Debates Past and Present

Al Gore has an Op-Ed column in the New York Times today on "How to Debate George Bush" that ends up doubling as a rather strong argument against his reelection. His advice to John Kerry is simple enough, and more or less what everyone is already saying: attack George Bush on his record. Make the debates about that, not about about George Bush's political skills, and the inevitable "one-liners" he will use to respond to Kerry that don't actually address any issue. But what struck me as the most interesting part of the column was Gore's recollection of what George Bush promised in the debates of 2000.

The biggest single difference between the debates this year and four years ago is that President Bush cannot simply make promises. He has a record. And I hope that voters will recall the last time Mr. Bush stood on stage for a presidential debate. If elected, he said, he would support allowing Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada. He promised that his tax cuts would create millions of new jobs. He vowed to end partisan bickering in Washington. Above all, he pledged that if he put American troops into combat: "The force must be strong enough so that the mission can be accomplished. And the exit strategy needs to be well defined."

Clearly, the above quotes are nothing more than a list of broken promises.

Are we allowed to buy drugs from Canada? Actually, there is legislation prohibiting it.

Did the Bush tax cuts create "millions of new jobs?" Well, no.

Did he put an end to "partisan bickering in Washington?" Funny thing actually: it's worse.

And the combat promises? Well, we all know what happened on that front.

It would do us all well to remember what was being said four years ago today. Why? Because it was based on those statements that we "elected" George W. Bush, and if it turns out that we were misguided then, what reasons are there to believe we're not misguided again? In addition to making his proposals clearer (I hope), it will be John Kerry's job tomorrow night to make sure voters across the country understand this. Because, as Al Gore writes in the closing of his column today, "comparing these grandiose promises to his failed record, it's enough to make anyone want to, well, sigh."

Questioning the Credibility of Allies

George Bush in response to John Kerry's critical comments on Iyad Allawi's remarks yesterday:
"You can't lead this country if your ally in Iraq feels like you question his credibility."

Cheney also faulted Kerry, saying he had been disrespectful to the Iraqi leader.

Of course, Bush and Cheney would never disrespect, or question the credibility of an ally.
Oh, wait...


Addendum:
More Cheney (from the Washington Post):

"After Kerry criticized Allawi's speech to Congress, Vice President Cheney tore into the Democratic nominee, calling him 'destructive' to the effort in Iraq and the struggle against terrorism."

Dick Cheney is entitled to his opinion (no matter how unsubstantiated it may be) but you know what was really destructive to the struggle against terrorism?
Iraq.

Democracy for Some

President Bush is constantly saying that we are bringing democracy to the middle east through our efforts in Iraq, and that the elections -- the heart and soul of any democracy -- scheduled for January, will occur, despite the seemingly growing, and strengthening insurgency. Today's visit by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi gave Bush a chance to make this argument with the man currently "in charge" in Iraq backing him up. Both insisted that the January elections would occur although both admitted that the insurgency remains a problem, and that it will probably grow as the elections near. But Donald Rumsfeld's comments today presented a slightly different take on Iraq. While he was insistent that the elections would in fact take place, he also said that it it might not be possible to hold elections in all parts of Iraq because of the violence in those parts of the country. This however, does not seem to bother him at all, as he shook off such a possibility as a mere imperfection of life.

"Let's say you tried to have an election, and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," Mr. Rumsfeld said at a hearing on Capitol Hill. "Well, that's so be it. Nothing's perfect in life."

Mr. Rumsfeld, that's more than just an imperfection. No, nothing is perfect in life, but when it comes to democracy, elections have to be as close to perfect as they can possibly be. Now, that may be difficult in a place such as Iraq, but to completely exclude an entire section of a country is simply unacceptable. Iraq is such a volatile country at this point, that not allowing certain sections of the country to vote would just be asking for more trouble, as the people in those sections of the country would once again have to live under a government that they had no say in choosing. If there is any greater recipe for revolt in parts of Iraq already torn by terrorism, I can't think of it. Of course, in that last statement I brought this argument full circle, right back to the reason elections cannot be held in these parts of Iraq. In other words, if we hold elections in the so called "no-go" areas of Iraq, they will almost certainly lead to rampant violence and high death tolls. If we don't, we, at best, have a pathetic excuse for a democracy; one in which only select people have a say in electing their government those excluded from the voting process are forced to watch from the sidelines as a government they had no say in electing runs their country.

