Convention Days: Democrats

Day 1

This is possibly the smartest Democratic convention I've seen. Of course, I haven't seen that many. The convention hall was, as usual, unbelievably ugly. Democrats are very much into dark lighting and dark decor. Still, it was a huge improvement on the 2000 convention's glum interior.

I watched PBS. The convention coverage is managed by the ever gentlemanly Lehrer. His principle commentators were Mark Shields and David Brooks. I miss Paul Gigot, but David Brooks is an acceptable substitute. They both have that uneffusive desire for context, a sense of humor and a neat overlay of self-deprecation, although Gigot was more self-deprecating that Brooks, which is another way of saying that he cared less.

A big deal was made by everyone about how well-behaved the Democrats were. In other words, unlike 2000, they weren't boycotting each other and fighting on the floor, although the rumor is that Ralph Nader's floor pass was "lost." Bush was at least twice commended for being a "uniter" as in "he's united the Democrats."

The first major speaker in Prime Time (Brooks made a few wry comments about the Bush-bashers BEFORE Prime Time) was Gore, and good heavens, the man has gained a personality. It was like watching Keanu Reeves act well. It wasn't much of a personality. He was jokey, good sportsmanship guy, but still, it was remarkable, and, I hate to admit this, probably the best talk of the evening. (Clinton's was good, but in a very different way.)

Then the nine women senators came out and one of them gave a speech. I was rather puzzled. It seemed such a token, feminist gesture (and oddly enough, the commentators more or less agreed with me) until I realized that Hillary Clinton was one of the senators. The Democrats pulled out all their big guns last night, bang, bang, bang.

Then Carter spoke. Carter is a big gun in principle, and I think he's sweet, but it's hard to take the man seriously. He got up and quipped (from his acceptance speech back in 1976), "My name is Jimmy Carter, and I'm NOT running for President" which puzzled the floor since no one knew whether they should clap or not.

Jimmy Carter was the Court-appointed Bush basher, which should have been annoying except that it is very hard to get annoyed with Jimmy Carter. Half-way through his speech, he started to remind me of the clergyman from Princess Bride--"Mawige is what bwings us together today. A Dweam within a dweam"--and then I couldn't get the image out of my mind. So I went back to reading my book (A History of the American People by P. Johnson) only surfacing now and again. The gist of Jimmy Carter's speech seemed to be that everybody in the world hates us, and it is all Bush's fault.

After Jimmy Carter, there was a tribute to 9/11. Glenn Close, possibly the best speaker of the evening and also the best dressed, started it off. It was a nice idea. The problem with Democrats doing a 9/11 tribute is, unless you have Billy Joel singing, it's very hard not to keep thinking, "Yeah, but the Republicans are the only ones who want to keep the war against terrorism going. You people don't care" which may not be fair, but is the thought that keeps occurring. Especially since, as Brooks pointed out, no one discussed the 9/11 report.

Hillary Clinton introduced her husband and my mind wandered since her speech was platitudes piled on platitudes and, unlike Glenn Close, she isn't a terribly good speaker.

At which point Bill Clinton came out and gave the wiliest speech of the evening. "It didn't reach poetic standards," Brooks said, but boy, was it a smart speech. Unlike Carter, Clinton comes across as someone who pays attention to politics and world affairs and moreover, understands them. He gave what Brooks described as the Vice-President's prosecution speech. His speech was aimed at undecideds and Republicans who are dissatisfied with the so-called "far right" Republicans in Washington. He showered kudos on John Kerry. He slammed Bush's presidency on the tax cut for the rich (more on this later). He effectively used both his own position as a rich man and the fact that he didn't fight in Vietnam as leverage. The man is smart.

No one mentioned gay marriage.

I think the idea is that if Kerry can be built up to fever pitch, all he will have to do on Thursday is ride the enthusiasm. The fact that Kerry is Mr. Human Sloth is a problem about which many people are aware. EVERYONE talked about what a swell guy Kerry is, although Gore seemed to be the only one who meant it. Kerry is a big pro-environmentalist, which, contrary to wishful thinking, will not necessarily endear him to Republicans.

I turned off the TV at 11:00 with several thoughts in mind.

1. The Democrat party is committed to single-handedly destroying small business. Kerry's economic plan, as discussed in a NewsHour interview, is to increase the minimum wage, force health care on everyone and tax the rich more (which will, resumably pay for all this). It's a nightmare of an idea. I understand the necessity of earning a living, I do it every day, but I also, having worked for small businesses, understand how crippling health care costs, taxes and benefits to full-time employees can be. A small-business, to survive, will hire temps, part-timers, only family or cut employees. Welcome to reality.

2. Democrats think that the money people earn is the government's money. This business of "the rich tax cut" is so stupid, it makes me want to spit. But I won't because it will get my screen dirty.

The assumption is that the "money was ours (i.e. the government's) but we gave you a cut so we gave it back to you--FOR FREE."

And this is what we fought a Revolutionary War for. The money ISN'T the government's. It belongs to the people who earned it. The whole point of taxation with representation is that the people decide what to do with their money, and if, as he claims, Bill Clinton was really as upset as all that at stealing the "government's money," why didn't HE start some "more security at Airports" Club?

Morons.

