1
   

Turn on the Republican convention right now! Bush Sr.'s on!

 
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 01:01 pm
And so, Sofia, it would be difficult to follow the "rules" on voting when the "rules" were being changed, manipulated, and PURGED.

And then, ultimately circumvented by the Supreme Court, because the eventual loser didn't like the idea of state's rights taking care of their own election.

Coming from a Republican, that would be the ultimate level of hypocrisy.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 01:47 pm
sorry sofia, i'm one of those folks who tend to believe that something fishy went down in florida. oddly, jeb is the player that i think probably had the least to do with it. but from harris (and her locals) up to scalia, there are way too many connections to the bush campaign.

i agree with you about race as a wedge tool. but i think that both parties are guilty of that. and the ethnic special interest groups help to provide that opportunity to them.

race, like religion has no place in politics. when you have a multitude of hyphenated americans as we do now, it only damages "we the people".

that's my story and i'm stickin' to it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 02:10 pm
DTOM makes a good, valid point.

When you talk about using race as a wedge tool, then what do you think the Republicans are doing with the Cuban American vote in Florida? They DESPERATELY need that vote to win Florida. Either that, or they're just gonna have to disenfranchise more elligible African Americans from voting.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 02:48 pm
OK, considering I dont have all that much more time than just to read TNR tonight and hop on in here, shall I read you some stuff I found there?

Jeremy Mc Carter on Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Convention's second day:

Quote:
At last, the networks tuned in, Schwarzenegger turned up, and the delegates looked alive. Ebullient and beaming, the governor had delegates gaping up at him like Beatlemaniacs. (The Bush twins and First Lady, following him, couldn't help but be anticlimax.) His speech was self-deprecating, funny, and percussive: a compelling blend of Ronald Reagan, Horatio Alger, and "Saturday Night Live." Like Giuliani on Monday, he could also be wildly off-base. "When that lone, young Chinese man stood in front of those tanks in Tiananmen Square, America stood with him," Schwarzenegger said. Actually, the president's father coddled Chinese leaders over the objections of human rights groups and Democrats; maybe the "him" was Deng Xiaopeng?

At other mind-bending moments, as when Schwarzenegger spoke of the need to "terminate terrorism," or called pessimists "economic girlie men," the speech became indistinguishable from parody. The creators of "The Simpsons," in their wickedest Rainier Wolfcastle episode, couldn't have dreamed up a more ingenious lampoon. But Schwarzenegger's outsized personality, combined with the speech's American-Dream bona fides, suggests bright prospects, for him and the party. "My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans," he said, and the phrases resonated. Could an Austrian bodybuilder really turn thousands of new Asian and Latino voters into Republicans, effect a change in the Constitution, and end up in the White House? Like I said, funny times.


Jeremy Mc Carter on Rudy Giuliani and the Convention's first day:

Quote:
Who better than Rudy Giuliani--mayor, Mafia-buster, and New York hero--to cap Monday's program at the Republican National Convention? For the previous three and a half hours, the Republicans had thrown every verbal, visual, and biographical argument within reach onto the stage to cast themselves as the tough guys, the "You talkin' to me?" party. This was not mere deference to the host city. After John Kerry's military-heavy convention in Boston, the Republicans wanted to reassert their claim to being the party of rippling biceps. At some point maybe they'll bother trying to put a friendly face on the unrelentingly conservative platform, but for now the diversity-and-compassion shtick will have to wait: Monday was all about kicking ass.

"A Nation of Courage" was the night's announced theme. The wording may be a little tortured, but you get the point. The same goes for much of the program. The crowd got into the act by waving signs emblazoned with the theme, or "We Support the Troops." The latter was printed in military-style stenciled letters; okay, we get it. But this was just the start. [..]

