A "traitor" and "Darth Vader"
I'm sorry. The rhetorical spew tonight was too vitriolic for me to be willing to do an exhaustive listening. It also pulled me into more ranting in response than might be good. Oh well. It's good to see the Republicans are above the need for distorting their opponent's record, exaggerating their own, and are focused on positive plans instead of negative campaigning. The following is hurriedly jotted down while listening in real-time, with some follow-up reference to texts of the speeches from the web, and last minute web-searches.
Zell Miller:
What a rousing speech! Outstanding! One question: what planet is he on? Not Earth, apparently.
He sure was worried about protecting his family. Good for him. I want to protect my family, too. (And also those of my gay friends, but that's a different argument.) Personally, I'd prefer my family to be defended by the man who'd actually carried a gun into combat, not the one who avoided it. Maybe later I should post my "Why George is weak on defending our country" post.
Interesting riff about "occupiers" vs. "liberators". Why don't we just ask the people in-country for their label, and use that? Europe in WWII? Liberators. Iraq? Liberators, until we didn't do anything to stop the looting or protect the average Iraqi citizen from chaos. Now? Occupiers, fighting an active and growing resistance.
Odd that his litany of great American liberation managed to skip the whole war in Viet Nam, given how much the right wing's been talking about it. Could it be that it was an example of a war that wasn't about liberation, and was colored by atrocities?
Zell, that's quite a list of weapons systems Kerry voted against. Show me some facts, and I'll get worried. Do you have the supporting documentation? Are you sure he wasn't actually voting against $900 toilet seats or $800 coffee cups that happened to be in the same bill? You sure he wasn't voting against contractor over-charges or the Sergeant York dogwaste, I mean, gun, at the time? Prove it. Until you guys start giving me a context for his votes, I don't care how many times you say he voted for or against anything, it's meaningless noise.
Oooh. Kerry won't use our troops without permission of the United Nations? That's a stinging critique. Or it would be, if it were true, but it isn't. (Readers, do I really have to go look up the facts on this smear for you? It's late. Couldn't we just make them show us some, instead?)
"Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?" Hmm. Let's see. It was here on 9/11. It must be around here somewhere. Listen, I know, why don't you ask Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert? They're right there. I'm sure they know where it went. After all, they are the ones with the power in Congress. Or maybe Rick Santorum? Wasn't he just here? Or maybe Mitt Romney took it to Massachusetts? Listen, if they don't know, I'm sure you could ask George, when he gets there tomorrow.
Dick Cheney:
He's looking good. I'm glad he's been able to leave the bunker and get some sun. And he had a good opening joke. Who's his writer?
"So President Bush delivered the greatest tax reduction in a generation, and the results are clear to see." More people in poverty. The middle class is being squeezed. Real wages and household income are down. Fewer jobs than when you took office. Yup. Clear all right. "The Bush tax cuts are working." You mean that's what's supposed to be happening?
"The world's worst source of nuclear weapons proliferation is out of business, and we are safer as a result." And who would that be, exactly? Certainly not Iraq, since they didn't have nukes. Oh, you mean founder of the nuclear program of our "ally", Pakistan, A.Q. Khan? He was pardoned just this spring by Musharif, right? Didn't it seem like he couldn't possibly have been doing what he did without his bosses' approval? Say, Dick, didn't you hide evidence of Pakistan's nuclear program, back when you were Secretary of Defense? I know I feel safer about proliferation with an expert like you on the case.
Ohmigod. He used the "more sensitive" riff again! The man has no shame. Do I really have to bother looking up what Kerry actually said, and also citing the many times the same week that Cheney himself used the same word in the same context? Didn't we just do that a couple weeks ago? I can't believe he said it again.
"He declared at the Democratic convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked..." Yeah, we have been attacked. But not by Saddam!!! Where is Osama, by the way?
"President Bush has brought many allies to our side." Compared to the number behind us on 9/12? Doesn't it seem like he chased quite a few away? Never mind, we had the full awesome power of the Army of Fiji on our side in Iraq.
Kerry "voted against funding for our men and women in the field." Again with this lie. I guess they'll keep using it until the press starts calling them on it. Sigh.
"Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief, and that is to support American troops in combat." I quote John Kerry: "I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq." Gee, sounds like he understands it pretty well.
"America sees two John Kerrys." Even if it were true, which it's not, that Kerry's a flip-flopper, at least he'd be right part of the time, which would be better than what we have now! By the way, George, which is it? Can we win it, or can't we? Yes or no.
"He has acted with patience and calm and a moral seriousness that calls evil by its name." Unless its name is Enron. Or Haliburton. Or the Pentagon Office of Special Plans. Or Sudan.
---
The pundits were talking before the convention that this would be Bush's opportunity to present a new agenda, and talk about what he's going to do in the future. (It's pretty clear there are a whole lot of people out here who aren't too well satisfied with what he's done so far.) Maybe we'll hear more when he speaks tomorrow night, but that'll have to be some kind of amazing speech to convince anyone he's got a new direction, despite all the "turn the corner" rhetoric.
After tonight, it's clear the Republicans have no better plan for fighting terror and protecting our country than the one they've been using. They seem to be proud of it, for reasons that escape me. They also seem very proud of their record on domestic issues, including the economy and especially education.