3. Gore is a martyr. Oh, I missed that memo. (To his credit, he played that card but kept to the good sportsmanship persona.)

4. Our allies hate us.

Since I always thought our allies hated us, this sudden concern for the good opinion of France kind of surprised me. Europe hated us in the 1980s and they didn't seem overly fond of us in the 1990s and they still hate us now. And how exactly are we supposed to get our allies to love us, if we aren't willing to (a)send them jobs; or b) use them as our bankers?

5. This last was not intended, but it was my reaction anyway. It occurred to me that Bush was pushed out of his depth with 9/11 but then any politician would have been. The Bush presidency did change its approach after 9/11, but which presidency couldn't have reacted in the same way? Bush is accused of lying to the Congress about WMDs. He was desperate to get the Congress to act. He behaved, in other words, like a War President. Not good behavior for a peace-time President, but my overall impression, as the night proceeded, was to feel a deep sadness for a man who was given a too weighty task to perform. He decided to (finally) solve the problem of the last thirty plus years by fixing the Middle East and is getting precious little support or thanks. Not that Bush is a martyr himself, but I wasn't filled with rage against the Bush presidency, just an overwhelming sense of sorrow. What a stinky job. Why does anyone want it?

Day 2

Tonight, I decided to vote Democrat. Oh, no, not for John Kerry. For a guy named Barack Obama who gave one of the absolutely best political speeches I have heard in a very, very long time. From anybody since Reagan frankly. It was great. It was truly awesome. He's a Senate candidate in Illinois and all the pundits in the boxes were thrown off their seats.

The point of conventions, like the point of commercials and the point of, well, most things, like, you know, life, is what's between the lines. HOW something is being sold is far more interesting than what is being sold. That's where the true story lies. That's why I love television. That's why I get giddy over commercials. That's why James Earl Jones is my hero. That's why David Brooks and Mark Shields love what they do. It doesn't matter that all these people praising Kerry to the skies could be better employed mowing their lawns (the same could be said of Republicans in two weeks), it doesn't matter that two years from now when Kerry's presidency is going down the toilet every single one of the convention speakers will separate himself from Kerry and hold up his or her hands in shock, what matters is HOW they are selling Kerry. That tells you more about people than anything ever possibly can. I don't watch conventions to learn how to vote. I don't, in all truth, really care that much about who is the next president. I watch conventions to learn how people think. Throw that out, you throw out the joy of life itself.

The Democrats are trying to do what Reagan did in 1980, reach beyond the party lines, reform their party into the image of--okay, remember, their convention is in Boston, wait for it--a revolutionary majority throwing out a dictatorship. Seriously. It hardly matters that that is probably the farthest thing from an objective view of the matter. What matters is that the party heads believe that (1) it is necessary to recreate the Democratic party in this mold; (2) it will speak to a large majority of Americans. They believe THIS will work. Why do they believe this? Call it window dressing by all means, but remember, that the guys who want power and money and prestige think this is the way to go. THAT is interesting.

So, the second day of the convention they put up a youngster (he is 42 but hasn't even gone National yet) to give what is possibly one of the most thrilling and yes, non-partisan oriented speeches since Martin Luther King cried out that "all God's children will join in the old Negro spiritual: Free at Last. Free at Last. Thank God Almighty, we are Free at Last."

The evening started out dull. I had the TV on, but it was Ted Kennedy speaking. I didn't know that. I thought it was just some Tip O'Neil-looking politician blathering on about America and I turned the sound way down. At eight o'clock, the Democratic Convention was looking pretty pointless.

Until Obama spoke. Huzzah! This is a guy who has, in Illinois, crossed lines. He has charisma. He comes across, more of less, a conservative Democrat. He has a fascinating background. He speaks to a large body of moderate Americas. He is smart. He is smart enough to temper his clap-inducing rabble remarks with objectivity. He is passionate without being a conspiracist . He doesn't reek of partisanship (and I hate partisanship; partisanship is stupid. It is paranoid, narrow and self-interested. I think you can have strong opinions without the deadening kind of partisanship that demands some kind of absolute my-side-right-or-wrong allegiance.)

After Obama, Ronald Reagan, Jr. spoke about stem cell research. His speech was "non-political" (other than, let's see, the fact that he showed up at the Democratic convention). He didn't mention Kerry's name, although the pundits did.

I had mixed feelings about his speech. On the one hand, it was the best explanation of embryonic tissue research I've ever heard.

On the other hand, I hated his argument. His argument was the old, "Are we going to sacrifice our children's future because of some petty moralists?"

I'm not arguing that stem cell research is the same as killing fetuses. I have zero opinions in this regard. But I hate the argument. You can excuse anything based on that argument. "It doesn't matter as long as it is good for our children." Nazism. Concentration camps. Anything.

Lastly, Chris Heinz--who is cute but not a terribly good speaker--introduced his mother Theresa Heinz-Kerry, who is a much better speaker.

Theresa Heinz-Kerry is Kerry's wife, natch, and an interesting women with an interesting history and interesting accent. She started out solid, but, as David Brooks put it, went "wonky." I think the problem was that she isn't a woman who goes on and on about her wonderful husband. But that is more or less the potential first-lady-to-be's job at the convention. For a woman who (1) has no political pretensions and (2) is more likely to give a discourse on an outside topic than a personal one, her job wasn't easy, and the result was anti-climatic. "She didn't give us anything personal about Kerry to latch onto," Brooks pointed out.

