We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, August 29. 2012
The one big 'disgrace' — to pick a word — was the delegates casting votes for Ron Paul. I'm not sure what kind of kooky message they were trying to deliver, but 'unity of the party' certainly wasn't on their agenda. Michigan cast the majority of its votes for Ron Paul.
Well, sure. That makes sense. There's certainly no reason to pay any attention to those pesky primaries if just a handful of people can make the decision. Thank goodness for abbreviated democracy!
On the up side, the person at the podium was only repeating the votes for Romney, so when the Michigan rep said, "Thirty-three votes for Ron Paul (wild, maniacal screaming from the 127 Paulbots in the audience), six votes for Mitt Romney, one vote for Rick Santorum", all the person at the podium said was, "Mitt Romney, six votes". Big statement to the world you made there, Michigan.
A lesser disgrace was the six states that had their vote number reduced because the morons governing the state races decided to hold their primaries before the date the RNC had allowed. My home state of Florida, which, being the 4th-largest state in the union, should have had near as many votes as California's 172, was allotted a paltry 50. Hmph.
One other small disgrace were the 'abstention' votes. Nevada had five. Please tell me how a person can become a Republican delegate and find none of the candidates acceptable — on a write-in ballot!
Pics, links, and more unabashed blather below the fold.
With "We built this
Oh, back to the Paulbots, jeez, what a disappointing group. Not only did they scream and yell every time a delegate cast a vote their way, but I couldn't believe such a clever bunch wouldn't have a small, portable TV with them. Between events, the standard camera shot was this:
See that guy down in front? Not once did it appear anyone knew the camera was there. What a glorious opportunity for some band of zealots to get their message across! This shameful display of inattention on the Paulbots' part might go down as perhaps the greatest blown opportunity in convention history.
And while we've got some pretty good-looking people on our side of the aisle, welcome to the world's most horrific mustache:
Yes, it actually is that monstrous and lip-covering. Probably not a big fan of kissing, would be my guess. Or eating. Strained carrots, anyone?
Of the lesser-knowns, the one guy who really impressed me was former Democrat House Representative for Alabama, Artur Davis. If politicians are going to cross lines, this is the kind we want. His speech is here.
And I was again impressed by South Carolina governor Nikky Haley. If Romney and the RNC had been determined to put a woman in the VP slot, Haley would have been a much better choice than Bachmann or Palin. Her speech is here.
The speechgiver the media most flipped out over was Mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, Mia Love. A real firecracker. You might have seen mention this morning of people already defacing her Wikipedia entry. Congratulations, Mia, that's when you know you've arrived. Her speech is here.
As for Ann Romney, she'd never given a major speech like this before. This 'rawness' came through at times, and in a most positive way. There were certain little reactions she had during applause moments and such that were both very real and very un-politicianlike. In that subliminal way that body language has, a great number of women in the TV audience realized that she's really more like them than just another 'politician's wife'. When she addressed the mothers in the audience, you could almost feel the mood in the room change. Her speech is here.
From his speech:
"You see, Mr. President, real leaders don't follow polls. Real leaders change polls."
I would admit that at one point he started pontificating a bit, spouting party line and revving up the base — 'applause lines', in other words — but I suppose that's to be expected, given the context. Overall, he was just as great as I expected him to be. His speech is here.
Did I ever mention I was one of the first to take up the "Condoleezza Rice For President" cause back in 2004? Never mind. She's also giving a speech tonight, and I suggest it'll be a little different than anything else said. This is probably the only person speaking during the entire event who isn't a politician by any definition of the word.
And The Kid will wrap things up, and I would suggest that the world will not see the reason Romney picked him for his running mate. Romney picked him for his reputation, not his speechgiving skills. He picked him to prove to the American public that the Republicans were serious about getting the economy turned around. It'll be a great speech, I'm sure, but behind a podium isn't where he belongs.
Will we see Clint Eastwood tomorrow night?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Very nice synopsis, Doc. I agree about the 'Paulbots'. There just seems to be something 'hysterical' in their voices when they cheer. Maybe the word is "shrill"?
