C'mon Republican National Committee, show your true face!

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ®, New York Gov. George E. Pataki ®, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg ®, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani ®, Senator John McCain of Arizona ®, Secretary of Education Rod Paige ®, and Senator Zell Miller of Georgia (D). Four pro-choice moderates, a fiscal conservative beloved by Democrats, a nobody, and an actual Democrat. These are the people whom Karl Rove has selected as prime-time speakers for the Republican National Convention — a waste-of-time pep rally that Congress has designated as “educational” so that we have to pay $13 million to subsidize it. If it were possible to put a pretty face on the Grand Oppression Party, this would be the sort of mascara you would need.

But it is so obviously fake and contrived that honest-to-goodness Republicans are raising hell. According to the Times, a majority of Republicans in the House have dispatched a scathing letter demanding that at least one of the speakers be an unambiguously nosy nanny who wants to scold us for our Godless morality. The man (naturally, it’s a man) they want to hear from is famed moralist Henry “I fucked Cherie Snodgrass for five years” Hyde, who with the boldness of OJ Simpson leading a panty raid on a battered women’s shelter, had berated President Clinton for his affair with Monica, stating that “lies must have consequences”.

Poor choice, I say, and just as weasely as the list given above. I say show us your true face. Make John Asshole your keynote speaker. Put him up there to boast about the new powers you have given him — to hold us in custody indefinitely, to sneak into our homes while we’re away, to inspect our activities in our churches, to read our e-mail, to find out what books we checked out from the library, to listen to our phone calls, to peer into our medical, mental health, financial, educational, and bank records, and to listen in on conversations between attorneys and clients in federal custody — all without probable cause and all without notifying us about what the hell they’re up to. Put the man behind the podium who will tell us that the Statue of David is obscene. Give us the face of your party that opposes gay marriage and other basic human rights. Let the world know exactly what we’ve gotten from you for the past four years — reckless spending, growth in government, new bureaucracies, new deficits, new wars, loss of freedom, increased corporate welfare, new trade restrictions, new capitalism-choking regulations, and loss of all international credibility — and how we can expect more of the same for the next four years if we elect you. Put someone up there to show us why opposition to the United States in some countries is now approaching 100%.

Grow some fucking balls. Show us who you really are.

This rush-to-the-middle facade only shows how out of the mainstream the Bush-led GOP is. It’s even more ironic with the GOP’s “Kerry Is Out Of The Mainstream” talking point being bandied about. What with this and their bashing of Kerry for being rich they should officially call their campaign “The Pot Calling The Kettle Black Campaign.” It should be on the letterhead of all their memos.

I would suspect they are trotting out the moderates in an attempt to show the public that the Bush administration is not the pack of flying monkeys that everyone knows it to be. “See? We’re not so bad. Look! It’s John McCain…doesn’t he look just like a teddy bear?”

Now if they can just tape down Cheney’s lip to keep it from automatically pulling up into that evil sneer…

He can’t help that sneer. It’s a side effect of the botox injections. They do help though. He almost looks lifelike :stuck_out_tongue:

Forgive them for not showing their “true face.” They want to win the election. For some reason Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rove, etc. just don’t play to the public really well.

First off: bravo to the OP.

Secondly, what are all those liberals even going to talk about? Arnold and Rudy are both pro-gay, aren’t they? Since the centerpiece of Bush’s campaign is basically the hate amendment- and since he really has nothing else- the GOP headline speakers don’t really have any policy to pimp. Are they just going to mouth patriotic platitudes and slap Shrub on the back for getting revenge on Saddam for 9/11? What am I talking about, of course they are.

Well, this is good for the Dems, anyway. There are no inspiring speakers on that list. McCain is only popular with the middle and left only insofar as he is perceived as not being a toady for Bush, so putting McCain up there to toady for Bush is rather self-defeating. McCain is not a particularly electrifying speaker anyway.

Arnold is a novelty act, and he’s also not a good speaker, nor is his opinion exactly respected.

Rudy is there to milk the goodwill for his overrated 9/11 performance and to try to reflect something back onto “Seven Minutes” Bush. Rudy has never struck me as charismatic or as a good speaker anyway. Politically. he’s a liberal and he’s also an adulterer so he can’t go anywhere near the hate amendment, or really any conservative social policies. He’s just going to try to play up the myth that Bush did anything heroic on 9/11.

