Wow, with one sweeping statement, you have branded Republicans as shallow, and Democrats as stupid. Thank goodness most voters are far more perceptive than you give them credit for.
Do you honestly think the Democrats wouldn’t put up a black candidate at the same time the Republicans do?
Channel 5 in Boston did a pretty good job. What was fascinating to me…the convention is pretty meaningless…what is REALLY important are the after-hours, $5000 a plate PRIVATE parties (press NOT invited). This is where the REAL action is…where the party hacks figure out who will get the plum jobs in the new administration. The FOX reporters tried to get in to one such party (held at the state house) they were told (and not very politely) to screw!
The convention is all about resurrecting the political dead (Carter, kennedy, etc.) it has no significance anymore…the platform they vote on is ignored as soon as the new administration starts, and the candidates are already picked. $100 million for this?? 
Which puts him on an exactly equal footing with Bush. But it’s their running mates who tip the balance: Bush and Kerry have zero charisma. Edwards has positive charisma. Cheney has negative charisma – it’s hard even to look at him, let alone listen to him, without feeling one’s flesh crawl. I can’t wait for the Edwards-Cheney debate.
Totally disagree with you here BG, and I think your prejudices are blinding you. I don’t personally like Bush either, but the man has charisma, loads of it. Its the ‘good ole boy’ variety, and it strikes a VERY distinct cord with people. Basically he doesn’t ACT like a politician and comes across as ‘every man’, even if patently he isn’t.
Cheney has zero charisma, true enough, and Edwards oozes charisma, again, true enough, but unfortunately Kerry is flat. Thats why I keep saying the smartest thing for him to do is to let others carry the water and do the heavy lifting and just kick back and look ‘presidential’. If he keeps his mouth mainly shut I think he’s got a very good chance of being the next president, gods help us all. For me this is a devil and the deep blue sea situation…oh well, I’m sure the nation will weather it reguardless of who wins.
I HOPE there is a debate…it will be intersting to see if there is one.
-XT
Obama was electrifying! It seems like everyone has been talking about him today. The new Get Your War On mentions him, too.
I thought Dean’s speech was disappointing, but he’s had some funny moments at other times throughout the convention. Not a bad show, overall. I’m looking forward to Edwards tonight.
Four debates have been scheduled by the Commission on Presidential Debates (http://www.debates.org/):
First presidential debate: Thursday, September 30, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL.
Vice presidential debate: Tuesday, October 5, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH.
Second presidential debate: Friday, October 8, Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
Third presidential debate: Wednesday, October 13, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ.
Barack Obama vs. Colin Powell!
Well, Edwards just promised to raise the minimum wage. Despite well-known and well-founded economic theory that states that raising the minimum wage only creates additional competition for the lowest paying wages, they are proposing raising the MW in exchange for votes. If that isn’t the most priceless thing I’ve heard.
Cite?
I didn’t think that this was the type of issue that needed a cite. Kinda like asking for cite for someone stating that the sky is blue.
But perhaps this is convincing. Basically confirms that minimum wage laws are, at best, ineffective, and at worst, harmful
Actually, I meant it more in “I hope there will be an INTERESTING debate”…i.e. I hope there will be a debate, no just a lot of political posturing and bullshit.
I’ve been following the convention as much as possible and it seems that the Democrats are really trying to position themselves as moderates. They are really avoiding anything that smacks of ‘liberalism’, and even trying to portray themselves as the ‘military’ party (with the flag level officers they trotted out, as well as several references to military topics). I’m just wondering if they are being a touch dishonest in courting the center and staying away from the left. Same way the Republicans try and court the center and stay away from the right I suppose…it just seems kind of blatant to me this year I guess. In years past I remember a lot more left leaning topics and speeches I guess.
BTW, I think the strategy of not directly bashing (or even really mentioning) the current administration is a master stroke…its really setting off a contrast with the current ads running by Bush. I wonder if the Republicans will be smart and do the same thing at their convention?
-XT
Mark Shields and David Brooks said Edwards didn’t bring his A-game tonight. Whatever - that was one damned fine speech, even if he’s done it better on other nights. His A-game must be quite something!
No, that would be the second most priceless thing; the first is promising tax cuts for votes. Gored oxen, you know.
You have cites, I have cites. Check out this one from the Economic Policy Institute:
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts
Well then why’d you ask?
Absolutely. Very often the sky is not blue. So if you want to claim the sky was blue at a particular time, or is always blue under particular conditions, you need a cite. And if you or your cite says the sky is always blue, you run up against the reality that most of us have been rained on.
You seem to be citing an argument, and one that’s quite lengthy. Can you summarize the argument? Or quote the particular parts that you expect us to be convinced by? Because without that, it’s like waving a book in the air, and saying, “this book supports my views and refutes yours.” The burden of proof is on the person waving the book to illustrate why that’s so.
Back to the convention. The first speaker of note was Al Sharpton. Al is a very compelling speaker. He went off script and over time in his speech. Line of the night from him was (perhaps not an exact quote) " if George Bush had appointed the Supreme Court in 1954, Clarence Thomas would never have gotten in law school." Ouch. Tying Mr. Bush to the old time segregationists. This is going to hurt somebody. Also, looking back to the reconstruction promise of 40 acres and a mule, he noted that they never got the 40 acres and “we never got the mule, so that’s why we’re riding this donkey as far as it will go” (again not an exact quote but my memory of it). I think he did a great job and I don’t see a lot of black vote being siphoned off by Bush.
Edwards. He did a good job and can give a great speech without bringing his A game. My first thought on seeing him last night was too bad for John Ritter’s death, he’d be a natural to play Edwards in a movie some day. My second thought was that he seemed to be borrowing Jimmy Carter’s teeth. What a smile. The speech was well written, but he didn’t seem natural delivering the line to AlQaeda “we will destroy you.” He’s going to be the good cop to Kerry’s bad cop. The line “Hope is Coming” looks like a great slogan. Overall a very positive message. Republicans hoping that the convention would be a mean-spirited Bush bash-a-thon are going to be disappointed.
I’m the only one who found Edwards speech boring?
Well, then why ever cite anything. My argument is that miniumum wage laws often do the opposite of their intention. Often, minimum wage laws create more hardship at the low-end of the wage ladder. As a matter of theory, when an employer is forced to pay more for labor, there then is less incentive to purchase that labor. As a matter of practice, this has been proven - at least as far as attempts to raise the minimum wage is concerned. When people are willing to work for $5.00 and the gov’t says you must pay them $7.00, then as the employers hire less of the $7.00 workers, competition for the $7.00 jobs rises and the people that the law was created to protect are harmed. There are simply less jobs to go around.
The cite I gave basically supports this argument. But, Econ 101 covers this. My original point was that this is pretty much agreed upon. There have been economists who have attempted to refute this conventional economic wisdom, but their arguments have been tenuous at best.
As it relates to the OP, I was commenting on the convention and how Edwards threw that in during his speech. My comment was intended as a comment on the obvious pandering that was going on. I mean, raising the minimum wage. That’s the oldest one in the book.