St. Louis Ram Jason Sehorn and actress wife Angie Harmon saw Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Stars, and Purple Hearts, and raised him two Congressional Medals of Honor by introducing Rodolfo Hernandez (Army) and Thomas Hudner (Navy). "Thank you for supporting a leader of courage," Harmon told the vets. Ron Silver, the actor, New Yorker, and, according to his head-scratching introduction, holder of a master's degree in Chinese history, made deft use of his ability to seem at once perfectly lucid and completely bonkers. When he talked about terrorism, Silver was angry, seething, barely able to contain himself; I feared for the teleprompters. "We will never forget, we will never forgive, we will never excuse," he growled. [..]

After an understated, affecting 9/11 tribute [..] it was time for the Rudy show. Giuliani did many things last night, but deliver a speech is not one of them. Performance art is more like it. He praised Bush, attacked Kerry, spun yarns, and doubled back on himself. It was crude and nuanced, moving and goofy, stately and colloquial. You can see why he gets paid piles of money to put on this show. The performance was a delivery system, and what it delivered was Rudyness.

Giuliani was backed by a towering image of midtown at twilight. Still he managed to stand out. No demure blue or standard red tie would suit a mayor eager to slip into drag when occasion demands it: His neckwear was bright orange and striped, as obnoxious and mesmerizing as its wearer. The meaner Giuliani gets, the more he enjoys himself, and the more we enjoy watching him. He said that Kerry voted against the first Iraq war, which drew boos. "Ah, but he must have heard you booing," Giuliani said, because he later said he supported it. He hung Kerry with his own words on his vote for and/or against the $87 billion for the war; all he had to do was shrug his New Yorker's shrug. "Maybe this explains John Edwards's need for two Americas--one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing," he said. The Democrats should count themselves lucky this wasn't on the networks: The shrug alone would have cost them a point.

Some of the Rudy show didn't make much sense, as when he called Saddam himself a weapon of mass destruction, or when he said free people always prevailing over oppressed people was "the story of the Old Testament." Some of it sounded too good to be true, like the story of a construction worker giving Bush a bear hug. The punchline is a Secret Service officer wagging a finger in the mayor's face: "If this guy hurts the president, Giuliani, you're finished." America's Mayor, finished? After a performance so thoroughly, shamelessly compelling, that's hard to imagine, even if the story is true.


Marisa Kataz on Rudy Giuliani:

Quote:
here are many qualities that make a great leader," former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said last night. "But having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader." So leadership means sometimes being unpopular. It's an odd message for one of the country's most-loved politicians [..] to deliver on behalf of a president (a Time Person of the Year himself) who has won many a vote because of his "likeability factor" and who, for a good portion of his first term, enjoyed the highest sustained approval ratings ever measured. But the tactical brilliance of Giuliani's speech before the Republican National Convention last night was that he found a way to prop up Bush, skewer Kerry, and defend his own record all with a single, simple conceit: that popularity is overrated. [..]

Giuliani sought to play up how Bush is put down not to cast a shadow but to group him with the greats. "One of my heroes, Winston Churchill, saw the dangers of Hitler while his opponents characterized him as a war-mongering gadfly," Giuliani said. "Another one of my heroes, Ronald Reagan, saw and described the Soviet Union as 'the evil empire' while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan's intelligence. President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is." If Bush is a magnet for criticism, Giuliani suggested, it is merely because, like these other great leaders, he is able to see a future world better than the one he inherited.

Then on to Kerry. Giuliani offered him as the antithesis of Bush's resolve in the face of unpopular opinion. [..] Kerry, Giuliani was saying, shifts his position with the political winds, in an attempt to remain popular. [..]

Yet the flaw in Giuliani's logic is that periods of unpopularity don't necessarily prove a politician right. He talked about the importance of encouraging "accountable governments" abroad. But at home, Giuliani seems to wave off the value of popular sentiment. What he must understand, especially if he's going to make a run for higher office, is that sometimes, when the majority of the country says you're on the wrong track, it doesn't mean that you're a visionary leader. It means that you're actually on the wrong track.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 02:52 pm
Giuliani was dog meat in NYC until 9/11. A lame duck mayor going through a messy divorce in which public sympathy went toward his wife. Known toward the end of his term for taking on art museums because they offended his tender sensibilities.