So what does this mean? Simple: W.'s precious mission in Iraq is quickly morphing into a failure.

The Problem with Electronic Voting

Actually, make that problems.

Electronic voting seems like one of those things that works well in theory, but when you actually try to do it, odds are it will blow up in your face. We probably all agree that something needs to be done so that we do not have a recurrence of the 2000 election debacle. At least we all say something needs to be done. (There are those, who shall remain nameless, who may have benefited from said debacle, and were therefore probably not too horribly distraught over its occurrence.) To date, it seems the best idea we have come up with -- or the best idea that has been acted upon -- is that of electronic voting. This, I must admit, scares me. Yes, by introducing electronic voting machines, we eliminate the possibility for the now infamous hanging and dimpled chads. But, in solving those problems, we introduce a host of others. For example, one of the biggest issues in the 2000 recount was that of the elderly voters: apparently the source of many hanging and/or dimpled chads. Again, this is a problem solved by electronic voting. But, if you recall, the other issue was that of confusion in the voting booth. There were a number of complaints it seemed that some ballots were confusing in terms of which hole to punch for which candidate. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that introducing technology based voting to elderly voters who were confused about which hole to punch, may not be the best idea. We all have the grandparent or great aunt or uncle who refuses go within 10 feet of a computer, more or less out of fear, even when you buy them one and force them to keep it in their house. Of course it wouldn't matter because even after you spend hours teaching them how to use it, they still can't figure out how to turn the damn thing on. I could go on like this, but now might be a good time to imagine this same elderly person walking into a voting booth to vote in one of the most important elections of their long lives, and finding themselves face to face with a computer screen. See my point?

Another problem: you are reading this on a computer right now. Has it ever crashed? Actually, has it ever done anything that prevented you from doing what you wanted to do. Scarier thought: has it ever gotten a virus? I don't think this problematic area needs any further explanation.

Finally, there is the issue that these voting computers, like all computers, are made by a company. Now I don't mean to seem like a crazed conspiracy theorist liberal -- because believe me, I am not -- but this could be problematic as well. I do not believe the Bush/Cheney is going to collaborate with the companies who produce these voting computers to rig the election or anything like that (although I haven't yet ruled out the possibility of Karl Rove doing something to that effect). What scares me in this regard is corporate scandal. Think Enron. I know there are a number of corporations who strongly support President Bush (possibly because of certain tax breaks) and know that they could stand to gain from another four years of Bush/Cheney. This I will admit, is the least of the three problems I have listed, but given the vast number of corporate scandals, and the sheer disregard for anything other than the desires of the CEOs of these companies, it is not a possibility I would be comfortable ruling out.

We cannot have a repeat of what happened in 2000. There is no doubt about that. But, I fear this shift in certain states to electronic voting may, create more problems than it solves. In an election of this magnitude, this is, quite simply, not something that we can rush into.

Noam Scheiber Gets an A+

Noam Scheiber makes the best point yet on this debate over whose proposals for Iraq are better. He essentially notes that because of Bush's incompetence, no proposal is going to be 100% bulletproof, or even a "very good chance of success."

Banning the Bible

Apparently this is what will happen if liberals win in November. According to the Republican National Committee that is. A mailing that went out to West Virginia residents with the return address of "GOP National Committee" warned that the bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November. On the mailing is a picture of a bible with the word "BANNED" written across and a picture of a man on one knee placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." Read more about it here.

