Who won the Battle of the Conventions?
Now that we're back from convention watching, I will return to posting. However, many people are finding 'blogging' to be time consuming. So, for that reason, I will likely slow down the pace of questions (even though you won't be able to tell from today's posts). In addition, some people will likely not post as often as they would like (some have recommended that people respond only every other day).
So on to the new post ...
In your opinion, who do you think won the "Battle of the Conventions"?
I, personally, think that there is a difference between how the candidates peformed and how the convention did. IIRC, Bush 41 did fine in his speech but Buchanan's rant on morality made the 88/92 (?) convention a loser for the Republicans.
So how did the candidates do? How did the convention do/come across?
Were either sucessful?
posted by TheRadicalModerate @ 9/03/2004 03:08:00 PM
22 Comments:
Bush and the reps won. Ameicans want as strong leader and thats what Bush gave them. Kerry seemed to stumble along, even Edwards wasn't very impressive. To be fair I found it funny that the rep commentators kept syaing how people didnt want screaming like at the DNC but then tehy had miller.
gregB
I only watched Kerry's speech at the DNC convention; the rest were too fired up on issues I disagreed with. It's hard to pay attention to in your face politics. I watched most of the speeches from the RNC convention because they had people I was interested in (besides Kerry); Arnold from California, McCain, a Democrat(?) in Zell Miller, and the President. I didn't care much for Gulliani's speech and the VP needs to smile more! Since I didn't give equal attention I can't say either way.
Bush and the RNC won but I think it'll get lost in the hurricane/Russia/Clinton stories.
Keith J
PEZ says ...
I think it's clear that Bush beat Kerry in the speech. Most Americans are stupid (I was gonna add "when it comes to politics but I won't). So they'll buy whatever they're told. While I didn't believe a word of what Bush said (and it seems I was right to) he comes across as a nicer guy while Kerry seemed rushed, constantly stepping/stomping all over applause.
One way to look at it is that the leader/party that skillfully handles their convention is the one that can skillfully handle the country (for good or ill).
I think the delegates needed to be handled, giving applause at the right time and staying quiet at the right time. I don't think there was that kind of display at the DNC.
So, IMOSHO, Bush beat Kerry in speechifying.
OK, I'll admit (grumble, grumble) that Bush came off better on the podium. But I would lik eot ssay that Bush alswyas does a good job with a prepared speech. Its when he has to speak without a speech that you have to look at. I mean, like the today show interview in where he said the war isn't winnable. I think that was the most honest thing hes' ever said.
Its like teh war on crime. Fighting crime isn't winnable unless you look at what causes crim. The prob is that the Bush people don't look at what causes terrorism.
KT
I didn't like the way that sounded. Terrorists are evil. But the people who support them? I don't think their evil, just pissed off. I think we need to addresss why they are pissed.
KT
KT,
I don't think I understood your post correctly. Are you saying that people who support terrorists are not evil but pissed and we should understand why terrorist supporters are angry? How does one support terrorism?
Let's look at what happened recently in Russia. Is it possible to be sympathetic to the cause but not the method?
For example, I have friends who say, We don't support the war in Iraq but we support our troops in Iraq. I don't understand this. These are the same people who say I don't care if people who work for Halliburton die.
It is as if we're deciding who lives and who dies based on a meter of goodness.
I remember reading about the Nurembourg trials in which soldiers said they were just doing these horrible things becuase their superiors told them to.
So for me, when someone says that they don't support Bush or they don't support this war in Iraq, they are saying that they do not agree or support the decision makers. Yet troops in Iraq are carrying out the decision maker's decisions. So it doesn't make sense to condone the action. It is as if we say, hate the sin but forgive the sinner.
I would really like to understand your POV.
Mac
I think Bush won in "speechmaking". On the convention though I think the Republcians made a big mistake with Miller. He seemed like he was frothing at the mouth. Did anyone catch his dual challenge to Matthews? While I think somebody should pop Matthews in the mouth, Miler just sounded like a Zell-ot.
What I didn't like about the RNC was thwe twofacedness. They showed all these moderates who disagree with most of the platform on thinks like abortion and gay rights. But the real face of the party, the platform, is much farther right. I understand that's all politics but I just wish we could've really seen what they are about. Are they afraid to show their real face?
Josh
I don't know exactly what KT was talking about, but I think she mightve meant the people who dance in the street when terrorists do something. Are they really evil? Terrorists are, but I don't think they are. As she said, theyre just pissed. The problem is that their pissiness (?) just breeds more terrorism.
Josh
If you take pleasure in innocent people dying, then are you less "evil" than the people who were actually responsible for them dying?
People who are frustrated enough with any government's policies will find a way to make their point. Tim McVeigh did. So did the men who flew the planes into the buildings.
The problem with terrorism is that there isn't one face to it. The heir to the Indian political dynasty Ganhdi was killed by a female terrorist who wore bombs that went off even as she put a jasmine lei over his head. (I think this was how he died). in Israel, there are just as many young educated middle class men and women who desire to make their point via terorrism as there are poor uneducated people. It used to be thought that suicide bombers were those who needed the money to support their families. That's not the case today.