In fact, none of the Heinz-Kerry clan seemed to be overwhelmingly devoted to Kerry's wonderfulness, and this may be the problem with Kerry's campaign. An enormous amount of energy is going into this convention. In another two days, instead of riding that energy, Kerry may deflate it. It's the old Stephen King explanation of the problem with horror. The "ahhhh" in the closet has to live up the preceding tension. If Kerry had showed up tonight, he could have ridden it, but two days from now? Ouch.

Day 3

I was on the phone when the TV went beserk. It was shrieking at the cats. So I went into the living room and realized it was Al Sharpton.

According to the pundits, he was suppose to speak for 6 minutes and went off script for 20. David Brooks said several times that when the speakers went off script, they were far more interesting (and far more to the left) and much more impassioned. Kerry's "caution," he says, is suffusing the convention. Translation: David Brooks is bored.

Anyway, there was Sharpton screaming at the TV, and off script or not, it was super annoying. What do people see in this guy? It sounded like this: "AHHHHHHHWHHHAHHHYAHHLFAAAHSAAA." It was like watching Richard Burton perform Shakespeare: same volume and inflection for EVERY SINGLE WORD.

Yesterday was boring night, although the floor was more packed. The one thing that happened of any interest was that PBS interviewed Dean, which made me appreciate the guy's charisma. I don't agree with his platform, but he is an articulate, well-spoken creature of fairly definite views. The pundits, in the way of pundits, continue to refer to the convention as "Howard Dean's convention; Kerry's campaign," and they pointed out that the Howard Dean signs, unlike the other for-camera signs, were homemade.

FINALLY, Cate Edwards introduced her mother (she's a better speaker than Chris Heinz). Mrs. Edwards, who is not as good a speaker as Mrs. Kerry but far more approachable, did what Mrs. Kerry didn't and gave her husband a glowing testimonial. At which point, Edwards came out and, with the drawl that seems part and parcel of a politician's voice these days, gave the speech Gore wanted to give in 2000 and couldn't.

That is, Edwards gave a populist speech, the whole "two different Americas" thing. It was much better than Gore's speech for several reasons.

For one thing, it wasn't steeped in paranoia. That is, the approach wasn't, "Two Americas and one is trying to drag you down," the approach was, "Two Americas and heck, why shouldn't we all be rich." Secondly, Edwards has *slightly* more knowledge of the "common man" than Gore. Third, Edwards has charisma. Not as much as everyone has been toting, but having more charisma than Gore did in 2000 is like saying, "He had more charisma than cardboard," not difficult to do.

He went after out-sourcing (EVERYONE has gone after out-sourcing; Democrats don't strike me as particular credible or even vaguely smart about economics) and informed the world that "3 million children should have some place to go after school" because, presumably, they can't go home. Oh, wait, that's right, their parents are working. Hello, daycare nation.

Everything is going to get paid for by taxing the rich but ONLY 2%. 98% of Bush's tax cuts are going to stay in place. So 2% of those tax cuts are going to be rolled back in order to tax the richest people in America who will pay for EVERYTHING. There's a word for this. I think it is something like: economic dictatorship. Do we want a privileged aristocracy that pays for everything? Does anyone not see a problem with this? Other than the stupid economics, don't they realize that money=power? And he who pays the piper, calls the tune--loudly?

In my History of the American People, the author continually refers to the fact that Washington believed that most people act in terms of self-interest (in fact, according to my American Law Cases book, this was such a fundamentally accepted truth that John Adams used the following to defend the British soldiers in the Boston "Massacre"--if two men are standing on a plank in the water, and the plank will only hold one, one will push the other off AND he is justified in doing so). It would be so much easier if politicians, and voters, would acknowledge this basic human reaction, instead of coming up with silly economic schemes and then being shocked SHOCKED! when, instead of equating money=compassion, the average human being acts on the principles of self-interest.

After silly economics, Edwards gave a speech about war and aggression that sounded like he'd run across a couple of states and ten days and joined the Republican convention. It was downright aggressive and despite the papering of the floor for the camera with pro-Edwards folks, I wondered how the rank and file felt about it. The floor is reputedly much more leftist than the Democratic leaders are playing the convention. I foresee disillusion in future months. Disillusioning leftists is like teasing crybabies in a school play yard. A tad too easy for the nasty minded.

And that was all. Not as interesting as last night or as fun as Monday. But the veneer of civilized moderation is beginning to wear thin. Makes me wonder how Kerry will fare tomorrow tonight.

Day 4

Yesterday, I watched the Republican Convention.

In 2000, the Democrats accused Bush of trying to hone in on their territory with Compassionate Conservatism. That is nothing compared to what the Democrats did last night.

David Brooks described the convention as militaristic. That is an understatement.

It started with Lieberman who, to do him justice, is a true Hawk. He came out and denounced Communism, Nazism and Islamic Terrorists. He praised the Homeland Security Act which, by the way, Democrats had been criticizing all week. He praised the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. (Why is this guy a Democrat?)