I really don't have much to say about this right now. I know where the gay marriage thing is coming from, but this notion that liberals would ban the bible is absolutely ludicrous. Kevin Drum has a possible explanation of the origin of this notion. I am aware that liberals tend to be considerably less religious than conservatives, but it is my impression that liberals are for religious acceptance and equality. In fact, I bet if anyone ever tried to ban the bible, liberals would be among the first to speak out against such a ban, and would probably do so quite loudly. Of course they would probably do the same if anyone ever tried to diminish the separation of church and state, not because they are opposed to the "church," but because they are opposed to the "church" being imposed on those who do not follow its teachings or agree with its beliefs. This is what should be the clear difference between being pro separation of church and state, and anti religion. Unfortunately, it seems the people over at the GOP are yet to figure this one out.

Polls Don't Necessarily Spell Trouble for Kerry

The most recent New York Times/CBS News Poll finds George W. Bush with an 8 point lead (50% to 42%) over John Kerry, among registered voters. The results are similar to those in the latest Gallup Poll, but stand in sharp contrast to the latest Pew Poll, which finds Bush and Kerry tied at 46%. If such varying results prove anything, it is that polling simply cannot give us an accurate representation of the electorate in a race as close as this. However, when all the polls are taken into account, a trouble statistic emerges for Kerry: the best case scenario (according to the polls) is a tie with President Bush, while the worst is a clear lead for Bush. Some polls, such as the Gallup Poll, even show Bush winning the votes of a majority of the electorate -- something that has rarely been the case for either candidate in this election year.

So why shouldn't Kerry supporters, and those who just can't bear to live through another four years of a George W. Bush presidency not be sweating bullets at this point in the campaign, only a month and a half from election day? Here's why: If you were asked who would be the Democratic nominee for president back in December, 2003, would you have said John Kerry? Probably not. You probably would have said Howard Dean. Remember him? But when the Iowa caucuses rolled around, who was the clear victor? And who ran away with the New Hampshire primary? That was John Kerry. On the day of the Iowa caucuses he shocked pretty much everyone by seemingly coming out of nowhere to knock Dean clear of the front-runner spot. So why can't he do it again on November 2, 2004? There really is no reason why he can't, if he uses the remaining weeks of the campaign season to his advantage. That means having a clear cut plan for a John Kerry presidency, and outlining it every chance he gets. It means responding immediately to attacks from Bush/Cheney. It means showing why Bush/Cheney don't deserve a second term and why he deserves a first. And the best time for him to do all this is during the debates.

Everyone seems to be looking directly past the debates and straight to November 2 right now, but the truth is, the debates could change everything. During the Democratic Convention, I saw an interview with former Libertarian Governor Bill Weld (I think this is who it was), the man who challenged Kerry for his senate seat in 1996 in a very heated election campaign. Weld said in the interview that Kerry's debating skills are basically second-to-none, and that he clearly has the ability to help himself a great deal while dealing some serious blows to Bush during the debates. Of course there are other things that will unfortunately cause various shifts in the race, such as extraneous issues (i.e. Vietnam), and media attention being diverted to things unrelated to the current race (i.e. certain memos that were shown on CBS). Nonetheless, Kerry has shown that he has remarkable come back ability, and the debates will be prime opportunities for him to make yet another.

Promoting Freedom...But Not of the Press

Apparently the military is blocking access to web sites showing the death count in Iraq to the soldiers fighting there. This includes everything from independent websites dedicated to the subject such as icasualties.org to the section of CNN's website that mentions the death count. Read more about it here.

Alan Keyes: Speaking, But Not Thinking

Now I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but some of the things Alan Keyes has said and proposed since the Illinois GOP gave him the nod as the man to replace Jack Ryan in the U.S. Senate race in Illinois have been rather baffling. This paragraph from an article in the Chicago Tribune is a good sampling of some of his more outrageous comments and proposals.

Keyes has proposed repealing the direct public election of senators and lifting federal taxes on a generation of African-Americans as a form of slavery reparations. He has said that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter is participating in "selfish hedonism" because she is a lesbian, and he has accused Obama of holding a "slaveholder's position" by supporting abortion rights.

