John Mace, Arnold is most definitely a liberal Republican. As Republicans go, he’s as far left as he could be. He champions women’s rights, ferchrissake!
I had a different take on his speech, though. I thought it was hilarious. He was loose with the facts, constantly sounded like he was out of things to talk about, and didn’t bring up a single non-terror issue that Bush is stronger than Kerry in (that I noticed). When he finally finished it off by trying to rouse the convention in a “four more years” chant, I was rolling on the floor.
Then the twins came on, and I nearly wet myself. I had to call up my friend who’s working at the convention to laugh at him.
you with the face, thanks for helping wrestle this thread back from the hijackers.
I largely agree with you on Ahnuld’s speech. It’s not that it’s not an important theme, but he stated it in five minutes and then went in circles.
‘Economic girlie men’? Well, I am a girl, but I haven’t been able to find a permanent job since a contract gig ended in June. Night of Compassion, indeed.
Laura was gracious and bland, with no surprises. The twins were pretty funny; I’ve never heard so many gulps and giggles and the poor things were pictures of nervousness. I would be too, if I had to say the word ‘sex’ in front of my grandmother! I would be struck by lightning! :eek:
Anyway, I reiterate that Giuliani’s speech has been the highlight so far.
I only caught one sentence of Arnold’s speech (something generic praising Bush for the new era of safety and freedom we are living in or some such), and it was on closed captioning on a TV at the gym. No opinion of the substance of his speech, but man, that suit looked great!
I guess I was reading it as a “liberal (republican governor)” rather than “liberal republican (governor)”. Either way, the term “liberal republican” is pretty oxymoronic. It would be more accurate to describe him as a moderate politician with a strong fiscally conservative bent.
The one criticism of his speech (and I’ll have to knock it down to an A for this) was his quip about “terminating terrorism”. Terror ttacks on the US by Islamic fundamentalists is one of the major problems we face in the 21st century, and it should not be joked about at a political convention.
Arnold isn’t a Liberal Republican - he’s a Libertarian Republican. Big difference. Arnold is liberal on social policy, but he’s way over on the right in fiscal policy. He’s to the right of the Republican party in general, and Bush himself.
I’ve been following Schwarzenegger’s politics for years, back when he used to give interviews to magazines like Reason. He’s a follower of Hayek and Friedman. He gave the introduction to Milton Friedman’s miniseries “Free to Choose” on PBS.
As for those bitching that his speech had no ‘content’, perhaps you don’t understand the purpose of speeches at a political convention. There are two kinds - policy speeches which outline the direction the party is moving in and which gives talking points to the delegates, and motivational speeches, which are purely designed to fire up the delegates and send them home ready to work their asses off to get their guy elected. Arnie gave a motivational speech. It was a “rally the troops” speech. And it was absolutely masterful.
But you know, the Republicans can’t win. If they had put out a bunch of conservative speakers, the media buzz would be, “This is an extremist convention. This is a party out of step with the public. These people won’t tolerate dissent in the ranks.” So they put out a convention full of moderate speakers, and do they get credit for their ‘big tent’? Nope. Now the conventional wisdom is, “they are trying to pull a fast one. Who are they trying to kid? This is dishonest.” Bah.
The fact is, the Republican party has become a ‘big tent’ party. The Vice President can disagree with the President about gay rights. They embrace pro-choice politicians like Guliani and Arnie. The keynote speech tonight is being given by a Democrat. The Republicans have worked very hard to be inclusive.
Hogwash. If the Vice President wanted to truly disagree with the President regarding gay rights, he would have done so when the issue came up. If they were to embrace Guiliani and Arnie as pro-choice politicians, they would have let Arnie mention that in his speech. No, the Republicans have worked very hard to *appear * inclusive.
They’re inclusive as long as you “play by the rules” (or so Gov. Schwarzenegger says). Pro-gay rights? Fine, just don’t bring it up when it’s important. Want to focus on our immigrants? Sure, just don’t mention the wing of the party that wants to build a giant electric fence on the Mexican border, and plant landmines in the desert. Pro-choice? Fine, just don’t mention it. Ever.
Good points, although to be fair the press did have a field day with Kerry over the war at the DNC. The pundits kept pounding on the theme “90% of the delegates here are anti-war, why can’t Kerry come out and claim that position?”
As for those who lament the Republicans’ treatment of pro-choice members of their party, I’d like to see just how a pro-life Democrat would be treated. Is there even such a thing? I think on this issue, the Republicans come across as the more inclusive party.
“Come across” = the operative words. They want to have their extremist base and appear calmly reasonable at the same instant. And it works, and its working. Much like they can present themselves as unshakeably devoted to a constitutional amendment to counter the raging epidemic of flag desecration. Rather like an Emergency! Impending Glacier!
Much like trumpeting another constitutional amendment to discriminate against gay citizens, while Cheney publicly hugs his daughter and promises to protect her from…well, him.
As for “pro-life”, hell, I’m “pro-life”, I find abortion offensive and would be dismayed to have it become a common form of birth control. But its not my damn body! And if I can’t trust a woman enough to leave such a decision to her, then I’ve no damn business making her a temporary residence for Mr. Happy.
They only have the two faces, but they’re both kinda ugly.