Sure those people dancing in the streets celebrating terrorism are angry and frustrated. Is the solution to sit down calmly with them and go through their frustration point by point? At which point do their demands simply become unreasonable and whose standards are we using for reason?
Mac
To me, the Conventions are not worthwhile anymore. Cohesiveness in the party really does not come out of them anymore, just a chance to hear moderation on both sides spewed out. Granted, that's what American's want to hear (moderation), but I still don't think it's right.
Political parties should be given more power and become more tightly regulated. This would definitely help the cause of the conventions, as well as giving some kind of accountability and responsibility to the politicians we elect to follow the goals and strategies as outlined in the platforms.
Moreover, people like Zell Miller should not be able to abuse the title he is given as a Democrat. The ideals he believes in are by far the opposite of the ideals of the modern Democratic party. The Democratic National Committee and even the RNC should have the ability to determine who runs under their party's title. Look at the British system for example. That's something America should try and emulate.
To finally answer the question of the post straightforward: Neither party won the "Battle of the Conventions." This is for two reasons. First, the nation is too polarized for any candidate to receive a substantial bump. Second, there was no interesting, cohesive, or creative plans/strategies that came out of the convention to stir excitement of the voting population.
That's my rant for now.
mac: I knew I shouldnt have said anything.
"Are you saying that people who support terrorists are not evil but pissed and we should understand why terrorist supporters are angry? How does one support terrorism?"
my understanding is some (misguided) people in other countries think terrorist are liberators, that they are fighting for a just cause. Those are the people I meant. They believe these things because thats what they're told. Also they hate the way things are so that makes them more likely to think of America as the bad guys.
What if we had gone into Iraq and fixed everything, you know, running water, electricity, jobs ... Would we have the problems we have now? Some but not all. I think some of the terrorists start out as misguided kids and keep on being told the same thing till they wind up being hardcore.
"Is it possible to be sympathetic to the cause but not the method" I think alot of people dont see any way out since they dont have armies to fight. The prob is that it only takes a few idiots to become terrorists.
"Is the solution to sit down calmly with them and go through their frustration point by point? At which point do their demands simply become unreasonable and whose standards are we using for reason?"
Some of the causes of terrorism are true but most aren't. I hear that the muslims dont want US troops in Saudi Arabia but why doesn't Saudi Arabia kick them out? Because they want them there.
I know I'm not saying this right but terrorists wont listen to reason so what you have to do is take away the people who support them. Like crime, if there's no reason for it you won't have much but you'll still have some cause some people are just that way. Terrorism though is differnet since some sick puppies see it as honorable and just so you'll probably have more than a few. But if the world was an ok place where would terrorists grow and hide? Nowhere.
I wish I could explain myself better.
KT
KT
You explained just fine. Never be afraid to voice your opinion even if someone might misunderstand you. If that person doesn't make an effort to understand your POV, then it's that person's loss not yours. I hope you didn't feel attacked. I am an analytical person by nature and when I try to understand what someone is saying, I often venture guesses about what the possible interpretations might be.I have found that explaining things or my POV to someone else actually clarifies my own ideas for me.
Hope you get a good grade on your work in conservative/liberalism paper.
Mac
mac
I am one of those people who doesn't support the war (in a sense) but supports the troops.
My POV:
I didn't believe Bush when he listed the reasons for going to war and, as history has shown, I was right. However, once the decision had been made I supported the effort. Why? Because even though the troops were doing what I generally thought was wrong (the right war for the wrong reasons) they had no choice. None of the orders given violated the Uniform Military Code of Justice or can be construed by the common soldier as 'wrong'. So they are simply doing their jobs and they need whatever support they can get. That doesn't necessarily mean I won't join the next anti-war rally since that is against the war and not the troops. Coming from a military family (I couldn't serve) I know that serving your country means you follow the chain of command as much as possible.
The "I was following orders" defense at Nuremburg has directly translated into modern ideas in warfare. Namely, that it is wrong to "follow orders" when the order itself can be considered immoral or unjust. A soldier today can ignore a direct order if he feels it is 'wrong'. I just wish some of the Abu Gherib soldiers had done that.
RM
Thank you. I understand what you are saying but am confused about the rights of a soldier. If you serve in the army or you sign up, then you have to be prepared to fight right? So if you are sent to fight a war that you think is unjust or illegal, can you say I won't go on ethical grounds or will you be punished? Maybe you, Greb B and Gecko can help me understand this. Because I read that there are soldiers who won't serve and they are in jail. But they might have "deserted" and that's the reason why they are in jail.
Mac
Mac, I'll try to answer this with as little sarcasm as possible. It pains me to here when someone says that we are doing nothing to improve the lives of the Iraqi citizens. Please see this website.
Also, excepting the Mahdi fighters, the terrorists are being lead by foreigners who want nothing more than to make Iraq their new training ground.