I think that speaks for itself. The best part (at least to me) is how even those who chose Keyes as their candidate now seem to be distancing themselves from him. Now I find it hard to believe that they didn't know this was going to happen when they named him their candidate, which leads me to ask this question of the Illinois GOP leaders: What were you thinking? As a senate candidate Keyes seems to be repelling more voters every day, and if the state GOP thought Keyes could help them heal their now numerous wounds, well, let's just say if anything, he's now infecting them. Now I am a big fan of Barak Obama's so in a way, I'm glad to know that he will soon be a U.S. Senator. Nonetheless, this particular campaign has turned into a bit of a sideshow, and as a native Illinoisian, but especially as an American voter, I find this rather upsetting. So if you are considering running for any high office in or from Illinois as the GOP candidate, please only do so if you haven't broken the law, or plan on basing your campaign on constant inflammatory remarks so that we might have a dignified election campaign as well as a more dignified political atmosphere in the great state of Illinois.

Where's John Edwards?

Is it just me or did John Edwards seemingly slip off the face of the earth after the Democrat's convention back in July? Maybe it's just because of the rather insane amount of issues that have been tied to the presidential election that actually have nothing to do with the election over the past month or so, but I'm really starting to feel like we've reverted back to the days after John Kerry clinched the nomination but before the naming of John Edwards as the VP candidate when it Kerry fighting solo against Bush and Cheney. I'm not entirely sure what the Kerry campaign is thinking keeping Edwards out of the spotlight like this since Dick Cheney is certainly in -- and possibly even hogging -- the spotlight.

Edwards is after all, the man Kerry and his team should be turning to to answer the low, sometimes despicable blows from Cheney et al. Just last week for instance, when Cheney all but said a vote against Bush is a vote for death, Edwards should have come out swinging more or less right away. That would have been much better than the nothing we actually got from Kerry and the Democrats. This is not however, to say that I wish Kerry himself had made a counter-attack. Kerry needs to be focusing on the actual issues facing voters this election year and showing them where Bush has gone wrong on those issues, and how he would do a better job. It must therefore be John Edwards responsibility to get down and dirty. He needs be making attacks on Bush/Cheney, and countering attacks from Bush/Cheney immediately (i.e. so there is a clip of Edwards countering in the same news segment as the clip of Cheney attacking). I really wish it wasn't necessary to have to designate someone to do the "dirty work" of a political -- that we could all just focus on the issues so we could best decide who to vote for -- but that unfortunately is the direction in which political campaign's have gone.

So Mary Beth Cahill, it's time to bring John Edwards back. We miss him. Besides, he's not Vice President yet. We don't need to be hiding him in undisclosed locations already.

3 Years Later

I am really at a loss for what to write on this the most somber of days. 3 years ago, I was not in New York. Today, I live mere blocks from the site where the World Trade Center Towers once stood. In fact, I walked to the site this evening where the memorial towers of light shone deep into the night sky. It is a truly haunting sight.

Standing at the sight this evening brought back memories of that terrifying day three years ago and terrifying thoughts of what it would have been like to be in the city on that day. But it is almost impossible to think of the events of September 11, 2001 without thinking of the events that have occurred in the years since, many of which are still in progress today. Again, I am truly at a loss for what to say that could do justice to an anniversary such as this. I have however, come across a couple of postings on other sites that stand out to me. Kevin Drum at "Political Animal" has an especially good post, as does Matthew Yglesias. I wish I could say more on this subject -- do it more justice -- but I simply cannot. Thus, I ask everyone to take a moment to remember the tragedy of September 11, 2001 in his or her own way and to never forget. Never forget the people we lost, the lessons we learned, and the people we should be holding responsible.