And thanks for the links and calling attention to some of the speakers. I had to miss most of it, but I caught Christie. Very impressive guy. I've never seen him before. I just watched Mia (firecracker!) and Davis. Looking forward to Ann!
Nice post, doc. I've probably read eight articles today on yesterday's convention, and they all said pretty much the same thing. None of them mentioned the stuff you wrote about, and you didn't mention about any of the stuff they wrote about.
I missed Ann's speech last night, but I saw it just now, and you're right about her 'rawness' working for her. I'd say it made her 'endearing'. This evening should be fun!
As a Ron Paul supporter, I was distressed by the behavior of his delegates, as well. Though I was more distressed by this:
For a good reason. While the Paul supporters may have been a pain, they have a perfectly valid reason for their behavior even if others do not accept that reason. It's not behavior I condone, nor recommend, nor do any of the other Paul supporters I am friendly with. We believe that display was outlandish, as I am sure most Paul supporters do.
Why the other story is more distressing is because the press doesn't give a damn about the Paul supporters, and never did. But it does care about labeling Republicans as racists. Granted, this occurred on day two - so Doc didn't cover it (yet), but it's important to keep things in context. As much as the bad behavior of Paul's delegates is unneeded, the bad behavior of only 2 attendees (not sure if they were delegates) will be spun to show just how truly racist Republicans are. Even though these attendees were dealt with in an appropriate fashion, nobody will care, and the headlines will blare RNC/RACISM, etc.
Getting past embarrassing moments, I have to say I think Christie exceeded my expectations, and I've pretty much seen him do everything he's promised. I'd heard portions of that speech all over the place. When Oprah interviewed him, from other speeches, etc. But he strung it all together marvelously.
Just one problem. The people who NEED to hear it, won't. Because they don't give a damn about anything a Republican says. The people who would get the most from that speech, won't. Because they are already promised the goodies from Obama.
Ann's speech was very good, though women at the office complained "I'm single, she wasn't speaking to me...doesn't she realize single women without kids exist and are valuable?" I tend to agree, but you can't speak to everybody at once, and Ann's speech was geared toward a specific group which I feel Romney can't reach normally.
The other complaint I heard was "Yeah, she has MS, but so what? She's rich and has insurance. What if she had all those kids, was diagnosed, and didn't have the money?"
Why am I mentioning all this? Because these are the discussion points which have to be dismantled and undermined with good, solid rhetoric that Romney is simply incapable of providing. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he can do it. But I've never seen it.
Ryan can do it, he's a master of it. I hope he does this tonight, and does it as well as he normally does.
I may not be a Romney supporter, but he's got my vote because at the end of the day, the main goal is oust Obama. Most Libertarians I know are not single-minded and inflexible and totally sold on the idea of nobody but Paul. They recognize there are degrees of agreement, and Romney is a damn sight closer to our position than Obama is.
I will say, though, that it's high time the Republican Party removed the abortion and anti-gay marriage language from the platform. After all, they controlled all 3 branches for 6 years and did nothing about it. Not only do I find those planks outdated and not worthy of discussion at a national level, but you can't take it seriously since they didn't, either.
I can't see how you can be excited by this. Romney is going to be another big government candidate. Taking a few steps back, apart from Healthcare and some social issues, there is not much difference between Obama and Romney economically.
You (Americans) are sliding down a big economic hole and nobody apart from the libertarians is addressing this or even has a solution. (Less government spending).
I'm not a fan of Ron Paul, but most of his view are consistent and libertarian. Dismissing his fans as Paulbots is the same as what the left does to Rush Limbaugh (dittoheads).
I am encouraged by the larger presence of libertarians this year, but the delegate procedures just prove that the old-school Republicans will not allow any form of dissent.
This will effectively disenfranchise the libertarians from the Republican party. Same old same old.
A Canadian libertarian.
The bottom line is that every vote for Paul if a vote from the Republican ticket. Result? A Democratic win. Just ask Ross Perot in 1992. He peeled off a number of votes. Result? A win for Bill Clinton. I said many good things about Paul during the debates, video clips and all. But we're trying to win an election here.