The floor didn't know how to react. Interestingly enough, the camera stayed on Lieberman the whole time. With most speakers the camera does that whole reaction-shot thing. Maybe PBS was being nice; I don't think the reaction-shot thing would have looked good for the Democrats. The clapping was tepid and the floor was noisy. This is NOT what they want to hear. And although the floor may accept it as becessary to win the presidency, enduring the actual speech itself is a different big ball of waxy intentions.

This call to arms continued with Kerry, although damped down, but first Andre Heinz, who looks and sounds a little like Ross Gellar from Friends, introduced his stepsisters Vanessa Kerry and Alexandra Kerry.

Their job was to make their dad human and it was hokeyness to end all hokeyness. Hokeyness squared. Alexandra did a better job than Vanessa, partly because she has better delivery and partly because her material was less sappy. She gave the hamster story, if you've heard it. The end result was that, okay, Kerry appears to be a good dad. On the other hand, there was nothing so forthright and down to earth as Jenna Bush's description of her father as the "kind-who-likes-to-joke-around-until-he-scares-my boyfriends-to-death."

At the moment, it hardly seemed to matter. I will tell you when it started to matter.

So, John Kerry FINALLY came out and did the whole pushing through the floor thing. He looked much more presidential than he has. Someone has gotten him to gawk less, and he doesn't look so dopey. He spoke for nearly forty-five minutes (gag, please, I hope George Bush doesn't) and he started out strong. This is the party of optimism. The party for the environment. The party that will protect America.

He covered the whole waffling thing by stating that things are complicated, nothing is simple, etc. etc. He's a thinker, he is. He's a strong man who acts but he thinks too. And so on and so forth. And I was buying it. I wasn't running out with a John Kerry sign and throwing pamphlets around, but he was selling himself and very effectively too.

And then he made a mistake. For me, at least. He said, "And I will adopt ALL the recommendations of the 9/11 Report."

Oh, yeah? So what happened to, "Things are complicated?" That didn't sound very "things are complicated" to me, that sounded like someone who will say anything to win.

As the speech proceeded, this became more and more clear. Other than stupid economics (Kerry is NOT going to tax small business, but is going to tax people who make over $200,000—what exactly is Kerry's definition of small business?), Kerry focused almost exclusively on selling himself as a new and higher-minded commander in chief, co-opting, as David Brooks pointed out, the neo-conservative argument that Iraq failed (which it hasn't [yet--and I'd rather it didn't]) because we didn't have enough troops (at the same time arguing that Bush shouldn't have called up the reservists because they are reservists, which is one of the oddest arguments I've ever heard.) My reaction, as the evening proceeded, was "smoke and mirrors." Even the hamster story.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I am struck by how the Democratic Donvention (not just Kerry's speech) could be summed up this way: "Everything Bush did is exactly what we would do. Yeah. And we wouldn't kowtow to the U.N. either. Yeah. And we hate terrorism too. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But WE would have been nice about it" (i.e. France would still like us).

But Kerry's speech was also very smart. As Brooks pointed out, it has placed the Bush campaign in the difficult position of having to prove a negative, that is to prove that Kerry is not as Republican as he sold himself. Kerry has claimed the high road, belittling Bush's "small-minded" attacks, which translates to, "Don't ask me about my senate record," and claiming that divisive partisanship is all coming from the Bush campaign (which, as anyone who has seen my office could tell you, is horse feathers.)

Bush will have to be very, very smart and very, very canny. Which he is, so the Republican reaction to all this should be interesting. His biggest weakness is that Bush has a tendency to give a "What, are you stupid or something?" reaction when people ask him obvious questions. This is different from Gore pomposity. Bush isn't pompous, he's weary. Before invading Iraq when reporters kept asking the same questions over and over, this was his reaction: "They're terrorists. Isn't it obvious? They're terrorists. Why don't you get that?" He doesn't bother to explain himself because he doesn't get why he should have to. What, are people stupid or something? Terrorists are bad. Kill terrorists.

He will, unfortunately, need to refrain from this kind of reaction over the next 100 days. Kerry & crowd have down a masterful job as displaying themselves as the moderate middle and Republicans as the extremists. This is not something that I buy, but it interests me that they think it is necessary. I prophecy that eventually, there will be one Demo-Republic party and the leftists will break off and form a new opposition party, called the Naderites or the Wackos or something.

In fact, the one major weakness of the Democratic convention and Kerry's speech is that they did the Republicans' job for them. They presented the War in Iraq and the reaction to the terrorists as a fait accompli and as a good thing. They played the military card. There is a huge irony here because it is entirely possible that many Americans will go, "Oh, well, I guess we have to do it, might as well let Bush finish the job." Kerry might have guaranteed Bush the presidency.

Convention Days: Republicans

Day 1

I didn't start watching until 10:00 since I had classes until 9:40, but I caught the most interesting stuff in any case.

First, it must be said, Republicans do patriotism better than Democrats. No matter how (occasionally) simplistic or (occasionally) insular, they at least believe in what they are saying. With the Democrats, one always has the sneaky suspicion that when they get all patriotic, they are secretly putting up reservations. "Well, sure, I love America, and democracy is great and of course, we want to spread it around the world, but not, um, too fast or anything."

Second, the convention hall was just ugly.

