I said above, many Democrats simply don't feel well represented by their party in the Kerry platform, so it resonates.

It also resonates with individuals like myself on a more personal level who are now considered 'persona non grata' by some Democrats because we have become disillusioned, and we do feel that the true imperative of the election process is to put the best qualified candidate into office, that loyalty to America supercedes party affiliations. And to see a notably prominent Democrat stand up and express our sentiments is reaffirming. It's as if to say,"See, I'm not the only one." The perception of "us" or "them" put somewhat to the wayside in an affirmation of an "us."

I'm tired, I hope you see what I'm getting at.