Wednesday, September 3, 2008

The Republican National Convention

Is anyone watching it? I did catch Laura Bush, President Bush, and Fred Thompson. Actually, I was still watching during Lieberman's speech but I just could not focus on what he was saying and follow it. I don't know if I'd hit my limit for the day or if he was just boring or what.

Truthfully, the conventions are so boring. You already know the outcome. I get tired of all the talking and clapping. Not to mention all the commenters going back and forth before things get started and then again after. S.N.O.R.E.

I did really like the piece they put together to honor the Navy Seal that threw himself on top of grenade. That made me cry.

Anyway, what are all your thoughts on it? Anything in particular stand out in the speeches? I found Fred Thompson a bit entertaining. To me everything that was said was predictable though.

*editing to add: I will be parked in front of my TV tonight, wide-eyed and bushy tailed, to see Governor Palin's speech.

Liam said:

I'll probably watch tonight to see if the trainwreck that is the Palin candidacy actually crashes in her first real speech...

Lieberman turns my stomach. Aside from the fact that he talks through his nose... He claims to be a Democrat, yet refused to abide by the Democratic primary... He'll be stripped of his Democratic committee seats...

Stephanie said:

I find the convention are just pep rallys. I didn't go to them as a kid in H.S. and I don't watch them now.

I just happened to be flicking through the channels during the voting process for Obama during the Democratic Convention. I found how each state represented themselves very amusing. I was actually tuned in when Hillary made her motion to choose Obama by concensus. I thought that was quite interesting too.

I can't help but question every word that comes out of politician's mouths. I am constantly asking why they said it that way, who are they trying to appease or win over and what the timing of a comment means, as well. Oh it makes my head swim. So instead of putting myself through that I keep my TV set tuned to less mind boggling things.

I also do not like negative politics. If you can't win based on what you stand for... then you better hang it up. I am not going to vote for someone based on the fact that they are NOT someone else. I want to know what you stand for and why. Not what you don't stand for.

Two Dogs said:

I agree with Liam, hopefully Lieberman WILL be stripped of his SENATE (not Democrat) seats with a sanity rout like 1994. Just because Lieberman has some kind of grip on morals, he is unwanted in the Party of the Morons. Just because he is not left of the ONE admitted socialist elected to the Senate, like Obama and Biden, he is cast aside by the lemmings.

I do not watch the conventions because they are the same as Apple Jacks commercials. Records can only be found by personal investigation, which any novice can do regarding any one of the candidates. Witness the DNC, was there any mention that all the party stands for anymore is unlimited killing of the unborn and unlimited government handouts to the morons? No, because they cannot come out and say what their platform is. Normal people would cringe. Why do the morons hate Palin, because she has never had an abortion and doesn't want everyone else to have one. Know that that fact is the only thing that will allow Democrats to respect a woman. She must have killed a child or vehemently supports the killing of children.

The RNC is no different though, it is a sugar-coated lovefest that panders to people that want their political platforms spoonfed to them with lies. The Republicans used to be the party of fiscal restraint, no more. We cast out Newt Gingrich like yesterday's trash and to hear him now is to yearn for the days of old when our Congress was not advocating confiscation of our entire income.

The real weirdness in this election cycle is that the Republicans have nominated McCain for president and he represents the overwhleming majority of people in this country, including only four short years ago, our national media, those that are ambiguous with their politics. Not me, by the way, I am conservative, that is why Palin is the only person in the race that is remotely attractive, philosophically and physically. Sue me, I like smart, pretty women. Who doesn't?

Barry represents the hard left that proved they are idiots and dictators by killing millions and oppressing the rest in the USSR. Universal healthcare, crap, how stupid can one person be?

Who controls Barry? THESE PEOPLE. Yes, they are for reals, yo. And they vote.

Roland said:

Fred Thompson's speech was funny, vibrant and beautifully delivered. The guy should be in television (oh, wait...)

I can't wait to see Palin's speech. I totally disagree with Liam. I think she'll do great.


Melody said...

So can I still be in the contest if I say my thoughts?

I don't feel like there *is* a good choice. I feel like no matter who is put in, the country will go to hell in a handbasket.

