Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I find nothing in this article to argue about. I would contend however, that for those who do plan to view both conventions, there is good reason.

First, there is no substitute for getting the words from the horse’s mouth in context. I would hope polls of political bloggers would show 50% or better intending to watch at least parts of both conventions.

Second, while the party designed the platform, the speakers will give clues as to how those lofty goals are, or are not, being planned for in reality. If a couple of themes from the platform are espoused by a large number of the speakers, one can reasonably deduce to some extent what the real priorities will be, especially if the candidates reiterate those themes.

I’m a political junkie and even I yawn at these modern “conventions”

I love the conventions both of them. This is like a Christmas that comes once every four years. Okay yeah I’m a politico-geek, but I love ‘em.

There will be a good line up of speakers of what I’ve read and if they can stop playing the John Cougar Melloncamp or Hootie and the Blowfish inbetween each freakin’ segment I’d be all the more enthused.

But how can you not love a convention? Ted Kennedy is going to Whoop ass! This should be a good one, really!

Even Bush is going to watch as he, Fox News and Rove work to create some dumb media distraction to take away from it! But he will even be watching, SO CHECK YOUR LOCAL LISTINGS, this is going to be a good one! For both Dems and Repubs.

I wonder how many votes will slide into the Republican column for every second Ted Kennedy runs his mouth. But I’m sure he’ll pad Kerry’s margin in Massachussets—as if that state’s electoral votes are in any doubt.

The real show will be the Republican convention, and not even the convention itself but the three-ringed circus of certifiable insanity we’ll all get to witness on the streets of Manhattan! I live pretty nearby, and I might even get to smell the tear-gas from where I sit with a bucket of popcorn and Fox news in the background. I’m thinking of investing in ear-plugs and a gas-mask.

Martin, as a Democrat and as a New Yorker I have mixed feelings about the protests at the convention. I am fairly confident that huge numbers will turn out and that they will behave themselves with dignity and grace. What I am not confident about is the way the media will portray the protesters. Even if less than a half of a percent of the protesters show up with black masks or anti-Israel signs, you can bet your bottom dollar that those people will be the *only* people who are shown on the news (and that they will be the *only* people you will remember seeing when you post to this Blog in September!).

-Cf

Don’t forget the staged riots by Republicans who were bussed in to disrupt the Florida recounts. If there are protesters “with black masks or anti-Israel signs”, I’d check on their party affiliation.

I just saw a Reuters article that says the FBI is investigating “unconfirmed information” of a “possible attack” on media vehicles at the Dem’s convention. More details will be forthcoming if they get “any credible information.” The FBI notified the media because they were “potential targets.”

What the heck is that? Did the Dems plant this “potential” story to get more media attention? Did the Reps plant it to scare people away and lower attendance - maybe even get some media outlets to pull their reporters because it’s too dangerous?

What’s the point of the FBI warning of a “potential” threat without “any credible information?” I only expect that kind of warning from the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Okay, I have a personal request. I have no cable television in my apartment. (Those of you who’ve read my comments probably thought I spent all day every day in front of Fox News. Sorry.) I am looking for the best place to get coverage online. My connection is rather slow. I can handle sound, but not video.

Also, if anyone has a TiVo with DVD recorder, I would be willing to pay for someone to record both conventions.

You can email me at mathman32503@aol.com to avoid clogging the blog.

I think there’s always been low interest in the Conventions as a television event. The Networks, allowed by a now lax FCC, don’t even really air them anymore. Only PBS will be carrying it live. Let me repeat that: Only PBS will be carrying it live. When I was a kid, heck, a teenager, all the networks were carrying it. It was a major event, every election year.

As for the location of the Republican convention, we all know why it was chosen, and it’s not because New York has a strong conservative constituency. They deserve whatever protest they get for trying to mooch off the tragedy of 9/11.

If they’re not careful, they could end up with their own version of the 1968 Democratic convention, and a huge political liability as a result.

It is interesting, yet sad, how the culture warriors of the right have prepositioned themselves to smear New Yorkers as freaks if they embarrass Bush. So much for the martyred city…

Dale, I would guess that the DNC and RNC web sites would be the best sources for coverage of their respective conventions. The DNC has given license to a number of bloggers to cover it. But, you will then get spin of the party’s spin, I would think.

You can be pretty sure that a very high percentage of the worst troublemakers during the convention won’t even be New Yorkers. New Yorkers may be 5-1 Democratic, but by and large they have too much respect for our city to turn it into a WTO convention-style war zone.

It’s interesting to consider why, though both sides of our political divide are passionate about their views, only the left makes widespread use of street protests and demonstrations. I wonder why. Any thoughts?

I suspect it’s because those on the left are more likely to enjoy the feelings of solidarity and community experienced when the individual identity is “absorbed by the group.” Those on the right, with their far stonger attachment to independence and individuality, are decidedly less comfortable as part of large groups and prefer more contemplative venues for expressing themselves.

Those on the right, with their far stonger attachment to independence and individuality, are decidedly less comfortable as part of large groups and prefer more contemplative venues for expressing themselves.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

I never knew you had a such a sense of humor, Martin. (That was a joke, right?)

Martin, last time I checked, your people were still picketing abortion clinics, and gathering around granite graven decalogues. Your people imposed themselves on the recount and in fact are setting up counterprotests at many of the Democrat/left-wing pickets.

