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

.
As I have said before, I voted for Bush in '00. He ran as a moderate, as a uniter not a divider, as someone not interested in nation building, etc. HIS RECORD shows otherwise, and it is his record that I am using to judge him.

As I said, I an neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I am an American, and as such, I truly believe Bush's arrogant, extremist, exclusive, divisive policies are taking my country in a very un-American direction. I hope, now that the shows are over, Americans will take a hard look at this (IMO) limited, dangerous man.

.
Yes, revel, I agree that watching would have been a waste of time.

As I have said before, I voted for Bush in '00. He ran as a moderate, as a uniter not a divider, as someone not interested in nation building, etc. HIS RECORD shows otherwise, and it is his record that I am using to judge him.

I personally feel the unilateral pre-emptive invasion of Iraq was pre-911 devised, unjustified, ill-planned, and has made America less safe from the real terrorist threat initially by diverting attention and forces from Afghanistan and subsequently by alienating us from our allies and feeding the terrorist ranks with new recruits. We need to work with the rest of the world, overtly and covertly, to be truly safe, and Bush has made that impossible by generating such (justified) contempt and disdain. I truly believe we are less safe than we were 4 years ago, and we will be suffering the consequences of Bush's arrogant rash foreign policy for years if not decades to come.

Bush's domestic policy has been equally failed, IMO. His tax cuts never trickled anywhere, his education and environmental policies have been destructive, his court appointees reflect IMO un-American values, and, perhaps most disturbing to most moderate Americans, his alliance with extreme right wing religious fundamentalists has divided America deeply and generated social warfare unlike anything I have seen for decades. Americans have differences, racial, cultural, religious, etc., but to use those differences to divide us is unconscionable. We all want the same thing as Americans: equality and a shot at happiness. And we deserve those rights even if we do not all read the same bible.


Both conventions were "shows", more for the party faithful than anything else. I loved Kerry's speech; I am sure Bush people loved his speech. The election will be decided in key swing states, and that is primarily where the rest of the campaign battles will be fought.


As I said, I an neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I am an American, and as such, I truly believe Bush's arrogant, extremist, exclusive, divisive policies are taking my country in a very un-American direction. I hope, now that the shows are over, Americans will take a hard look at this (IMO) limited, dangerous man.

.

Texas. Sky, dirt, crawfish, girls in stars and stripes panties, albino guitar players, and a factory outside of Lubbock that makes standard-sized hats...they just look really big on a Texan's head.

I am reminded of my Puerto Rican wife's grandmother lecturing me on the low character and vile habits of the Irish. God forgive me but I so felt compelled to simply smile at her and respond "...but you're a Puerto Rican."

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

blatham wrote:

I was travelling and missed all of the dem convention.

This convention, however, was frightening.

We know from Schafley's recent statement that the entire procedure was tightly scripted "down to each comma". And that was evident - it WAS an infomercial, designed for a citizenship who have been trained to believe that Authority (one very particular sort of Authority only) is both benevolent and honest. And that it is the ONLY safeguard against chaos and evil. And that attending to any other view or thought is to put oneself immediately into the grasp of chaos and evil.

And running through it all was a vicious and vengeful hatred. Not of Kerry, he was just a handy and temporarily necessary representation. Krugman perceives the actual target...

Quote:

But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at that convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity.

LINK

This is all so very familiar.

Pure and unadulterated crap.

That sure is a neat way to brush aside a thought out piece without having to come up anything on your own beside a one liner that has no substance. But then that is pretty well your party's signature these days.

blatham wrote:

Texas. Sky, dirt, crawfish, girls in stars and stripes panties, albino guitar players, and a factory outside of Lubbock that makes standard-sized hats...they just look really big on a Texan's head.

I say that's big talk from a Ken doll dressed in red wool and a leather harness.

There are two places in this country where the people couldn't care less about what others may say about them: New York and Texas. As a result, a lot of people have a lot to say about them.

Having been born and raised in New York, and now residing in Texas, I have come to the conclusion that New Yorkers (at least the Downstate variety) and Texans share this lack of concern because they share a swaggering confidence that shares the same zipcode with arrogance.

I am reminded of my Puerto Rican wife's grandmother lecturing me on the low character and vile habits of the Irish. God forgive me but I so felt compelled to simply smile at her and respond "...but you're a Puerto Rican."

This tends to be the way New Yorkers and Texans respond to jibes from their neighbors within the Union, and the way Americans respond to jibes from their neighbors to the North.

Actually, that one liner is quite substantive, and all that is really necessary in response to the statement.

How else to answer Krugman's (and blatham's) charge?

"No they don't?"

I'm quite sure I can find or come up with a "thought out piece" that is equally hyperbolic and equally insulting of Democrats. Would it deserve any more of a response than I provided to Krugman's?

Quote:

Actually, that one liner is quite substantive, and all that is really necessary in response to the statement.

How else to answer Krugman's (and blatham's) charge?

"No they don't?"

I'm quite sure I can find or come up with a "thought out piece" that is equally hyperbolic and equally insulting of Democrats. Would it deserve any more of a response than I provided to Krugman's?

OK, that's comforting. We're back to your normal quality in penmanship.