There isn't a plan for any change, or any improvement. They don't see a need. That's the problem.
Zell Miller:
What a rousing speech! Outstanding! One question: what planet is he on? Not Earth, apparently.
He sure was worried about protecting his family. Good for him. I want to protect my family, too. (And also those of my gay friends, but that's a different argument.) Personally, I'd prefer my family to be defended by the man who'd actually carried a gun into combat, not the one who avoided it. Maybe later I should post my "Why George is weak on defending our country" post.
Interesting riff about "occupiers" vs. "liberators". Why don't we just ask the people in-country for their label, and use that? Europe in WWII? Liberators. Iraq? Liberators, until we didn't do anything to stop the looting or protect the average Iraqi citizen from chaos. Now? Occupiers, fighting an active and growing resistance.
Odd that his litany of great American liberation managed to skip the whole war in Viet Nam, given how much the right wing's been talking about it. Could it be that it was an example of a war that wasn't about liberation, and was colored by atrocities?
Zell, that's quite a list of weapons systems Kerry voted against. Show me some facts, and I'll get worried. Do you have the supporting documentation? Are you sure he wasn't actually voting against $900 toilet seats or $800 coffee cups that happened to be in the same bill? You sure he wasn't voting against contractor over-charges or the Sergeant York dogwaste, I mean, gun, at the time? Prove it. Until you guys start giving me a context for his votes, I don't care how many times you say he voted for or against anything, it's meaningless noise.
Oooh. Kerry won't use our troops without permission of the United Nations? That's a stinging critique. Or it would be, if it were true, but it isn't. (Readers, do I really have to go look up the facts on this smear for you? It's late. Couldn't we just make them show us some, instead?)
"Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?" Hmm. Let's see. It was here on 9/11. It must be around here somewhere. Listen, I know, why don't you ask Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert? They're right there. I'm sure they know where it went. After all, they are the ones with the power in Congress. Or maybe Rick Santorum? Wasn't he just here? Or maybe Mitt Romney took it to Massachusetts? Listen, if they don't know, I'm sure you could ask George, when he gets there tomorrow.
Dick Cheney:
He's looking good. I'm glad he's been able to leave the bunker and get some sun. And he had a good opening joke. Who's his writer?
"So President Bush delivered the greatest tax reduction in a generation, and the results are clear to see." More people in poverty. The middle class is being squeezed. Real wages and household income are down. Fewer jobs than when you took office. Yup. Clear all right. "The Bush tax cuts are working." You mean that's what's supposed to be happening?
"The world's worst source of nuclear weapons proliferation is out of business, and we are safer as a result." And who would that be, exactly? Certainly not Iraq, since they didn't have nukes. Oh, you mean founder of the nuclear program of our "ally", Pakistan, A.Q. Khan? He was pardoned just this spring by Musharif, right? Didn't it seem like he couldn't possibly have been doing what he did without his bosses' approval? Say, Dick, didn't you hide evidence of Pakistan's nuclear program, back when you were Secretary of Defense? I know I feel safer about proliferation with an expert like you on the case.
Ohmigod. He used the "more sensitive" riff again! The man has no shame. Do I really have to bother looking up what Kerry actually said, and also citing the many times the same week that Cheney himself used the same word in the same context? Didn't we just do that a couple weeks ago? I can't believe he said it again.
"He declared at the Democratic convention that he will forcefully defend America after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked..." Yeah, we have been attacked. But not by Saddam!!! Where is Osama, by the way?
"President Bush has brought many allies to our side." Compared to the number behind us on 9/12? Doesn't it seem like he chased quite a few away? Never mind, we had the full awesome power of the Army of Fiji on our side in Iraq.
Kerry "voted against funding for our men and women in the field." Again with this lie. I guess they'll keep using it until the press starts calling them on it. Sigh.
"Yet he does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief, and that is to support American troops in combat." I quote John Kerry: "I am voting 'no' on the Iraq resolution to hold the President accountable and force him finally to develop a real plan that secures the safety of our troops and stabilizes Iraq." Gee, sounds like he understands it pretty well.
"America sees two John Kerrys." Even if it were true, which it's not, that Kerry's a flip-flopper, at least he'd be right part of the time, which would be better than what we have now! By the way, George, which is it? Can we win it, or can't we? Yes or no.
"He has acted with patience and calm and a moral seriousness that calls evil by its name." Unless its name is Enron. Or Haliburton. Or the Pentagon Office of Special Plans. Or Sudan.
---
The pundits were talking before the convention that this would be Bush's opportunity to present a new agenda, and talk about what he's going to do in the future. (It's pretty clear there are a whole lot of people out here who aren't too well satisfied with what he's done so far.) Maybe we'll hear more when he speaks tomorrow night, but that'll have to be some kind of amazing speech to convince anyone he's got a new direction, despite all the "turn the corner" rhetoric.
After tonight, it's clear the Republicans have no better plan for fighting terror and protecting our country than the one they've been using. They seem to be proud of it, for reasons that escape me. They also seem very proud of their record on domestic issues, including the economy and especially education.
There isn't a plan for any change, or any improvement. They don't see a need. That's the problem.
posted by Paul at 9:23 PM |
|
email this