Now he's the poster child for resolve in this face of terrorism. Spare me, please...
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 02:55 pm
Oh well, so much for not exploiting 9/11 and it's thousands of victims.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 02:56 pm
Giuliani's been doing it since 9/12. And making a tidy sum for himself as a consultant of some sort. Nice work if you can get it!
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 03:14 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
[F9/11] was an op-ed piece wrapped around visual facts. As you've seen the movie, do you believe McCain was right in stating that Michael thought Iraq was an Oasis of peace and that we shouldn't have invaded based on that premise (which is utterly false, IMO)?

It's one of the scenes I recall that utterly turned me off. There was this part where Moore did the before/after thing on Iraq. Images of Iraq before the war: smiling, happy children, peaceful scenes. Segue into images of Iraq during the war: bombs, smoke, horriddly, bloody victims hurriedly carted off. Can we make it any clearer than this, dear dumb audience? War is BAAAD. Peace is GOOOD. Yeah, cause everyone knows that pre-war Saddam-ruled Iraq was just one picture of happy, smiling children and teens playing carefree soccer, or whatever such fodder he put in there.

(I always still wanted to jot down my opinion of the movie here, but never did. But one of the things I cynically scribbled down in the dark watching the movie was: "The idyll of Saddam-era Iraq: happy children!")

I was against the Iraq war myself. But the way Moore made his case right there was morally bankrupt. As in most of the movie.

Bottom line, IMNSHO: F9/11 was a grating exercise in obfuscating the utter flakiness of its underlying arguments by provoking every reaction it could, jerking your tears, triggering your outrage, perplexing you with scenes of hilarious insult or perplexed disbelief. It was agitprop straight from the mid-twentieth century tradition and scary enough if only because of that - except that there was no there, there. Just a lotta noise.

Does anyone know whether Craven seen F9/11? I'm pretty sure he must have hated it too, but I can't remember anymore whether he posted about it here.
0 Replies
 
jespah
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 03:31 pm
Sofia wrote:
Isn't it a federal law--convicts lose the right to vote?
Some of them?


Actually, no, these sorts of decisions devolve to the states. This happens to be an article from 2000 (and since then, there's been a lawsuit in Florida, I've honestly forgotten its outcome, re ex-cons getting the right to vote), but it lays it out pretty well: http://slate.msn.com/default.aspx?id=78066 Note that this is the disenfranchisement of people who've already paid their debt to society, former convicts. I don't think anyone's arguing for the right of folks who are currently behind bars for a felony conviction to be able to vote.

Ah, and here's a story on the lawsuit, which at least as of late July of this year didn't seem to be resolved: http://new.blackvoices.com/news/bv-news-prisoners072004,0,6068337.story?coll=bv-news-black-headlines

And, in Ohio at least, even the elections officials are unsure of ex-cons' voting rights status. See: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/08/18/loc_felonvote18.html
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 03:36 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
Oh well, so much for not exploiting 9/11 and it's thousands of victims.
This is a silly statement. Half of what I've heard in the last couple of years is criticism for W's response to 9/11, but his side should duck the topic? Please. It happens to be the most important thing that happened during his first term and it still dominates the minds of our public. If either side chose to ignore that topic it would be tantamount to throwing in the towel.

Oh, and Guliani wasn't the only former New York Mayor to endorse W. Idea
http://premierespeakers.com/photos/554.jpg



Stellar answer to the F-9/11 question Nimh!... and it should mean something coming from you. Idea
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 03:50 pm
Nother sharp - and rather ominous - observation from the TNR staff:

Quote:
EXPECT LESS: TNR crack reporter-researcher Marisa Katz has done a little research and found an interesting thing about John McCain and Rudy Giuliani's speeches. Neither of them, despite defending the war in Iraq in detail, mentioned the word "democracy." There were plenty of references to "freedom" and some to governments that were "accountable." But no mention of the signature phrase so central to Bush's vision of the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism in general. It's a testament to how much Republicans have tacitly ratcheted down expectations for the Iraq war, even while claiming to believe in it more than ever.