Maureen Dowd: Cheney Spits Toads

Maureen Dowd has a great column in the New York Times today addressing Dick Cheney's newest scare tactic: Vote us out, and you will vote the terrorists in. Or, as Dowd plainly puts it: "Message: You die." Cheney basically wants to make it clear that John Kerry could not protect us from the terrorists. But as Dowd points out, "President Bush didn't protect us from the real 9/11." Cheney's statement that "if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again," was possibly the most outrageous statement made in this campaign thus far. It may even single handedly bump Zell Miller from the top of the "Insane Politicians" list. But did anyone really think that Cheney would put up with being number 2 for long?

This is a War on Terror?

America is safer. Or so we are told. Saddam Hussein and his regime are no longer in power. The Taliban has been overthrown. Nevermind the evidence that they are regrouping in Pakistan. And apparently we are still hunting and arresting or killing high ranking Al Qaida operatives. Thus, America is safer...So why not mix things up a little bit and throw military style assault weapons on our streets?! Does anyone else see the massive contradiction in Mr. Bush's allowing the assault weapons ban to expire? It seems that with all the scary press conferences in which we are told that another attack is imminent and that the future perpetrators of said attack could be living among us as we speak, we would want to make the acquisition of lethal weapons less easy. Now I will admit that I do not know the specifics of what would happen in regards to the selling of such weapons once the ban is lifted, but really, what reason is there for not keeping them banned? Hunting? Well let's just say that if you think you need an AK-47 to kill a deer, you should be sitting in a therapist's office, not hunting. Home protection? Maybe, if the intruder that is threatening you is armed with an Uzi. Is there a simpler solution to this pickle you ask? Why yes, there is! Don't make it legal to buy an Uzi!

RNC Night 4...Finally

So I must admit that I don't have much to say about Mr. Bush's speech. Why, you ask? Well for one thing, it was almost a weak ago, and in writing about the other wonderful nights of the convention, many of my initial impressions on Bush's speech have escaped me. But mostly, I think it is because I didn't think he actually said that much. I was honestly expecting a sort of bombshell of a speech -- I really didn't think Mr. Rove would allow a convention speech in an election year such as this to be anything less. However, what I heard, was nothing more than an expanded version of the Bush stump speeches. I didn't hear much of anything new in the proposals he delivered either. In fact, much of what I heard was the same stuff I and the rest of the nation have been hearing for a while now. Calls for privatization of social security, protection for unborn children, and "traditional" marriage, as well the obligatory calls for improved health care. Calls that I simply cannot believe in good conscience after the recent 17% increase in Medicare premiums. In fact, that increase came so soon after the convention, that I feel like Bush and his team should feel a little embarrassed for even mentioning making health care more accessible.

After I watched the speech, I honestly couldn't think of any reason why it should frighten those opposed to four more years of a Bush White House. Then I realized that the reason to be frightened lied squarely in the fact that there did not appear to be anything frightening in the speech. This could mean one of two things: either there are no plans for a possible second term -- highly unlikely -- or the details of what would happen over the course of a second term are simply not appropriate for a convention (i.e. mentioning them would invariably cost W. the election), and those possibilities scare me far more than anything John Kerry has, or in all likelihood, will say. So come November 2, let us, as a nation, make a collective "flip-flop," and elect John Kerry President of the United States.

Belated Thoughts on RNC Night 3

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that night three of the convention was the most disgusting, revolting, sickening, etc... Let me be clear, I have no problem with attacks on the opposition at political conventions. In fact, I expect them. At times, I even find myself yearning for more of them. CoughDemocratsCough. However, and this is a big however, I don't expect, nor do I want, nor should anyone else want to see a convention or any portion of a convention devoted soley to attacking the opposition. That is quite simply not what the conventions are about. To be honest in this age of scripting, they don't seem to be about much of anything anymore except preaching to already committed voters while the networks give you a semi-cold shoulder, but they are definitely about attacking. They are supposed to be about supporting. Sen. Zell Miller's speech was outrageous, plain and simple. It was not about supporting George W., it was about tearing John Kerry, and to a lesser extent John Edwards and the entire Democratic Party -- the party he insists on remaining part of despite the fact that it stands for little of what he believes in anymore -- limb from limb. While the message was certainly outrageous, the way in which it was delivered was, in a word, sickening. I really thought Mr. Miller was going to self destruct when he implied that John Kerry would arm the military with spit balls. On top of this, Mr. Miller managed to make his speech rather blatantly hypocritical. Immediately after his call for bipartisanship, he placed the blame for more or less all the countries failures and the direction in which the country has turned and is headed, squarely on the shoulders of democrats who are in Miller's blatantly "black and white" mind, consistently wrong, and whose "manic obsession with bringing down our commander in chief" is bad for America -- because to dissent is of course to be unpatriotic. I could go on, but I will be writing all night and I want to say a couple things about Dick Cheney's speech before I forget everything he said.