If you didn't know which convention you were watching, you would have thought you were watching the Democratic Convention in reruns. The Republican Convention of 2000 was a throw-away affair and terrifically well-lit. Now, they're getting serious, which apparently translates into ugly and dark. At least the stage wasn't as hideously constructed as the stage at the Democratic Convention. Still, on aesthetic principles, both parties are losing.

I tuned in just as John McCain began to speak. David Brooks said John McCain could have blown the roof off and commended him for keeping his speech low-key (interesting side note: the press in general from Shields to Brooks to Lehrer to O'Rourke LOVE this guy. I think he treats them with real courtesy while Gore, and probably Kerry, treats them like underfed and possibly incestuous cousins and while Bush treats them better, they all know that Bush doesn't really care what they think).

I thought McCain's speech was boring. I liked the "disingenuous film maker" remark about Michael Moore (who is there, by the way; the guy is nothing if not plucky). Other than that, ho hum. The War in Iraq is good, and George Bush is the guy in charge. But as a speech for or against a Republican win (which is the point of a Convention), it was fairly pointless.

Then there was a September 11th tribute which had the (only) plus side that it was less maudlin than the Democrat's tribute. Three women spoke about their brothers and husband, men who either perished in 9/11 or were wounded. And they didn't cry! One thing the Republicans do very well (quick, Hillary, figure this out) is produce tough, WASPy women who aren't daunted by very much at all and don't feel the need to emote all over the place to prove their feminist femininity or go out of their way to defend their right to be tough.

And then Rudolph Giuliani spoke and was fabulous. He went way off script but he accomplished three things:

(1) He gave a personal view of George Bush. He's a natural story teller so he's actually interesting to listen to. And he likes to tell stories. I think he would have told stories all night about George Bush in New York on 9/14. He kind of lost track of where he was going.

(2) He made the Reagan case. Nobody has been making the Reagan case lately and it was nice to hear. "We shouldn't be ashamed of the Iraq War," he said and then drew a picture of Middle East peace as America's long-term goal with the underriding ideology of "democracy is great--let's share it." You were left going, "Hey, this guy BELIEVES in something." Mark Shields claims you were also left with the impression that Giuliani wants to run in 2008. Giuliani versus Hillary--boy, THAT would be fun.

(3) He made the case against Kerry. And he was funny too. "Now we know why John Edwards insists on two Americas," he says. "One where Kerry votes for something. And one where he can vote against the same thing!" Not bad, that.

Mark Shields called it Kerry-bashing. David Brooks called it setting the record straight. Whatever it was, it was very entertaining. (Something the Democrats failed to do in their Convention.)

The evening was graced by two excellent EXCELLENT solos: "Amazing Grace" and a recording of Frank Sinatra singing New York, New York. I'm not a big Sinatra fan, but the latter was amazing. In general, Republicans do music better than Democrats, not because they have better taste, but because they go for big-band classic rather than hip and new. Hip and new has the problem of running the range from horrible to great. Big-band classic never lets you down. And (note to Democrats) a Convention isn't supposed to be a music performance.

So Giuliani stole the show, but we aren't voting for him. I really don't know if Bush can sell himself better than his henchfolks. Cheney is there and looks like he'd rather be someplace else (Cheney usually looks like he'd rather be someplace else--probably why he annoys the press so much).

In the meantime, isn't all this 527 stuff just hilarious?! Talk about people calling each other's bluff.

DAY 2

Cheney looked a little more approachable. He smiled.

I didn't pay much attention to the beginning two hours (8 o'clock on). Some guy from Georgia got up and went on and on about litigation and health care costs, specifically the high cost of liability insurance for doctors. He might be right, but I've always figured health care costs will go down as health care research produces cheaper forms of medicine. But maybe that's too Star-Treky o-brave-new-worldish.

I really liked the Governor of Maryland. He started the evening's theme, continued with Schwarznegger, of defining what it means to be a Republican.

Of course, the *star* of the evening WAS Schwarznegger and call it good old Hollywood training but he was possibly the most interesting speaker of the evening.

David Brooks made the passing comment that a good convention speech is one where the speaker uses his/her personal background to explain where he comes from. (And Schwarznegger's history is fascinating.) David Brooks later referred (as did many people) to Obama (basically, the Republicans want this guy), remarking that both Schwarznegger and Obama spoke to the ideal of what makes them, alternately, Republican and Democrat (as opposed to conservative or liberal).

And this brought up an interesting thought. Because, by Schwarznegger's definition, I'm a Republican. But since I'm not a party animal, I've refused the designation. And I'm not entirely convinced that Republicans ARE Republicans. If you know what I mean.

Has Schwarznegger's ideal been lived up to? It sounded downright libertarian to me. control of one's own money. Government accountable to the people. Strong defense. strong marketplace. Low taxes. Non-government intervention. Do Republicans practice this? I'm willing to allow that most believe it in some part, but when it comes to the government interfering to get you what YOU want, doesn't all that idealism go by the wayside?

(I will say that with the Republicans that I know there does seem to be an underlying skepticism of government. Remember, I work in liberal central, and I am seriously appalled by how ready the liberals in my office are to criticize, mock, denigrate and preach against ANYTHING Republican and how quick they are to defend Clinton, Kerry, etc. etc. Most of the Republicans I know will happily criticize Bush, while still feeling an allegiance. Frankly, the longer I work in my office, the more liberals scare me. They are so ready to believe, trust, adore the politicians on their side of the fence. Whatever, the faults of Utah Republicans, I've always gotten the impression that Utahns will never entirely forget or forgive
Johnson's army showing up in Utah. Odd, that the patriotic, war-monger party should be filled with government critics. And that the anti-war, peace party should be filled with government praisers.)

