RNC: Day Two: "Life In The Past"
Let me preface by saying that I did not actually see the speeches last night, I have been reading transcripts and follow-up today. It sounds like the same theme kept resonating last night....Sept. 11th and terrorism. What has been surprising to me is the moderate voices that have been trumpeting this message. The party is coming off very hawkish...and someone help me with this, yahoo for Bush going in and getting the job done in Iraq, they still have not detailed any plan for what they are doing now or what they will do in the future. Should we really be celebrating a President that can take pre-emptive measures but has no clue or plan what to do with a country once the major combat is over? Is it great to promote going on the offensive and taking over countries when it means we will have to play defense on additional fronts when we do it? Is it great to go it alone without allies? What are we going to do when Blair and Musharraf are gone...then we will truly be alone. I am still waiting for a vision or plan for the next four years, especially on domestic issues. Maybe this will come from Cheney and Bush...I hope so.
However, the whole campaign for both candidates so far has been decidingly lacking of vision, optimism, and plans for the next four years. Both candidates are to blame. Bush is trying to exploit the emotions of terror and fear that were caused by Sept. 11th. Kerry is trying to paint himself as a non-traditional Democrat by focusing on his war record from 30 years ago. Both of these men are looking to the past instead of inspiring us by reaching for the future. How about a real vision for the domestic future of the country that is broader than just protecting the homeland from terrorists, which is a worthy goal, but one that is destined to fail at some point.
How about a comment on Rudy's speech from Monday. He is getting lots of rave reviews for the speech...but not from me. I thought he really rambled and was much more hawkish and much more of an attack dog than I was expecting. He did bring home the Sept. 11th stuff, but I am tuning that out after 3 years of constant attention. I was expecting a great speech because Rudy is kind of a dynamic personality. He is, as others have told me, a RINO (Republican in Name Only). His moderate views set him apart from the majority of the GOP and I for one was hoping he would say something about his party's radical right wing platform. However, the speakers all seem to be towing the line. Is Rudy a realistic candidate for 2008? I really don't know, he is in the same ballpark as Pataki....pro-choice, pro-gay...and these are two stands you just don't take in the GOP. Does being mayor of NYC qualify one to run the country? If there is any city that can prepare someone, it would be NYC, but I would like to see him with some additional experiences...and no, a run for Senate does not make him more qualified...even if he serves the two years before running for President.
Finally, a note on the "big tent party". The Log Cabin Republicans, the gay wing of the GOP, has been lobbying and hoping that someone on the speaker's schedule this week would stand up with them and recognize that the platform is exluding a large portion of even GOP Americans. Based on census data, the LCRepubs say 1 million gay Americans voted for Bush in the last election...can he afford to lose those votes in the upcoming election? I say yes, because by taking a hardline stance on gay marriage and abortion, Rove and Bush are shooting for the nearly 4 million evangelical votes he did not get in 2000. So Bush does not need the votes, but the damage it will do to future Republican candidates (Rudy,etc.) if the Log Cabin endorses Kerry could be catastrophic...conservatives are on borrowed time with being able hold off governmental benefits for gay couples, they can't afford to lose a whole voting block. It is too bad both parties are trying to be all things to all people, just be honest. Dems should give up this ridiculous attempt to convince everyone we will be the tough on terror pre-emptive war fighters. Repubs should give up on this compassionate angle of the conservative approach...less people will be dissappointed after the election if we are up front now.
Tomorrow: why John Kerry can't win this election.
However, the whole campaign for both candidates so far has been decidingly lacking of vision, optimism, and plans for the next four years. Both candidates are to blame. Bush is trying to exploit the emotions of terror and fear that were caused by Sept. 11th. Kerry is trying to paint himself as a non-traditional Democrat by focusing on his war record from 30 years ago. Both of these men are looking to the past instead of inspiring us by reaching for the future. How about a real vision for the domestic future of the country that is broader than just protecting the homeland from terrorists, which is a worthy goal, but one that is destined to fail at some point.
How about a comment on Rudy's speech from Monday. He is getting lots of rave reviews for the speech...but not from me. I thought he really rambled and was much more hawkish and much more of an attack dog than I was expecting. He did bring home the Sept. 11th stuff, but I am tuning that out after 3 years of constant attention. I was expecting a great speech because Rudy is kind of a dynamic personality. He is, as others have told me, a RINO (Republican in Name Only). His moderate views set him apart from the majority of the GOP and I for one was hoping he would say something about his party's radical right wing platform. However, the speakers all seem to be towing the line. Is Rudy a realistic candidate for 2008? I really don't know, he is in the same ballpark as Pataki....pro-choice, pro-gay...and these are two stands you just don't take in the GOP. Does being mayor of NYC qualify one to run the country? If there is any city that can prepare someone, it would be NYC, but I would like to see him with some additional experiences...and no, a run for Senate does not make him more qualified...even if he serves the two years before running for President.
Finally, a note on the "big tent party". The Log Cabin Republicans, the gay wing of the GOP, has been lobbying and hoping that someone on the speaker's schedule this week would stand up with them and recognize that the platform is exluding a large portion of even GOP Americans. Based on census data, the LCRepubs say 1 million gay Americans voted for Bush in the last election...can he afford to lose those votes in the upcoming election? I say yes, because by taking a hardline stance on gay marriage and abortion, Rove and Bush are shooting for the nearly 4 million evangelical votes he did not get in 2000. So Bush does not need the votes, but the damage it will do to future Republican candidates (Rudy,etc.) if the Log Cabin endorses Kerry could be catastrophic...conservatives are on borrowed time with being able hold off governmental benefits for gay couples, they can't afford to lose a whole voting block. It is too bad both parties are trying to be all things to all people, just be honest. Dems should give up this ridiculous attempt to convince everyone we will be the tough on terror pre-emptive war fighters. Repubs should give up on this compassionate angle of the conservative approach...less people will be dissappointed after the election if we are up front now.
Tomorrow: why John Kerry can't win this election.
posted by GT at 8:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home