--Peter Beinart

Lessee what Bush will say ... or won't say.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 03:53 pm
nimh wrote:

Quote:
Bottom line, IMNSHO: F9/11 was a grating exercise in obfuscating the utter flakiness of its underlying arguments by provoking every reaction it could, jerking your tears, triggering your outrage, perplexing you with scenes of hilarious insult or perplexed disbelief.


In other words, it made you THINK. Gee, what a concept.

And before one complains about showing happy school children and peaceful scenes as disengenuous, one should at least understand the context of these scenes; that despite the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein, he ruled over THE most liberal country in the Middle East, where women had MORE freedoms than any other Middle Eastern country, MUCH more than our closest OIL allies, Saudia Arabia and/or Qatar. They could go to school and get an education, and were treated more as equals. But an even MORE important point to be made regarding the scenes that Michael was showing was the amazing paradoxical situation that existed in Iraq, and the urrefutable fact that Saddam's tyrannical and murderous rule actually KEPT the country from breaking out into major civil war and keeping the Sunnis, Baathists, and Kurds from killing each other. Now, fortunately for the insurgents, the Americans have reunited the Sunnis and the Baathists in a common cause; to rid their country of an occupying force.

And when one complains about mass graves, we BETTER not forget that many of the dead were killed as a direct result of America pulling out of Iraq and encouraging the populace to rise up. This was AS irresponsible and short-sighted as the current pResident Bush has been in COMPLETELY miscalculating the intense insurgent movement taking place right now in Iraq.

It's these complexities that were part of what Michael was trying to explain, albeit in the form of a one-sided op-ed piece.

I will agree that Michael goes over the top many times in this movie, but if a movie can at least get you to THINK, it has accomplished so much more than watching FOX television and agreeing with everything they tell you to agree with.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 03:56 pm
Nimh:

Quote:
EXPECT LESS: TNR crack reporter-researcher Marisa Katz has done a little research and found an interesting thing about John McCain and Rudy Giuliani's speeches. Neither of them, despite defending the war in Iraq in detail, mentioned the word "democracy." There were plenty of references to "freedom" and some to governments that were "accountable." But no mention of the signature phrase so central to Bush's vision of the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism in general. It's a testament to how much Republicans have tacitly ratcheted down expectations for the Iraq war, even while claiming to believe in it more than ever.

--Peter Beinart


An excellent point to be made. And I though the argument had now firmly switched from WMD's and eminent threats to democracy in Iraq.

I wonder what excuse will they come up with next?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 03:56 pm
Does anyone have an opinion on the Purple Heart Band-Aids that some delegates were wearing earlier in the week?

How about Jenna and Tonic and their vapid ten minutes in the national spotlight last night?

How about the AIDS protestors who got inside the Garden and interrupted Andy Card's speech today?

Or Alan Keyes' outrageous comments about Mary Cheney?
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 03:58 pm
I missed Keyes' comment on Mrs. Cheney, PDiddie. Did he fault her for being, gasp, against the anti-gay marriage amendment? That would be my guess.

Do I sens cracks in the GOP foundation?
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 04:04 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
I missed Keyes' comment on Mrs. Cheney, PDiddie.


Quote:
Keyes' first comments about Mary Cheney came during an interview Monday night on Sirius OutQ, a New York-based satellite station that provides 24-hour gay and lesbian programming.

After Keyes told the hosts that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," he was asked whether Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is."