Actually, the event was scripted "down to the comma", to use our heroine Ms. Schafly's descriptive phrase. And that was evident throughout...as in some Bush mention of 'child', and instantly, I mean INSTANTLY without any pause at all, we cut to some innocent-faced young thing looking oh so much like the thing she wanted most in the world was more homework. It WAS an infomercial. Same tricks. Same credibility.

As to the forwarding of hate...go over Cheney's speech of Zell's or even Gulliani's. Then fact check them. Actually, you don't even have to fact-check them yourself, the work has been done. Misrepresentations and outright lies fall over each other in their mad rush towards the flag-waver's brains. And much was venomous and vile.

And then note, please, that Krugman does not say all or even most...but he does say many. And so do I. And one day, if luck goes very badly indeed, so will you.

Of course it was scripted, although I doubt so tightly as you suggest or Arnold would never have gotten away with his reference to Nixon or his crack on Economic Girly Men.
I think there is zero chance...without exaggeration...that every speech was vetted word by word by Rove's team, or even more likely, written within a group of Rove's people and the speaker's people. Why would Rove risk anything else? He ain't the type.
You've acknowledged that you didn't see much of the Dem convention, but I assure you that at least the attempt was made to script it as tightly as the GOP spectacular.
I didn't see any of it actually, as I was travelling or at a location where I had no news access of any sort. It may well have been so tightly controlled, but I seriously doubt that. The reason I doubt it is that this particular crowd presently in the White House is unusually controlling and secretive and on message. Those are common descriptors of them, even from folks like Kristol, Brooks or Carlson. In other words, it isn't that it is a Republican convention, it is that it was a convention run by this particular crowd.

That's the nature of today's political conventions. A lot of showbiz but some interesting speeches as well.
Yes, guilt both ways. But then let's not buy the product simply because some lunkhead up there says "It really really cleans". Let's start with the acknowledgement that we cannot count on them not to lie. Then, regardless of who says what, we concentrate on the what.
You are exaggerating the content and intent of the speechs you've cited, just as John Kerry has. No one questioned Kerry's patriotism, no one besmirched his service in Vietnam, and no one declared him unfit for office.
No, I think I have it right. And Krugman as well, and many others who have written on it. Look, just several days ago, Hassert in an interview on TV, speaking about Soros said, "I don't know where he gets his money from, whether it is from drugs or whatever". That's extreme, but it is precisely the tenor of those speeches.

I might take your flight of hyperbole with a little more than a grain of salt if I had seen similar protestations directed at the speaker of the Dem convention, but then you missed that one.

Bemoan the state of American politics if you will (and while you're at it take a look at the rhetoric of Canadian politics) but at least do so in an objective, if not honest, fashion and cast your aspersions on both sides of the aisle.

Our situation here is not nearly so bad. It could go that way, and there are hints it might (media ownership with political ideology in mind...eg, see the present news on Conrad Black and his ties and connections, including significant ties to Richard Perle and Likud) and the attempts by the religious right here to adopt the successful techniques used by RR activists down there. But our situation is not important on the world stage...the US is.

As to objectivity and fairness...I honestly try. But the policies being advanced now in the US would make the Eisenhower administration look like socialists. The Clinton administration would make Eisenhower seem a socialist. The terms of the debate have been pushed so far to the right (not by chance, this is the consequence of purposeful activism by ideologues) that if someone actually brought out an empirical study that demonstrated absolutely clearly that my sentence above regarding the Eisenhower adminsitration was true, it would simply not find a home in the heads of many because they would think it could not be so.

Krugman has staked out his position as an ideologic spokeman of the Left. Is it your intent to follow his lead?

DTOM

If I were advising the Kerry campaign, and I wish I were because I need money, I would tell them a few things:

1) Bush counts on being misunderestimated. He's considerably smarter, politically, than he looks. That he IS so dismally under-educated and owns such an incurious and simple-minded intellect, can lead one to believe that he isn't very smart in other ways. He's very good with people in the sense that he charms them easily and quickly. And his simplicity of mind matches a long-term anti-intellectualism in America. His capability for the post and his capability to convince are two quite separate matters.

2) He will not arrive unprepared. The years of political experience and the nose-to-grindstone pre-debate rehearsals will make him more formidable than his language or performance as president would suggest. He'll have a hundred pat answers and a hundred ways of not answering.

3) He won't be debating Kerry. He will be performing for votes ('my favorite philospher is Jesus'). Extended logical arguments will work in his favor because the debate form will be geared, through Republican demands in setting that up, to ensure the form works in his favor. And because the electorate has now been so trained to eat teeny bites of stuff with nothing much inside.

4) He's personable, at least on the surface. Kerry, much less so, at least on the surface.

Therefore, Kerry will have to attempt to get Bush flustered without appearing mean. Flustered, Bush risks speaking from his own head and that can be disasterous. But he's disciplined, and that won't be easy.

Kerry is going to have to attack. And do it with the best quick arguments his people can muster up.

It's looking like the debates are down from three to two, and I wouldn't be surprised if they find some deceit to drag it down to one. Bush is at risk here, and that will be understood. Possibly never in the history of the world has a leader above 12 been so coddled and protected and tutored, because he is, in so many other ways than his very real political savvy, so incredibly stupid and arrogant.