I will admit that Dick Cheney's speech was slightly more respectable, but not that much more respectable. I found it interesting that while 9/11 was such an enormous, pounding theme of the Republican Convention, Cheney couldn't seem to find the time to even say the name of the man responsible for the events of that dreadful day. Come to think of it, nor could his buddy George, but I'll devote an entire other post to discussing his little ditty. To be honest, I at first thought Cheney might actually deliver a decent, convention worthy speech. But then came what I now realize were the inevitable Kerry attacks. I found myself laughing a bit when Cheney rolled off the exact same attacks on Kerry's senate voting record that Mr. Miller did. I also found it a little confusing when Cheney brought back his attack on his favorite Kerry quote to take out of context: a more sensitive war on terror. I found this odd since after he did it the first time, everyone and their mothers' seemed to point out that W. made a strikingly similar statement, and last I checked, Cheney wanted W. to win this one. So Dick, choose your attacks more carefully in the future, k? Oh, and while your at it, maybe try breaking free of those monotone chains that seem to be holding you captive. I know, I know, cheap attacks, but I couldn't help myself. Anyway, in my mind, night 3 of the 2004 RNC is perfect evidence of why not to put Bush/Cheney back in office for four more years.

2004 and 1980

The New Republic Online has an article up by John B. Judis about the similarities between this and past presidential campaigns. Obviously presidential campaigns model themselves after past successes.

"As was evident at this year's Republican Convention, the Bush campaign hopes that this election recapitulates the elections of 1984 and 1996, where the incumbent easily won a second term. The campaign has hired veterans of Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign, including Michael Deaver and Peggy Noonan, and in briefing delegates, administration officials referred back to Bill Clinton's reelection victory in 1996 over Bob Dole....But sadly for Bush and the Republicans, there is little similarity between the 2004 election and either the 1984 or 1996 elections. If there is a clear analogy to 2004, it is the 1980 election between incumbent Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan."

Judis explains the vast similarities between this campaign between George W. Bush and John Kerry, and the 1980 campaign between then incumbent Jimmy Carter and challenger Ronald Reagan. In both 1984 and 1996 Reagan and Clinton respectively faced reelection with unarguably good economic records. Carter on the other hand faced high unemployment and inflation along with a hostage crisis. There are certainly arguments against Bush's economic record, and can everyone say Iraq? Another similarity is the polling trends. Just as is the case this year, Carter and Reagan traded leads in the polls until the very end. Of course unlike this year, there were clear leaders more often in 1980 than there have been this year. The most encouraging thing for Kerry though is the fact the Reagan came back from a six point deficit after his opponents convention as a result of a strong, climactic performance in a late October debate. Kerry is going to need to make a similar performance in the debates to convince the electorate that he is not only qualified to be president, but would be a better president than George Bush. I am beginning to believe that Kerry truly has a vision and plan for winning this election. He seems to know that he has to start challenging Bush directly, responding to attacks from Bush, and making attacks of his own. His last and best chance to do this will be the fall debates. Let's hope he takes advantage of them.