Military people are obligated, excepting certain billets, to fight, yes. Chaplains and their staff are genetrally not expected to do so, however I have seen them pack a pistol on occasion. Due to the services being all volunteer and the general security of the world before 9/11, many people signed up to get education benefits and training, not expecting to actually be required to go fight. Those who refuse, being "conscientious objectors" are punished under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Or the move to Canada. Deserters are punished under the UCMJ as well.
That reminds me of the O'Reilly/Moore interview where Moore tried to run O'Reilly into a corner by asking him if he would send his kids into Faluja. I'm afraid, I have to tell Moore that us in the military all signed a contract. Faluja is one of those things that we will definately have to take care of soon.
I didn't initially look at this topic, because I have gotten where I can't sit through Bush speeches. I find that very painful, and I am not a masochist.
Bush normally talks about how he's going to make us all safe by fighting terrorism. Lies about the state of the economy. Pats himself on the back a lot of things.
Meanwhile, I can't get work that makes the most of my skills. My brother, who has amazing academic credentials (was a Piper scholar at Rice), has both an MBA at UT and and Masters in Journalism as well. But last time I was visiting him in Austin, he was grovelling for crappy work. I don't want to hear lies about how the economy is doing better.
Student tuition has gone through the roof. Despite attacking Iraq for oil, the only ones who have benefitted are the oil companies, while we pay nearly double for gas at the pump from what we paid under Clinton.
But I am glad I just looked at this thread, because of this question about supporting troops versus supporting the war.
The military is not a democracy. If it were, then I would say these things were the same. But people enlist in the military for all sorts of reasons. Some for patriotism, some for college opportunities. I know people who have enlisted in times of peace for the chance to travel and see the world.
Some of these soldiers in Iraq may well have enlisted when President Clinton was in office and the military was being used for very different purposes.
Because you know what? When the military is being used the right way, our leaders can usually afford to be more transparent. The debates are in the open, the UN and other world leaders generally agree with what we are doing.
No one is debating, for example, that we should stop the slaughter of people in Sudan. You don't hear our leaders telling us that they would provide the information about Sudan, but it's all top secret. Why? Because the truth would not turn the public against the action.
But if the US government got up and said, "we don't have nearly enough of the worlds oil, our economy is basically oil dependent, and we could get it a lot cheaper by force than if we actually pay for it Plus some of my buddies in the oil industry could get really rich that way." Some people might actually object to that. Some people might worry about whether taking oil by force that belongs to another country is actually moral. So instead we veil things in nationalistic dialog about how we are going there to save the iraqis for democracy and a better life.
How can we hold the soldiers responsible? They have been lied to as well.
The reason I like Kerry is not for anything he said at the National Convention. I did listen to that speech. It was OK.
I'm posting a link to a better Kerry speech. I think it explains his views about natural resources and the direction our planet had better head if we want to get anywhere. It's from February 2003 (before the campaign consultants started telling Kerry what they thought he needed to say to get elected.) Much as I appreciate his pragmatism of listening to experts, I still prefer the logic of this speech more. It shows his vision for the country. (Fast forward over the first 13 minutes, because it's boring and all he is doing is thanking everyone for being there, etc, etc.)
http://forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=1295And at the danger of arrogantly self promoting, I wrote a song about what the war in Iraq was really about, and it is also online if anyone wants to hear it:
http://www.FamilyFotoFinder.com/PiedPiperOfCrawford.mp3If you listen to my song "The Pied Piper of Crawford",you will not only get an idea of what I thought about this war, but about the leader who took us into it.
Aagh, i'm tryingto forget the ucmj! iirc, nowdays when you sign up they ask if you are a consceintous objecter (meaning you won't fight). if you dont' say you are, then you are obligated to fight depending on your role like gecko said. so if you didn't say you were you can be thrown in prison.
i think what rm was talking about were specific battlefield orders. if you disagree with the war you still have to do your duty. but if a superior says to "burn down that school!" you can refuse. you will still likely be arrested and it would be determined if theres' a court martial or not since not following orders is kinda considered the worst thing you could do. if the order is way oer the line you'll be cleared. a soldier has to remember at all times that he doesn't know everyting going on. "Need to know". so sometimes soldiers do the wrong thing because they dont know its the wrong thing. I remember talking to an artillery man, they have it the worst. see they get told to shell here or there but they often dont have a clue what they are shelling. for all they know it could be a church.
gregB
Hi i am totally blown away with the blogs people have created its so much fun to read alot of good info and you have also one of the best blogs !! Have some time check my link to !!Home business opportunities
Veryyyyyyyyy nice blog i kinda like it coz it got alot of information that can be useful for me very informative you go guys and one thing more i got a site that i prefer to everybody maybe you will like it to go have a look in your free timeQuick easy money
Thank you & thank you some more for sharing this with us. I too am on the bones of my butt, but when I finished reading your method on how this is done I made a business decision and ran with it.
We have all ready made our money back plus some in our first day.
Thank you.
Click Here
NSU - 4efer, 5210 - rulez
Post a Comment
<< Home