On Tuesday, Keyes defended his remarks, adding that if his daughter were a lesbian, he would tell her she was committing a sin and should pray about it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 04:06 pm
PDiddie wrote:
How about Jenna and Tonic
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 04:07 pm
Well, at least he's not moderating his crazy message to appeal to voters in Illinois. One almost, but not quite, admires him for that...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 04:21 pm
Dookiestix wrote:
nimh wrote:

Quote:
Bottom line, IMNSHO: F9/11 was a grating exercise in obfuscating the utter flakiness of its underlying arguments by provoking every reaction it could, jerking your tears, triggering your outrage, perplexing you with scenes of hilarious insult or perplexed disbelief.

In other words, it made you THINK. Gee, what a concept.

Err, no. Moved to tears, outraged, perplexed - those are not modes I get in when I think. He was very, very good in triggering all kinds of sentiments. So much so that you almost forgot to observe that the main case he was making throughout the first half of the movie (the tortured attempt to connect Bush to Osama and suggest the true reason for the war was to be found there) was, well, tortured.

No, he was very good in making me feel all kinds of things. And then I realised I was being cheated, and felt ... cheated. (Jeez, whats with all the doubling up my words here?)

Dookiestix wrote:
And before one complains about showing happy school children and peaceful scenes as disengenuous, one should at least understand the context of these scenes; that despite the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein, he ruled over THE most liberal country in the Middle East, where women had MORE freedoms than any other Middle Eastern country, MUCH more than our closest OIL allies, Saudia Arabia and/or Qatar.

Err, liberal in religious terms, yeah. It was a secular dictatorship. Liberal in political terms, no. Many more people ended up tortured and imprisoned in Saddam's Iraq than in those of Saudi-Arabia - or most of the Middle East's states, in fact (and that's saying something). But you're right - not for any religious reason ...

Dookiestix wrote:
the urrefutable fact that Saddam's tyrannical and murderous rule actually KEPT the country from breaking out into major civil war and keeping the Sunnis, Baathists, and Kurds from killing each other.

That is an utterly cynical argument, usually reserved for the realpolitik righties amongst us. Dictatorship aint so bad - you know, if you'd give them freedom, they'd only start fighting each other anyway. Three cheers for enlightened absolutism.

Dookiestix wrote:
And when one complains about mass graves, we BETTER not forget that many of the dead were killed as a direct result of America pulling out of Iraq and encouraging the populace to rise up. This was AS irresponsible and short-sighted as the current pResident Bush has been

Absolutely, very true.

Dookiestix wrote:
It's these complexities that were part of what Michael was trying to explain

I saw much rhetorical skill in Moore's movie, but "complexities" never was a word that popped up in my head. Well, some of the implied or insinuated conspiracy theories were pretty complex.

Dookiestix wrote:
I will agree that Michael goes over the top many times in this movie, but if a movie can at least get you to THINK, it has accomplished so much more than watching FOX television and agreeing with everything they tell you to agree with.

You're setting a very low bar. People who'll agree with everything FOX says wont see the movie anyway. Otherwise, wouldnt the Left's alternative be to be better than Fox, rather than its blue-state mirror image?
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Sep, 2004 04:37 pm
Nimh:

But of COURSE liberal in religious terms, because it is exactly those Islamic fundamentalist terms that drives the ideological and nepolitical beliefs of just about every country in the Middle East. But as Saddam stoked hatred and fear toward him for being the murderous dictator that he had been, so are the American troops stoking that same brand of hatred now, only tenfold through multiple bombings, insurgency, and Arab terrorist infiltration. That was again another point that Michael made that I had noticed.

I think it's fair to say that the national media has dropped the ball on at least SHOWING the American people what is happening out there, and that it's become more and more sad that we need to watch films by Michael Moore and shows like the Daily Show with John Stewart to actually get anything that resembles REAL substantive news. And the Daily Show boasts of being the only network you can truly trust for the best fake news on television. Corporate media giants are dictating the policies of what news information we're allowed to see, and so we are forced to get our news elsewhere, many times from other countries rather than our own.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:00:32