Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I can't believe Rudy said this one with a straight face: "We are the party that wants to expand individual freedom" LMAO! Come ON now.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I was TOTALLY impressed by how well-crafted Giuliani's and Palin's speeches were, and how well they were delivered. And by how well received they were by the Republicans in attendance. Zingers. Appeals to patriotism. Direct attacks. I mean, how could you listen to these two and then NOT vote for McCain/Palin if you oppose terrorism, have a special-needs child, or love snowmobile racing?! Unless, of course, you also have an IQ above 70. UGH! Both speeches were mean and frivolous, and they both actively misrepresented Obama's positions. I was honestly amazed at both the dishonesty and the flagrant appeal to the redneck mentality. After about the fifth time that they suggested that McCain would be a great president because he had been a POW, I started feeling less guilty for thinking, "Uhh, wasn't it kind of inept to be shot down in the first place?" And was it just me, or did the ballsiness of Giuliani and the Tina-Fey-like spunk of Palin end up working against McCain? When he came out on stage after their speeches, he came off as a doddering grandfather.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'm watching Gov Huckabee's speech now. Some of his economic populism scared me during the campaign, but he can give a good speech, and he's a likable guy.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The need to go after all possible energy sources, so we make our economy strong and keep it that way.<< Maybe if we didn't elect oilmen or those looking to give big oil huge tax breaks, that might actually happen. >>The need to be strong in the face of the enemies of freedom.<< Yes, by not sending our troops on half-baked pre-emptive wars dreamt up by PNACers. But I guess if it's a mission from God, it's okay. >>The need to keep money and jobs in our communities, and not send it to Washington, so that bureaucrats can go to fancy parties.<< Cool. I'd be happy if President Bush wasn't at a "fancy party" for John McCain while Katrina was beating the hell out of New Orleans. >>And most of important of all, the need to put into office people who have actually done things other than talk.<< Yes, the vast experience of Sarah Palin. Sorry, John McCain took the "experience" card off the table for you, Doug.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Unless, of course, you also have an IQ above 70.> I'm sure lots of people who loved the speech have an IQ a little higher than that. And they'll be voting in the fall.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Maybe if we didn't elect oilmen or those looking to give big oil huge tax breaks, that might actually happen.> Or we could, you know, drill for oil. <Yes, by not sending our troops on half-baked pre-emptive wars dreamt up by PNACers.> We removed a terrorist supporting dictator with a penchant for lying about his WMD programs and murdering and torturing his citizens, and we've done severe damage to al queda, who threw everything they could at us in Iraq, and failed. So we were strong in the face of the enemy. <I'd be happy if President Bush wasn't at a "fancy party" for John McCain while Katrina was beating the hell out of New Orleans.> So would I, but what has that to do with anything? <Yes, the vast experience of Sarah Palin. Sorry, John McCain took the "experience" card off the table for you, Doug.> Nope. Still there, and still trumps the Democrats. But maybe you actually need to be a moderate to appreciate what were in the speeches that appealed to moderates.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Not under the current administration.> Even then. I think the over 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably think they have greater freedom now then they did 8 years ago, thanks to President Bush.