Then Bush's kids introduced his dad. I agree with Shields that the jokes went on a little too long. But boy, those kids were refreshing. Not the greatest public speakers in the world, but hey, they didn't care. My favorite line--possibly of the evening--was, "We had a hamster too. [Pause] Ours didn't make it." Thank goodness for a realistic dad, rather than a warm and fuzzy one. I was also touched by the genuine family feeling. For awhile there, it felt like the public had been invaded by a Bush reunion, complete with friendly digs at the grandparents (who waved their hands and chided and golly, doesn't Bush Senior looked like he's having the time of his life). I think my favorite moment, rather than favorite line, was when Laura Bush came out and greeted her children with an almost absentminded affection. You could almost hear her saying, "That's nice, dears. You did good. Go sit down, now."

As for Laura Bush. I like her. Her speech went on too long, but she did for her husband what Kerry's wife couldn't bring herself to do for Kerry. The only fault I find with her is I thought she should have done more of it. But Laura Bush is fundamentally reserved (although not cold). She told the public exactly how much personal information she thought we needed and that's all, folks.

Some points about her speech:

(1) Huzzah! The President introduced his wife! Major coolness. I thought the Democrat convention was smart, and I didn't think the Republicans could top it, but that significant detail convinced me that they have. It may all be stage-managed, although I think W. really does love his wife to distraction), but major kudos for the husband introducing his wife rather than holding himself back entirely for the big Thursday night appearance.

(2) Her images of a fretful, worried George Bush were in keeping with my theory that the man thinks, he just can't communicate that he thinks.

(3) I kind of wished Laura would say something about the stupid 7 minutes. But she's a lady, she is. No namecalling. No disparagement of the other party. She didn't even mention it. She didn't even care. (And on the same note, is anything more cool than the Bush daughters saying, "We're not really into politics"?)

All in all, a very successful evening. Wednesday is usually the wacko evening, when all the delegates go to Broadway shows and Buchanan comes out to snarl. Still, all in all, the Republicans are doing a stellar job. I am really impressed, and I honestly thought I wouldn't be.

Second favorite line: "Hope is NOT a strategy."

DAY 3

I thought Mitt Romney was a mistake.

The evening started with Karl Rove and Mark Shields getting into an argument about Vietnam and then a pointless debate about positive versus negative comments at each Convention. Karl Rove made the silly declaration that word for word the Republican Convention is more positive, i.e. savaging the opponent less. He's wrong. (Unless you count all the indirect references in the Democratic Convention.) It was a stupid claim. Why not just say, "We think Kerry is a bad choice, and we will say so repeatedly"?

Mark Shields brought up Karl Rove's remark at the end of the evening and pointed out, eh hem, that, like I said, Karl is wrong. Kerry has been savaged tremendously by this Convention. (As one of the historians pointed out, WHY didn't the Democrats try to defend Kerry's senate record? WHY did they leave it up to the Republicans to explain? What, they thought no one would notice?)

Eventually, Mitt got up. I came into the living room as the TV was squawking, "Mormon. Mormon. Mormon" so I figured out who the speaker was. He didn't come off as General Authoritish (I kind of thought he would). It might have helped if he had. I suppose they had him speak since he is from Massachusetts. But, although he is a good speaker, he had nothing to add except rhetoric and a declaration that marriage should be between a man and a woman because "every child deserves a mother and father."

Now, I'll back that latter statement but current marriage in America is not, as it would have been fifty years ago, defined by children. It was a problematic statement. And Romney doesn't appear to have the intellectual ballast to defend his opinion (as some conservative pundits have, including Goldberg who is, admittedly, extremely conservative--but NOT lacking in intellectual ballast). Maybe Romney is more of a doer/bureaucratic politician than a speaker politician. Apparently, his dad was a neat guy. Shields praised him (the father that is).

I agree with Brooks (a comment made last night) that the Bush campaign is counting on the presence of more Christian conservatives at the ballot boxes than pro-gay-marriage conservatives (i.e. Pataki et al.). But I still think that the party that wanted abortion returned to the states should have the principles to do the same with gay marriage. So this issue matters more--so what? If it matters enough to MY PARTY, the Constitutional safeguards no longer apply? Sorry but that's a liberal argument.

So, he annoyed me.

Then Zell Miller came out and holy cow! I actually started a book by him a few weeks back (that I never finished) about how fed up he gets with liberal Democrats and how the South is sick of being marginalized, and I guess he just couldn't stick it any longer. Hands down, his speech was possibly the best piece of rhetoric I've heard at either convention so far. Good heavens, the man is good. It was a masterpiece of verbiage. He got the energy of the place soaring.