Not necessarily true. Most Perot supporters (my uncle ran the local North Carolina chapter) would not have voted for Bush. He said he wouldn't have voted at all, and most people in his area would've likely done the same.
A national survey of Perot supporters indicated they'd added a few votes to Bush, but not necessarily enough to swing the election.
In response, I'd say that numbers are one thing, people's perception is another. And you know how the MSM is.
The choice is Obama or Romney. You can whine about Romney or how mistreated you are but if you vote for Paul you voted for Obama.
No. That is not at all how it works. If you don't vote, does that mean you still "voted for Obama"? Your logic implies that you have only two choices and any other choice is not a choice and therefore a vote for whoever wins because it's not a vote cast for the loser.
But that does not stand up to logic. It's just a misguided belief by those who feel we have to have a 2 party system, and only choose between 2 candidates, because it's too difficult to consider 3 candidates as being 'viable'.
I've voted for a third party candidate several times. I've been told I 'wasted' my vote. I know that my vote meant something to me, therefore it is not wasted in any way. It's just wasted to people who disagree with my opinions, and I don't have to vote to make them happy, do I?
Haven't you ever thought what having three parties would be like all the way through? With a two-party system, roughly half the country is going to be disappointed and will feel resentful and obstructionistic and all the rest.
In a three-party system, two-thirds of the country will feel resentful and obstructionistic and all the rest.
Yeah, that'll be a big help.
I've thought about it quite a bit. I don't think you're correct.
Many people today register with a party just to vote in primaries, not because they truly associate with that party. This is why independent and third party registrations are up among younger voters.
Technically, we have 3 parties if "independent" is counted as a party. But we don't have 2/3 of the US upset with the outcomes of elections. This has nothing to do with a 2 party system, though. It has more to do with acceptance that you can't do much to change the way things are happenening.
I suspect this situation can't last much longer. I know plenty of people who feel that a socially liberal, fiscally conservative party is one they would gravitate toward. I believe a party of this sort would generate considerable numbers of voters from all 3 registration groups.
One of the large parties is going to need to be reformed after the presidential election. I'm not sure which one it will be. But if Obama loses, it's probably going to be the Democrats. They will realize their leftward lurch is failing them.
If Romney loses, the Republicans are going to have to do some soul-searching about whether their current path is still viable. 2010 could have been a dead-cat bounce, after all, a knee-jerk reaction to a president who failed to produce what he promised.
No, a 3 party system doesn't have to end up the way you described. Many nations have 3 party systems and there is rarely an outcome like that. We're just used to a two party system so we make big assumptions regarding what other opportunities represent. Were 2/3 of the US unhappy when Clinton was elected?
Just curious, but is this going to be another Magellan argument, where we end up skirting the fine line between semantics and solipsism?
I just wanted to mentally steel myself. :)
Haven't you ever thought all the way through what having two parties would be like?
As for the rest of your remark, are you possibly serious?
To the rest of this dismal thread, how many of you are active in local politics? None? Sounds like it.
Because if you were you'd realize what's happening. Your betters are taking the land BACK. It's working. While you offer second hand coverage of incredibly bad television broadcasting approved cant about a system just about set to fail out of the sheer top heaviness of its own corruption.
You blog this and discuss blogging this and you discuss the two-party One Party System like any of that's relevant in any way.
What you should be blogging and chatting about is the inevitable fall and ruin of that system. Because it cannot stand and it will not stand.
Consider your history.
But mostly, as I said, get yourselves to your local politics and see what people far more connected than you apparently are and who have been making rather extraordinary inroads against the system are accomplishing.
Bullshit. You're openly advocating having no political principle: voting for the lesser of two evils. How's that voting for evil every four years working out for you?
I kinda think you missed the point. "Less bad" doesn't equal "evil".
So bad is not evil? I kinda think you missed the point.
But go ahead and make this a semantic thing. It's your blog.
Look, you died in the wool Republicans seriously need to wake up. This country is a quarter quadrillion upside down, it's entire monetary and financial bases are a fraud leveraged out over an abyss via inescapable federal programs that absolutely no amount of work, effort, and government theft can ever begin to reconcile, and you're blogging the fifty percent of the corrupt retched thing like it's a valid choice.