Originally Posted By Mr X Yes, they just love us over in Afghanistan and Iraq. But I'm not concerned about Iraqis or Afghans. I want to know why AMERICAN freedoms are being eroded, Douglas. ***But maybe you actually need to be a moderate to appreciate what were in the speeches that appealed to moderates.*** From the guy who thinks Sarah Palin is a "moderate". I don't think it means what you think it means, Doug.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I was on a Jet Blue plane from Chicago during the Guiliani and Palin speeches. Many people from many different demographics watched on the TVs in the seat backs. The reactions were palpable. Almost everyone who was chattering about them thought the speeches did nothing to advance the GOP cause, especially Palin's. Frankly, I was shocked. I sat across from an older guy who is an admitted hard core GOPer and he said he was embarrassed for his party right now.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Even then. I think the over 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan would probably think they have greater freedom now then they did 8 years ago, thanks to President Bush.<< Oh good! We'll be going to Darfur and North Korea then next, right? And these kind of absurd platitudes ignore the realities of Iraq and Afghanistan, where Bush has been a miserable failure of a commander in chief. And our young people have paid with lives and limbs. So much for supporting the troops.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>But maybe you actually need to be a moderate to appreciate what were in the speeches that appealed to moderates.<< Or a conservative that is seeing moderation where none exists. >>So we were strong in the face of the enemy.<< Yes, good point, that's true. But at what cost to our standing in the world? Did we make the world truly safer, or did getting it wrong about WMDs affect our credibility? Further, should that be the way we conduct foreign policy in the future? Or is there perhaps a better way, one that doesn't result in so many of our troops dying? >>Nope. Still there, and still trumps the Democrats.<< Doug, you can believe the "most popular governor in America" and all that rhetoric all you like, but there is no way that she has the amount of experience a dozen other GOP women I can think of off the top of my head. So, no, the experience argument is played at your own risk, it is a foolish point to try and make now. >>So would I, but what has that to do with anything?<< Just a reminder that political outsiders and mavericks party hearty, too.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I was on a Jet Blue plane from Chicago during the Guiliani and Palin speeches. Many people from many different demographics watched on the TVs in the seat backs. The reactions were palpable. Almost everyone who was chattering about them thought the speeches did nothing to advance the GOP cause, especially Palin's.<< Maybe they liked the speeches better on Jet Red. ; )
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I want to know why AMERICAN freedoms are being eroded, Douglas.> I don't believe they are. <I don't think it means what you think it means, Doug.> I don't think you do either.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh Well, now that I've been told I have an IQ less than 70 and my opinions are "absurd platitudes", I'll leave you liberals to continue complaining about how stupid and awful the GOP is.
Originally Posted By ecdc At least we have Jon Stewart to get us through the convention. He just showed Karl Rove talking about how qualified Sarah Palin is for her experience as a mayor and governor. Then Stewart showed footage of Rove on Fox News three weeks ago lambasting Tim Kaine for being on Obama's short list. His concerns? Kaine was mayor of Richmond, which, according to Rove, was not a big enough town. He has also only been governor of Virginia for three years. Rove reminded viewers that Kaine simply didn't have the experience to potentially be the President of the United States! Karl Rove. Always good for a laugh.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<There were many WTH moments in all their speeches, I think they think their party forgot they got us all into this mess.>> <<What boggles my mind is how they've embraced this call for change. They say McCain is the one to fix Washington. But Republicans had total power in Washington for 6 years.>> THANK YOU, Lisann22 and ecdc! Giuliani and Palin had to do a very delicate dance, didn't they? They had to appeal to party loyalty while simulanteously suggesting that Washington needs to be "shaken up." For me, their dance didn't work at all. Tonight's GOP Convention theme was "In Your Face!" The two Republicans on the platform co-opted the "change" theme: "The McCain/Palin team is the bold one; DC better get ready to get hit hard." But they delivered it ineffectively. They needed to take it a step further. They needed to break rank and talk about how they would do things differently than Bush has done. They tip-toe'd around the lousy job Bush has done. They continued with the obviously false charade about how wonderfully we're doing in Iraq. They highlighted how much the national economy sucks without taking any responsibility for it. A thinking person would have to wonder, "Hmmmmmm... Is a Republican admistration really the best option for me?"
Originally Posted By Mr X ***<I want to know why AMERICAN freedoms are being eroded, Douglas.> I don't believe they are.*** Warrentless wiretaps and arrests without charge or representation don't concern you then? Guess not (til it's too late, anyway). ***Well, now that I've been told I have an IQ less than 70 and my opinions are "absurd platitudes", I'll leave you liberals to continue complaining about how stupid and awful the GOP is.*** Can somebody get Doug a tissue, please?