Good point. But are there any pro-choice Republican candidates outside of New York and California? Honestly, I have no idea. Personally, I’m a pro-life Democrat. But then, I have no aspirations for office. And if I did, I can’t imagine the difficulty I’d have trying to raise money - especially with NOW following me around wherever I go with a “this guy’s pro-life” sign.
Well, there are 39 members of the Congressional Black Caucus, so I have to wonder if that is actually true. Maybe they mean Aftican-American DEMOCRATS.
Agreed. I liken it to the DNC in fact. Obama’s masterful speech wasn’t about why we should vote for Kerry, it was a speech about inspiration…I loved it (I even started a thread about it during the DNC), but you have to look at it and the other speeches objectively when comparing them to what the Republicans are currently serving up.
Most of the theme at the DNC was about showcasing the Democrat party as moderate centrists, with plenty of human interest and compassion. There were very little in the way of strident themes, no anti-war themes, no hammering on liberal economic or social themes in fact…nothing of real substance about the ACTUAL positions Kerry will take up if he’s president. It was masterful IMO. What I’m interested in is the Republican tactics which are VERY different, seemingly (so far) much more narrowly focused. Are they wise to do this? Will these tactics work? How will the rest of the convention play out? Because its obvious that the movers and shakers behind the RNC have a very different tactical outlook than the ones behind the DNC.
I think the mistake many in this thread are making are to blind themselves, or hold up a dual standard. Looked at objectively, in both conventions the majority of the speeches were content free screeds to buck up the troops…intellectual smoke and mirrors. The fact that you LIKED the speeches given at the DNC (or at the RNC) didn’t make them full of content…because they weren’t. The Democrats didn’t make a strong case for Kerry, or lay out with any kind of substance Kerry’s positions…they were all generic speeches extolling the Democratic ideals (well, portraying the Democrat party as a moderate centrist party with a very diverse following). They were EXTREMELY effective at this…but it doesn’t change the fact that it was mostly content free, and didn’t exactly show us why we should vote for Kerry.
What is interesting to ME about the RNC is this change in tactics with respect to the Democrats. Sure, they are extolling the Republican ideals (and portraying themselves as moderate centrists, blah blah blah), but they are focusing mostly on 9/11 and terrorism, and they are attempting to attack Kerry, but doing so in a (mostly) lighthearted way. Will these tactics strike a cord with the independent and non-aligned voters? Will they be effective? What would have been a better strategy for the Republicans?
-XT
(btw, I wanted to appologize for my earlier frustration. I have come to really respect this board and was dismayed on the content free screeds at the beginning of this thread, because I was hoping for more insight and objective analysis…its why I started this thread to get the feel for this convention with respect to the DNC. I feel the US is at a crossroads in history and I think, without trying to sound overly dramatic, that this election might be one of the most important in our history.)
If the number is 40, they should have said 40. It’s pretty clear that their agenda is to make it look like there are as many pro-life Dems as possible, so it is reasonable to assume that they are not giving a specific number because they are playing fast and lose with the definition of pro-life. Perhaps pro-ilfe means anyone who votes against “partial birth abortions” even if he/she voted for every other pro-abortion stance. Anyway, this is a hijack of the thread and we’re just picking nits.
Um, John? Been keeping up with the news? The Black Republican Caucus used to be able to meet in J.C. Watt’s bathroom stall. It no longer exists. ALL blacks currently in Congress are Democrats.
Yes. “If people knew what the GOP really stood for, they’d run us out of town on a rail in a New York second! We better trot out our more palpitable members in prime time and try to fool people into believing we’re not as extreme as we are.”
Anyone want to wager how many (few) times the media covering Michael Reagan’s speech will point out his extreme homophobic views? Or will that be kept hidden, as part of the RNC head-fake?
I watched Last Comic Standing. And I’m betting I had a better time than you. I switched over to PBS during some commercials, & if there was much coolness being said, I surely missed it.
Second night, Schwarzenegger? Yeah, that’s rousing oratory! :rolleyes: I turned off the TV.
I zoned out during Laura’s speech, but the few times i was paying attention, she seemed to be saying how her husband agonized over the decision to go to war. Complete bullshit.
George W Bush’s short introduction of his wife was horrendous. He sounded like he wanted to be anywhere but there. His opening joke was lame and made no sense, and only got a sympathy chuckle from the audience. At one point in his speech, he paused just long enough to make the audience think they were supposed to applaud, but then just as they started, he cut them off, continuing his speech. I didn’t know whether i was listening to the President of the United States or Marvin the Paranoid Android!
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s speech was brilliant. It had all the elements needed to grab the independent, everyday Joe … lots of rheteric about capitalism, military strength, and patriotism. Unfortunately, the everyday Joe doesn’t listen to the speech, he’ll only hear the soundbites. And his biggest soundbite of the night was a Republican disaster … paraphrased “Don’t worry about the economy, don’t be an economic girlie-man!” Is he nuts, don’t worry about the economy!? It’s ALL about the economy. It was supposed to be a throwaway issue, Arnold said only two sentences about it, yet it hit the news as the biggest soundbite because of the “girlie-man” gag. The speech was a good idea in theory, but just ineffective in reality.
I do find it interesting that they justified the war in Iraq two different ways this night. Arnold spoke about liberating the Iraqi people, and how America spreads freedom, while Laura spoke about concerns of Sadaam’s threat to America.
You don’t think that soundbite will appeal to “everyday Joe”? Better think again. If that’s the only thing that Joe SixPack hears, that will suit him just fine.