Anonymous said...

"Know that that fact is the only thing that will allow Democrats to respect a woman. She must have killed a child or vehemently supports the killing of children."

What the heck? You're saying women who claim to be Democrats support the killing of children? Sorry Two Dogs. You very are sad. I'm sorry that you are so hateful and yet so willing to spread your sad, sorry, hateful thoughts around the internet. People like you should just keep it to yourselves.

BLBeamer said...

Stephanie - You and I will get along very well, I believe.

Liam - You seem to be more than a little sexist. How does a sitting governor make it through a campaign and 18 months of office without ever giving a "real" speech?

Two Dogs - Thanks for toning down the rhetoric for this site. :)

Brenda said...

I am watching her speech. It is pretty good. But you know, someone else writes them. All they have to do is read well. I think the conventions are just a big "show".

Accidental housewife said...

I have more of a problem with the media coverage of the politcal campaign and conventions than of the politicians themselves. I resent the fact that the media plays up one candidate more than another and puts the other one down more. I think that the American Media, and yes that means Fox TV too is very pro-democratic party this time. I don't want to hear their commentary, opinions or ideas. I want to hear the candidates not the media mumble jumble. Yes I watched the RNC and I applaud Gov. Palin and thought her speech put it right back in the media's faces. but that is my commentary and opinion.

Two Dogs said...

Sara, please do not take this the wrong way. The platform of the National Democrats is ONLY abortion. That is the very basis for the existence of their national party. The DNC rarely allows anyone to speak that is Pro-Life and then ONLY if they do not say anything about that philosophy.

My opinion is not anything other than Constitutional, a basic tenet of our country. Abortion is NOT mentioned, so therefore it is NOT anything to the federal government. It is solely a state issue. If Mexifornia wants to be able to murder children until 15 years of age, let them do it. But according to our United States Constitution, any responsibility not expressly given to the federal government is expressly forbidden to be commandeered by the fed.

If that FACT is sad to you, then I shall hope that your reading comprehension improves.

Anonymous said...

Uhh... Two Dogs... you're smokin' crack.

PA Sen Bob Casey, well known Pro-Life senator, spoke in a primetime slot at the Democratic Convention...

You can find his transcript here:

"Barack Obama and I have an honest disagreement on the issue of abortion. But the fact that I'm speaking here tonight is testament to Barack's ability to show respect for the views of people who may disagree with him."

Now... How many of the pro-choice Republicans said they were pro-choice at the Republican convention?

Anonymous said...

blbeamer: It's not sexist... it's the truth. She's governor of a state that has less people than the city I live in. As a matter a fact 17 cities in the US have larger populations than Alaska. Before last night, she'd never ever REMOTELY given a speech anywhere close to the convention speech.

That being said... I was wrong. She did an outstanding job giving the speech.

BLBeamer said...

Liam - My beef was with your definition of "real". Since when is a political convention "real"?

I think that giving a speech to a hostile group of constituents is more real than the fantasy-land of a convention where the crowd is going to clap no matter what you say.

I'm sure Sarah Palin has given real speeches before this convention and your comments did (and do) sound either sexist or snobbish.

But it was decent of you to admit you were too hasty in your criticism and that speaks highly of you.

Each state has different problems. Alaska doesn't have many people but it has more coastline than the lower 48 combined. It is also unique in that it shares a border with two foreign nations. We - as Americans -should learn to appreciate the unique challenges and abilities each state (and person) has to offer. Let's not allow ourselves to be influenced by secondhand info or biases, whenever possible. Which, I'm sorry to say, you seem to have done in regards to Sarah Palin.

For example, on a different comment you said that Sarah Palin wanted to force "abstinence only" education on everybody. But you know what? I went to the Anchorage Daily News web site and found an interview with her from 2006 where she explicitly said she was pro-life and pro-contraception. So, it seems to me that the portrait of Sarah Palin that is emerging is quite different from the one your Dem talking points seem to be pushing.

I have read a few stories where she is reported to have said things I find troubling, but I know better than to take at face value such reports (for any number of reasons, not all of them related to "liberal/conservative media bias"). So, until I find out more, I'm taking a wait and see attitude.