RNC Night 2...6 Days Later

Ah the Bush twins...One has to wonder what Karen Hughes was thinking when she wrote that painstaking valley-girl-esque speech. As I watched Jenna and Barbara trade off their youth-vote-attracting one-liners I couldn't help but wonder, Is this meant to make George look smarter? Because I must admit, when President Bush is placed side by side with the daughters Bush of the RNC, George looks like a genius. While the entire "speech" -- if you can call it that -- was quite painful, there were a couple lines that were so painful, I actually remembered them. For instance, "We had a hamster to. Ours didn't make it." A bit sad, no? Actually, the saddest thing about that line to me, was that not even Jenna and Barbara's speech avoided taking a jab at Kerry. But really, who would expect W. to do anything to save a hamster? After all, he finds it amusing to give freshly caught, still struggling fish to his dog to play with. But, far and away the most painful Bush twins line of the night: "Grandma thinks sex in the city is something married people do, and never talk about." Odd, disturbing, and even slightly inappropriate. Actually, I was a bit surprised that the Republicans would allow a sex joke, no matter how lame, at their convention. The most painful thing about that line though, was watching the twins, especially Jenna, look around uncomfortably afterwards, trying to gauge the delegates reaction: a mixture of laughter, somewhat suppressed "I shouldn't be laughing at this but I'm going to anyway to be polite" laughter, and flat out, yet polite, disapproval. I never thought I would be happy to hear George W. speak, but when his daughters finally introduced him and he began his introduction of his wife, I must admit I was quite relieved.

I must say I found Laura Bush's speech quite respectful. It was, if my memory serves me correctly, one of the few speeches I heard over the course of the four day convention that did not make an attempt to tear a political limb off of John Kerry. (If I am wrong about this, please correct me). In all honesty, I actually feel like I would like her if she were free to express her own political views and not forced to fall in line with her husband on every single issue -- was I the only one who caught Laura's slight look of disapproval when George went into his pro-life shpiel during his speech? It also wouldn't hurt for her to ease up on the "Stepford" look and act. All in all, night two of the RNC was, and I use this term in a very reserved fashion, respectful. At least it was in comparison to what would follow...

(Delayed) Thoughts on RNC Night 1

Unfortunately I did not see, or even hear much about, John McCain's and Rudy Giuliani's speeches. I did however catch the end of Schwarzenegger's speech and saw much about it after the fact. I would first like to partially commend Mr. Schwarzenegger on his embracement of those in his party who may disagree with himself or with George Bush and the current administration. If only he had extended that embrace to all Americans, not just Republicans. There two other moments that stand out to me. First, was Schwarzenegger's statement that it was Richard Nixon who was his hero of sorts, and the man who drove him to declare himself a Republican. As much as I wanted to be respectful, I almost laughed at this. When the delegates broke out in a massive cheer however, I did laugh (A man who resigned from the Presidency in shame just doesn't seem to be the figure the Republicans should be lauding, especially not at their convention). I experienced a very different reaction when he reverted to what is apparently one of his favorite lines, girly men -- in this case economic girly men. I was very pleased when the next night on Comedy Central's The Daily Show with John Stewart, Stewart jokingly pointed out that the 1.3 million people who fell into poverty this past year, should "suck it up" according to Schwarzenegger. All in all though, Schwarzenegger's speech turned out to be one of the best prime time speeches of the convention. More convention thoughts later -- including those on the not so good, bad, and just plain disgusting speeches that unfortunately dominated some nights.

Back in New York

I have spent the past week or so packing, travelling and moving back to New York City -- thus the reason I was unable to comment on the Republican Convention. I got into the city the day after the convention so unfortunately I have no first hand reports of the atmosphere in Manhattan during the past week (but from what I've heard everything went smoothley and the city apparently handled everything and everyone very nicely). Now that the moving process is over though, I will hopefully be able to get up to date on everything that happened over the past week.

Don't Buy Clothes From Naked People

A bit of a break from the seriousness of politics...
I was flipping through a magazine the other day and I came across an ad for Abercrombie & Fitch, which featured a picture of a man, from the waist up, with nothing on. Nothing. Does this strike anyone else as odd? Because personally, I don't trust naked people to sell me clothes.