Pataki? Who gives a fuck about Pataki? Since when is this guy any sort of respected political figure? Are they just loading up on New Yorkers? I see Bloomberg on the list so I guess they are. Whatever, Pataki is a human sleeping pill as a speaker. That’s good for the Dems.

Zell Miller…what’s the thinking there? To try to show diversity and tolerance? To brandish a turncoat as a trophy? Whatever. I don’t see him swaying any votes.

Rod Page? Who the fuck is Rod Page? I mean, I know who he is, but who the fuck is he? I guess he must be there to pimp “No Child Left Behind (except poor kids).” That should really raise the rafters. Is this guy a secret weapon or something. Is he the GOP Obama? Some how I doubt it.

Then of course we have Dick “The Sandman” Cheney and to top it all off, the Chimp making chimp noises.

This should be good for the Dems. Look for no memorable speeches, no bounce in the polls and at least some discontent from the rank and file rubes if they don’t get enough red meat hate speech and self-righteous moralizing and theocratic policy promises.

Lib is right. The Pubs know that showing their real faces would be suicidal in an election with such a narrow undecided vote. They’ve already got all the knuckle-draggers anyway. The problem is, the facade of moderation that they will present at the RNC is so transparent and insincere that anyone intelligent enough to still be undecided will be too intelligent to fall for it.

BTW, say what you will about the DNC, but they showed their true faces at their convention. We say Hillary, we saw Ted kennedy, we saw fucking Al Sharpton, we saw Willie, we heard about the “two Americas” and the top guy himself is allegedly the “most liberal” member of the Senate. Whether you agree with them or not, no one can say that they were disingenuous in their choice of speakers or that they were masquerading as anything but Democrats.

Well, I gotta say, I fell for it. In 2000, I was fairly at ease about the election, still prefered the more lefty moderate, but saw the race as center-left against center-right, no reason to get one’s knickers all in a twist. Should have known, I guess, looking back: those subtle references to evangelical themes, the little trip to Bob Jones U., should have tipped me off.

Just didn’t get it that Candidate Bush and President Bush were two entirely different political animals.

Since it worked before, I suppose they’ve no good reason to believe it won’t work again. What with cognitive dissonance reaching pandemic proportions, and neither candidate having any plan to deal with it…

That’s true, but the public doesn’t vote. At least, the majority of it doesn’t vote. I think the fact that Republican Congress critters are freaking out suggests that they’re concerned about alienating the homo erectus crowd that comprises their base. Problem is, those people have nowhere to go. Whereas tax-and-spend leftists can lodge a protest vote with Nader, what are the preach-and-condemn rightists to do? They can’t vote for Badnarik because when they hear his platform, they’ll run screaming from the room like a debutante in a crack house. I’m confidently predicting a phenomenon similar to the Dixiecrats — a schizm that breaks the back of the party.

Liberal do you have a cite that the GOP is taking 13 million on grounds that their convention is ‘educational’? My google-fu is a bit weak today.

It was what Tim Russert said today. Apparently, it is how the Congress justified using tax dollars to pay for the two conventions. (Naturally, the law is designed so they don’t have to pay for other ones.) Years ago, the two conventions were like the others still are — they were events where presidential candidates were determined. Now they are determined in the primaries.

I didn’t hear Mr Russert.
Even if I did, wouldn’t it behove me to check the factuality of his claims?

Can anybody provide a cite on this fact/figure?

I can’t provide any kind of cite for the contention that the expense is being written off because the convention is supposedly “educational,” but the $13 Million figure is actually way off the mark low. Security alone is costing federal taxpayers $25 Million and New York residents another $26 Million. And Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Queens & Brooklyn), a Member of the House Homeland Security Task Force, asked the feds for another $25 Million, though whether or not it was approved, I haven’t been able to determine.


Well, security is one thing…

I honestly want to know if the fact that the GOP is stealing money by calling this ‘educational’ is true, right now, that’s the only issue I’m curious about.