Not bad, say you, just less bad. At even a paltry trillion dollars a year in black ink, which we ain't ever having, it would only take a quarter of a thousand years to balance the thing. Not including the billions and billions and billions in interest.
And that federal collectivist apathy towards good somehow isn't evil? I get it, Clint Eastwood's gonna fix it. With yet more bullshit platitudes. Maybe he can threaten it with a .44 mag while the crowd goes apeshit and then they can all sing a nice feel-good together.
In her speech at the convention, Romney’s wife said that women “care” more than men, that society treats women unfairly and forces them to work harder than men, and that “single … mothers hold this country together.”
Mrs. Romney, along with the GOP which approved her speech, has inadvertently demonstrated once again why women should not have the vote and should not have prominent positions in politics. Because once women have the vote, they become a separate constituency with interests separate from those of men. This inevitably results in (1) female emotionalism and female resentment becoming central in politics, with everyone bowing down at the altar of the mistreated, overworked “moms” of America, who are thus turned into a new type of oppressed ubermensch; and (2) in women as a group demanding substantive equality with men as a group. In short, sexual socialism.
And, as with all socialist egalitarian schemes, some equal humans are more equal than others. Thus women, according to Ann Romney, work harder than men, care more about the good of society than men, and women represent the “best of America,” which men do not. Thus women, under Obamacare, get free contraceptive pills and services as an absolute “right”—a right granted to no other “health care” need.
Republicans say they believe in a free society. But the truth is that women’s political equality is incompatible with a free society, because women’s political equality moves society irresistibly in the direction of socialism.
Christopher Christie’s keynote address is pathetic. It’s all about how the Democrats are “dividing” the country and how we, the Republicans will lead. Anyone, particularly a Republican, who resorts to the not-just-tired-and-hoary but dead cliché that the other side is “dividing” us but that “we” will unite us (which by the way is usually used by Democrats against Republicans) is a hopeless mediocrity.
Not a single Republican seems to understand that half the country, including many of the crucial undecided voters who are mostly female, are against the Republicans because they see them as racist white men. As long as the Republicans continue to ignore that belief, as long as they fail to confront it and show its evil and falsity, they will continue to look guilty to those voters and they will probably lose.
But they will, of course, never confront it. Because they think that to think of yourself as a white person, let alone to defend yourself as a white person from false racism charges made against you as a white person, is itself racist. The Republicans thus continue to inhabit their race-blind dream world, while half the country sees them as guilty white men.
How do you propose racism (or claims of it) be addressed?
"I'm NOT a racist!" is about the extent of the available rhetoric. Well, that and trotting out the many non-whites who are members of the party....but those are called "Uncle Tom" supporters.
It's easy enough for Democrats to forget their own very racist past, their Dixiecrat past, their buying of votes with vote-winning legislation supporting 'equality' which today essentially ties whole demographics to their party simply because they are reliant on the Democrats (and now many Republicans) supplying the government largesse. Pointing out the very obvious racism in these policies is a discussion lost on those receiving the funds.
But at the end of the day, how do you address it? You can't and expect to be taken seriously.
Reading a wide array of commentary on last night's speakers, I get the impression that if Buddha, Moses, Jesus and Mohammed took the stage together that there would be the same amount of carping, most of which actually ignores the speeches or their content and impose the writer's bias or own speech.
You did a bit of that Doc, but overall a better job than most.
I forgot to ask - does anyone know how the RNC booked 3 Doors Down?
I find it astounding any modern rock band would agree to play a Republican Convention. Sure, they're from Mississippi, so maybe that has something to do with it. But this is a band that toured with the mainstream rock 'intelligentsia' (such as it is) and isn't opposed to the Republican Party? I was very surprised.
Ted Nugent would play the Convention, that's for sure. But I'm not sure "Catscratch Fever" or "Wang Dang Sweet Poontang" (yes, a real Nugent song) would go over well with that particular audience. But Nugent was always an outlier in the world of rock-and-roll.
Perhaps that's why I consider modern rock to be Malkavian cacophony.