Sorry, I've gone on long enough. I should be painting my family room. Bye!

Anonymous said...

blbeamer: Honestly I don't know how many speeches she's given, but if she gave a speech to a crowd of more that 5,000 prior to last friday I'd be absolutely shocked. Last night she wasn't giving a speech to the 15,000 in the XCel Center... she was giving a speech to 37,000,000. There is NOTHING she's done that could remotely compare to that.

As for your other points... Well first Alaska shares a border with 1 country, Canada, and that border is the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security, not the State of Alaska. It does not share a border with Russia, regardless of what Cindy McCain or Steve Doocey says.

Alaska having a long shoreline is also irrelevant. The US Coast Guard is in charge of securing America's coasts, not the individual states.

"Pro-life and pro-contraception" doesn't have anything to do with sex education in schools. So she's not against the Pill... ok... what does that have to do with sex ed in schools... unless she's in favor of allowing schools to give out contraception... and if she is I'd be completely shocked.

Am I biased against her? I'm a bleeding heart liberal, yes I'm biased against someone who is extremely conservative. Just like conservatives are biased against liberals. That's a fact of life.

BLBeamer said...

Liam - I don't know who Steve Doocey is, but I can read a map. Alaska's St. Lawrence Island is less than 100 miles from Russia's Chukchi Peninsula and Little Diomede Island (Alaska) is only about 2.5 miles from Big Diomede Island (Russia). So while it is true they don't share a land border, you didn't really mean to argue that Alaskan territory does not abut Russian territory did you?

You seem to be missing my point, anyway. I'm going to type slower so maybe you will have better luck (grin).

My point was that each state is different and has something to offer (well, excepting Indiana. Those folks are worthless). To belittle and denigrate someone's fitness for office because they are not from the right place or have the kind of experience you think they should have might make you feel better about your uncertainties regarding your own candidate, but it hardly will win you any debate points. Object lesson #1: Two Dogs.

Labeling someone as "extreme" without - by your own admission - knowing exactly what their views are other than those your political masters have told you is not liberalism. It's just pathetic.

Don't interpret my comments as a McCain endorsement, either. If the election were held today, I would abstain. I've done it before.

Anonymous said...

Yeah Florida borders Cuba too... they're only 90 miles away...

And using Diomede, Alaska (pop: 146) is hardly logical. After all, no one lives on Big Diomede.

The fact of the matter is, NO STATE controls it's international borders. It's a function of the Federal Gov't. Trying to claim ANY governor has "foreign relations" experience based on international borders is absurd.

I don't believe any governor of a small state (be it Alaska, Wyoming, Delaware, Montana, whatever) is qualified to be president based on less than 2 years experience on the job. Or at least it's going to take a hell of a lot of convincing. And from what I've read about Gov Palin, I'm even less convinced.

BLBeamer said...

Liam - Why are you insisting on missing my point, even when I clearly stated it? I never stated that bordering two foreign countries indicated Sarah Palin's foreign relations experience. However, I did state that Alaska borders two foreign countries, demonstrated from a map that it does, yet you continue to argue the point. Do you believe Sarah Palin is in cahoots with the map industry?

Besides, in your insistence on "experience" being the sine qua non of VP credentials, then I'd like to draw your attention to Dick Cheney.

How'd that "experience" work out for y'all?

Let's be honest: somehow, I doubt if you could be convinced of her fitness if she had 30 years of experience.

Anonymous said...

How many countries Alaska borders is irrelevant to any conversation.

And no, experience doesn't equal excellence. Our greatest president was a 1 term congressman from Illinois. But with nothing else to base an opinion on, experience can be a useful tool.

BLBeamer said...

I would dispute that our greatest president was a farmer from Virginia and former general, but that's a discussion for another time and place.

It's interesting you mention that congressman from Illinois: he was a social climbing lawyer, who was heavily involved in monopoly interests, with a wife from a privileged background whose family made money dealing in legal but morally dubious merchandise who also had brothers who were involved in seditious activities.

That guy would never make it through the Iowa caucuses.