And interestingly enough, Zell Miller's passion was a useful intro for Cheney since it got the floor fevered up AND illuminated Cheney's rock solid low-keyness. To put it bluntly, Cheney was a relief. Cheney is Mr. Laconic, even Mr. Bland (and I mean that in a nice way). He DID sound a bit General Authoritish. I don't remember anything he said. But he came across as smart and secure. (He also came across as someone who could wrap up John Edwards and stick him in his pocket. Or take him to the park. Poor Edwards. At least Quayle was running against what's-his-face from Texas who nobody could figure out, as in nobody could understand why he was campaigning with Dukakis or Mondale or whoever it was.)

By the way, what's all this stuff about Edwards and liability suits? Was he a liability lawyer? Does he support liability lawsuits? Seems a rather petty argument, really. Yes, yes, lawyers shouldn't be ambulance chasers but news flash, the system of suing people exists independent of liability lawyers. Granted, a lawyer probably knows how to milk someone better than your average individual, but the system is supported and maintained by legislation and the Courts. And how exactly is it supposed to be reformed?

[NOTE: Since I wrote this, I watched the debates, and I was really disgusted by Edwards' slick lawyer-ese persona. Lawyers don't have to be slick and slimy, but Edwards slicked and slimied his way through those debates. I wanted Cheney to punch him. I know it's common to detest Cheney, but I will never forget how very cool and collected Cheney was in those debates; no matter how many times Edwards employed his clever, lawyer-like jabs and innuendos, Cheney didn't rise to the bait.]

It just seems like a weird tangent.

I said yesterday that Wednesday is wacko night, and I maintain that. Zell Miller's brilliant speech aside, and that fact that, exaggerations noted, he is probably right about how awful Kerry is, I'm still not entirely prepared for a president voted in by U.N.-hating, Christian fundamentalists. (I don't much like the U.N. either but the antipathy seems to be fueled by a dislike of international alliances in general. Apparently, it's okay to go over to liberate people but we're not supposed to do business with them or invite them to live here--that kind of mentality. The kind of people who get all worked up over our trade agreement with Mexico.)

I'm don't want liberal fundamentalists in charge either (although liberals are more Calvinistic than fundamentalist). The utter disdain for Christians and non-liberals in my office is more than a tad disgusting. But well, truth is, I really don't want a Christian-run state. I'm perfectly happy keeping my private/religious life separate from my political life. I think Deism is a rather pointless theology but it did wonders for American politics.

So tonight left me wary. Well done, but yo, people, tone it down. I'd feel more comfortable with Arnold, despite the whole German-thing that gets people all freaked out--(as if this country was founded by a bunch of people with midwest accents--puhlease)—of course, Arnold can't be president.

Quote of the evening: "The man who doesn't like outsourcing wants to outsource our national security." Zell Miller.

That governor from Maryland is extremely cool.

DAY 4

Let it be said, Republicans hold better parties than Democrats.

PBS informed its audience (by instruction) that the balloons were biodegradable and the confetti recycled.

Whatever. It looked GREAT!

Back to the beginning.

But first, as they say on TV, a note about the protestors.

I know they have a right to protest (well, more or less--they didn't get permits) and I know that they have freedom of speech and right to assembly. But I was pretty disgusted. And I think it is--warning I'm going to get a bit extreme here--part and parcel of the liberal victim stance.

In my experience, if you disagree with a conservative, they will explain to you their viewpoint. They will use prior experience. Or reason. Or facts. Or religion. But they will defend their opinions.

If you disagree with a liberal, they act like you have no right to say anything, that you are offending them just by disagreeing. I don't get into arguments at
work so I'm speaking mostly from prior experience. But the way people at work talk is: I don't agree with Bush--and he's a idiot. I don't agree with Cheney--oh, did you hear what Michael Moore said about him. They never discuss the actual issues. It has already been determined how they should think. I've had discussions with conservatives where they have outlined their thought processes to me, things that bother them, things that confuse them. The liberals I know never discuss anything. They have already been programmed.

These protestors fall into that category to me. To them, NO ONE--not even the Republican President at the REPUBLICAN CONVENTION--has the right to speak. Oh no. They are the only ones with a right to be heard. It's pre-determined. It's pre-arranged. I'm a liberal, therefore I can voice my (pre-programmed) opinions. Conservatives are the bad guys. They should be shut down.

And they go strewning themselves in front of police and trying to relive the sixties like overgrown children.

And--when P.J. O'Rourke goes off like this, he calls it the visit from the crazy conservative guy next door--this goes a long way towards explaining the difference between Bush and Kerry. Bush has been slammed, ridiculed, "pamphleteered" against by the media and by writers. How does he respond? He fights back. So Bush criticizes Kerry. How does Kerry respond? Whine. Whine. Whine. This is an election. You win elections by proving you're better than the other guy. So prove it. And stop whining.

Okay, now I'll return to normal.

PBS started with two interviews, one with Karen Hughes (speech writer for Bush-Cheney) and one with General Frank (who also spoke before the floor). They were extremely interesting. Karen Hughes was far superior to Karl Rove in articulating, graciously, and defending, the Republican campaign. General Frank was so much better than his speech, I was glad I'd watched the interview. I thought the speech was pretty same-old-same-old. Frank is one smart cookie. He was articulate, personable. He's an independent, and I was impressed by his explanation of how he reached the position that he did (to support George W.) and also by his handling of both Shields and Brooks' questions. Very impressive.