Anyone in your bubbles criticize the RNC and the rules committee? I’m prepared to accept that every convention rules cmte is blamed for unfairness. But all the fat establishment types seem more interested in mocking the Paulbots instead of embracing them.
Why not let them cast their 400 or so delegates for RP, give them some time to bleat, and let them feel heard? Romney’s team had plenty of opportunities to capture most of the RP/libertarian votes. There was no tolerance for a bigger tent.
So, pretty much all of my RP pallys will be voting for Gary Johnson or staying home. Nice job, GOP. It may or may not cost Mitt the election, but it certainly hurts countless down-ticket State and local races. Stupid.
It’s the age of the internet, you knuckleheads. A spectacle of manufactured unity isn’t fooling anyone. It’s too easy for me to get info from the convention through people I know and trust. I just saw a Facebook picture of Romney monkeys handing out stacks of pre-made “hand-painted” signs. To the TV audience it might look like all these people were passionate enough to make their own signs, but that’s as much of a stage-managed fraud as Obama’s greek columns.
We get the government we deserve. I gotta find my helmet.
"Why not let them cast their 400 or so delegates for RP, give them some time to bleat, and let them feel heard?"
Because now's not the time. This isn't a time to throw an arm around the shoulders of our cousins from across the tracks, this is Romney vs. Obama and nothing but. I'm going to expound on it a bit more in tomorrow's post.
No .. this IS the time to do it, time to air any differences so that the party can be stronger .... after Romney wins the Republican nomination - then it is time to unite .. try to make some semblance of a diverse party and not a fan club for the front leader.
Well, I'm not sure of your reasoning. Chances are, he's going to peel off Republican votes, so how does that help Mitt get into office?
I agree, now it's Obama vs. Romney. However, now is the time to let people air their grievances or concerns, or whatever their issues are. It's important to get that out of the system early in the convention, then drive for a strong, unified finish.
The rules committee did strip Paul of many of his properly earned delegates, and they did so in questionable fashion. As I pointed out earlier, whether you accept their reasons for creating a stir isn't important, what is important is they feel they were disenfranchised, and their voices should be heard.
You can't fake unification. But you can earn it. Most Libertarians, like myself, are practical people. We view Ron Paul as being one of the best options available, but we also realize he's still a politician like all others. There is no reason to believe if he were to have won that he'd be the perfect candidate and create any more of a unified party than Romney would. But if the rules were followed, and the process engaged fairly and properly, then even the most outlandish of the 'bots' would have had their voices heard, settled down and possibly agreed to toe the party line. Even probably.
Instead, people have treated us like outcasts and troublemakers, and without a good reason. After all, the 'trouble' any of them have created is directly related to rules being changed or rigged to get a predetermined outcome. Of course there should be hell to be paid when that happens.
But politics is dirty business, even in the best of circumstances. The goal is to clean it up to some manageable level. Romney didn't even attempt to do this, and if (as you indicate in a previous comment) Romney loses because "Paulbots" have abandoned the party, then it's only Romney's fault this happened. He has nobody to blame but himself. Whining that the "Paulbots" should shut up, sit down and play the part is absurd.
As I pointed out, I found their behavior discouraging. It's not the kind of activity I consider particularly useful. But I understand it and there were ways to avoid having it take place. Rather than seek out these solutions, Romney sought to marginalize the portion of the party which could, at this point, represent the slim number of votes needed for victory.
It crazy for the party to marginalize these voters. All we'll hear in November, if Romney loses, is "If the Paulbots only...."
Well how about this? Stop with the "Paulbot" stuff, stop with the marginalization, and start questioning why the rules had to be shifted and rigged to rob Paul of hard won delegates? This is a democracy. We don't all have to agree on one candidate or nominee, even after the process is over. But it would help if we could act in a fashion which is more inclusive of those who we fear may cost us the election, doesn't it?
I've said this many times, and everyone I know who supported Paul says it, too - getting rid of Obama is more important than complaining about the process which we feel failed us. I'd rather hold my nose and vote for Romney than cast a vote for someone and in the process give Obama the election. I did this when I voted for Christie to get rid of Corzine, and I'm pretty pleased about how that worked out, so far.