This lefty liberal, for one, hopes that you’re right. I’d love to see a Republican party like the one my father belonged to when I was growing up in the '50s and '60s. I sure don’t recall the politics of that era being dominated by right-wing demonization of the Democrats en masse as traitors, social degenerates, blasphemers against the American God, etc. No, it wasn’t all sweetness, light, and group hugs. But neither was the political atmosphere as polluted by rank hatred as it is now.

Was it elucidator who said in another thread that he longed for a conservative party free of the baggage that the neocons and religious extremists have shackled onto the GOP? If this election can break the Republican Party into two factions, of moderates and extremists, I think that would be much healthier for the country as a whole. Heck, if we wound up with three major parties – a leftist/Democratic, a right-wing/Republican, and a moderate/centrist Unity(?) party, I’d be delighted.

Oh, sorry, Lib, but I don’t think the Libertarian party will ever get enough traction to be a player. :wink:

Great work on the OP. I hope no reader misses my favorite little nugget by not following your cites:

“Hyde, then 41 years old, was a lawyer and rising star in Republican state politics…”


"Hyde released the following statement to Salon Wednesday: “The statute of limitations has long since passed on my youthful indiscretions…”

Holy crap, I’m not 41 yet but I’m damned if I can consider anything I’m doing NOW as ‘youthful indescretions.’ Those were way back 20+ years ago when I was a freshman in college. If I’m doing crap like that now, I’m a full-fledged grown-up hypocritical bastard.

Hyde was a lawyer and politician cheating on his wife and sleeping with a married woman (each with several kids) at 41, and that’s a ‘youthful indescretion?’

…carry on with the effigies and torches, this one bit just knocked me out of my chair.

Slow down there, dude! :smiley: It isn’t just the GOP. The Democrats and Republicans both get the money. Always have. “Educational” is the justification for spending the taxpayer money. Just like they can give taxpayer money to PBS, schools, or the arts. They ostensibly need a reason, and educational was the chosen one.

Well, I’m not saying the dems don’t do it too.
(although as of yet I haven’t seen a cite proving either position)
Simply, in your OP, you said the pubbies are.
Well and good, I’m just trying to find some confirmation of that fact.
If the dems are doing it too, I’ll say they’re fuckers as well.

P.S. I’m not talking about a broader agenda of paying for PBS or some such, I’m talking about classifying a political rally as ‘educational’ and then stealing tax payer money for that. Shouldn’t be all that hard to find a cite, but my google-fu is lacking today it seems.

According to a 2002 compilation of election campaign laws available from the Federal Election Commision at http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf,

A 1993 brochure entitled The Presidential Public Funding Program at the FEC website contains the following in Chapter 3: Convention Funding

I can’t find anything justifying this funding by calling the conventions “educational”.

Criminey, FinnAgain. If they fund it because they say it’s education or if they fund it because they say the moon is in the seventh house, what the fuck does it matter? You know damn well how it works. They start with a premise like this: “We’re going to have big huge conventions for our two parties, and we need a way to pay for it with taxpayer money.” They then hand it over to their legal staff and wait for them to come back with something like this: “Well, sir, we can say that it’s educational and therefore falls within the budgetary discretion of Congress.” Dammit, this thread isn’t about how to make you happy by getting to the bottom of which bureaucrat first thought of how to justify funding these pep rallies. It’s about the hypocrisy of the Republican Party for putting on a show that suggests it is moderate and a champion of freedom. Wake the fuck up or get the fuck out.

Because you said

I am very curious as to the veracity that specific claim.

To be honest I am not sure of that. I’m generally not wonderful at predicting motivations. I had figured that federal matching funds assured that any large party would have a large convention.

Well… is that what congress actually did, or is it something like what they did?

I was unaware that was the paradigm we were operating under. For that matter, I’m still unclear on to whether you’re upset that a polital party is getting money for a convention, or that they’re dishonestly taking money that was supposedly for education.

That’s fine.
But are you making the point at the Republican party, by putting on a convention and taking federal dollars, isn’t moderate or a champion of freedom?
Or are you saying that because they’re taking money earmarked for education they’re not moderate or champions of freedom?

I don’t really believe I’m sleeping, but I’ll respect your desires and leave the thread.