I didn't think that Martinez guy was a good speaker, but I found his speech interesting because of the Free Cuba reference. If that's true, that's enough to plant me firmly on George Bush's side. I think it is so stupid that we have a tyrant parked so few miles off our coastline.

I thought most of the speeches were pretty pointless, actually. Everybody repeated what everybody (and Zell Miller) said better last night. Ho hum. So I'll cut to the chase.

First, George W. Bush has a beautiful walk, amble, stroll, call it what you will. I've always thought that. One of the nicest things about his debates against Gore was watching him walk around the stage. I could watch the guy walk around a stage for hours. He has got one sexy walk. (And he wears his suits well.)

Okay--about the domestic stuff. Here is the list I made of Bush's promises:
Low taxes
Less regulation
Less lawsuits
Increased money to community colleges
Simpler tax code (what is a pro rote system?)
Improve jobs here through competition rather than protectionism (very cool)
Tax credit and incentives to new businesses in new fields
Small firms join together to purchase health care (interesting idea)
Rural health centers (necessary!)
Medical liability reform
Home ownership emphasized
Retirement "nest egg" privatized
Family-friendly labor laws
Enrolling low income children in health plans
Local people in charge of schools
Health care reform
"Challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations"

Impressive list, but I have to agree with Shields that (1) Will he do it? (2) Who is going to pay for it? When Bush said, "record level of funding," I went OUCH OUCH. When he said, "Triple spending for homeland security," I went OUUUUUCH. Major Republican problem--cut taxes, spend money. Ouch.

He should have segued directly into the Iraq stuff, but his tangents are noteworthy.

He went negative on Kerry--a HUGE mistake. The fact that Bush had a PLAN was enough. The domestic part of his speech made Kerry look like an empty flimflam man. But of course, the press will quote the negative stuff. (Our paper here headed today's column, "Cheney Attacks Kerry" or something like that. He didn't much. Of course, with Cheney, it's hard to tell. But that was a miniscule part of his speech.)

So, I think Bush shouldn't have ventured into the arena of Kerry criticizing. His henchfolk did it for him. Why try to top Zell?

The second tangent though was far more interesting. Several pundits have pointed out that Bush is more of a Texan fundamentalist than his dad. He mentioned the following (here's another list):

1. Anti-abortion ("protect our weakest members"--problem here deciding that fetuses are members or citizens. A fetus is in the woman's body. Hard to legislate the fetus' rights without totally messing with the women's rights, and I am referring to more than abortion. Family planning is, traditionally, not something conservatives want to bring to the government's attention. Not the government's business how many children I have, what sex, what color. Not the government's business how I raise my kid so abortion is a sticky issue. Give the government rights over the fetus in a woman's body, where does it end? Government power can ALWAYS be abused.)

2. Protection of marriage (problematic but he worded it well: "honor the marriage between a man and a woman for what that institution has given our society" or words to that effect)

3. No discrimination against religion (promoting religious charities--I'm in favor of this)

4. Friend of Israel

Fundamentalist issues right down the line. I give the guy the credit of his convictions. He believes it all. It's not pandering to a center. It's pandering to a powerful but peripheral group that he happens to agree with. Hmm.

All in all, an impressive closure. He has trouble speaking of course. He gets ahead of himself. So, he compensates by speaking slowly. But he was less self-conscious than he was four years ago. And major kudos for keeping on track in spite of the protestors.(And major kudos to the floor for drowning out the protestors rather than, uh, lynching them.)

He's still got that smirk but it's less cowboy smirk and more, yeah, life is weird, isn't it smirk.

Favorite sign: "VIVA Bush."

Favorite quote: From Jim Lehrer's interview (and by the way, Jim Lehrer is a real gentleman. I have been enormously impressed by PBS. They did a great job at both conventions) with Dad Bush, Dad Bush said, "I'm not a legacy kind of guy, I'm a dad"--no regrets, no jealousy. This is my place. This is what I do now. Extreme coolness.

Favorite article: from National Review, an interview with Barbara Bush where she said that she doesn't watch the news but that Dad Bush feels required to and then he "throws things at the TV."

Second favorite quote: "I've been called blunt. If you want to know where I got that, look to the white haired lady up there."

And lastly, I know people say or think that the Republicans trot out their multicultural friends but aren't really multicultural. [I won't digress into how this kind of analysis is a form of racism.] I don't agree. Bush has a multicultural cabinet. He has multicultural friends. That convention was filled with diverse people. The Democratic convention, on the other hand, was very East Coast White Boys. Even Ms Heinz-Kerry, who is truly International, is an East Coast White Boy's acceptable kind of wife.

Frankly--[apparently, I did digress] I'll try not to let the crazy conservative person back in--I'm tired of the liberal/democratic attitude that just because they are liberal/democrat that automatically makes them tolerant and diverse. And that Republicans are de facto intolerant and all-white and that Republican Hispanics, blacks, etc. are "Uncle Toms" and "token". It's Calvinism, pure and simple: we're liberal, therefore we are saved. You're conservative, therefore you are damned.

Tiresome.

So, I suppose you can guess where I drifting vote-wise. I haven't shut down my options completely (towards Kerry, yes). The Libertarians are out there. But Bush would have to do something tremendously stupid (and he could) in sixty days to lose my vote.

Bring on the debates!