Republicans are just as capable of mass protest as anybody else. Some are more individualistic and more introspective, but some Democrats and Liberals can claim that too.

If the expected protests occur at the Republican Convention in New York, it will be interesting how Fox News spins the higher ratings in Bush favor. Sympathy for an embattled President? Disgust for those radical Liberal agitators?

When I was in the music biz, I never watched any of those award shows, including the Grammys’. I felt they were never an accurate picture of what good music was out there.

But, I (and a number of like-minded Liberals) will be watching a good portion of the Dem Convention, this week! It’s like watching The Godfather again, or hearing an Eric Clapton re-working of an old favorite song.

Rev. Sharpton will bring down the house, Edward’s smile may have you adjust your TV’s brightness, and Bill Clinton, well…

And yes, John Kerry needs to deliver. But, luckily his performance will not be filtered thru pundits to the voters. His Meet The Press interview contrasted sharply and effectively with Bush’s previously evasive interview.

Kerry is known to be a ‘great closer’.

> It’s interesting to consider why, though
> both sides of our political divide are
> passionate about their views, only the
> left makes widespread use of street
> protests and demonstrations. I wonder
> why. Any thoughts?

Oh, I have a few ideas:

—> Because only right-wing leadership often brazenly steers our country on courses of action that radically depart from the general will of the people. The Bush administration governs as if they won in a landslide and as if they do not need to factor the opposition’s opinions or viewpoints into their policies at all… no wonder so many tens of millions of liberal Americans are mad at them.

—> Because people on the right tend to have unquestioning, jingoistic, sheeplike respect for their leadership and tend to dislike people who voice dissenting opinions, who stand out from the crowd, who rock the boat, who make a scene, or otherwise appear to be expressing themselves as an individual.

—> Because people on the right largely do not have sophisticated enough views to care one bit about politics beyond the simplest, safest, and most developmentally primitive forms of political opinion: I love America! Foreigners can screw themselves! I don’t wanna pay taxes! My religion is best! Views which, not coincidentally, the Bush Administration follows to the letter.

—> Because public protest requires personal intellectual and social courage, which people on the right largely lack (it doesn’t take much intellectual courage to want to pay less taxes, to advocate pepetual war, to demonize minorities, foreigners, and the poor - on the other hand it does take courage to take a stand against those things).

—> Because the left at it’s core stands for progressive change: for the growth and expansion of rights, the extension of the franchise, bringing power to the powerless masses and a voice to the voiceless masses. The right stands for the consolidation of rights, slowing the growth of shared power, the shrinkage of the franchise, and the rule by the few. The right stands for those who have a voice, who register on the radar. The left often stands for those who don’t have a voice, those who often are ignored or overlooked by the concervative nature of mainstream political machines. Thus, naturally, the left must often take to the streets to find a voice when the mainstream media and politicians are all under the thumb of the right.

I marched in protest of the Iraq War because I felt that I represented tens of millions of Americans whose voices were ignored not only by the Bush Administration, but by the Democrats who were cowed by the Bush Administration. We marched to let our leaders know that we existed and that we would support them if they supported our viewpoint, because they and the media seemed to have forgotten.

-Cf

martin writes:
>>It’s interesting to consider why, though both sides of our political divide are passionate about their views, only the left makes widespread use of street protests and demonstrations. I wonder why. Any thoughts?

wow martin….only a republican would have the stones to claim that liberals are terrorists…or whatever….

you know…i may hate everything that spills out of your lemming-like face….however, it’s your right to say it…..

but even though i disagree with you…i don’t claim you to be unamerican….

as for liberals protesting….well lets look at it…most republicans are for big business, profit, destroying the environment (ie making profit by using any means that keep the bottom dollar down), and shipping labor overseas, again about the bottom dollar….

so those who disagree, and are willing to place themselves in danger by stepping into a “free-speech zone” and then being arrested for no good reason other that disagreement with the machine….well…..

some people get frustrated being crapped on……

you however, don’t seem to mind.

call liberals whatever you want..have at it….but to claim that your party is somehow less herd-like than ours is just plain ignorant.

now go pray…….i’m sure your chicken-blood altar to regan needs refreshing….

Stephen, conservative demonstrations occur, but they’re relatively rare and small, and I don’t think anybody would say that the right takes part in them with anything approaching the frequency or scale of demonstrations on the left. Is this even arguable?

I don’t really understand Christopher’s points at all. Your lack of recognition that a conservative position can be anything other than “jingoistic” and “sheeplike” comes through, but why wouldn’t those with jingoistic and sheeplike opinions be more, not less, likely to march shouting slogans and waving banners? Look at demonstrations in Tehran or other dictatorships. When leaders have a strangle-hold on a brainwashed nation, they tend to encourage such events. Here, all such Tehran-like scenes are staged by the left.

I guess marching arm and arm, chanting anti-Bush rymes and waving posters that show Bush with a Hilter mustache must take “personal and intellectual social courage,” but I sure can’t figure out why. Your many, many caricatures of the right’s postions (that they hate minorities, think foreigners should screw themselves, etc) are more primitive and cartoonish than “intellectualy sophisticated,” I’m sorry to say. They show more of an adherance to partisan group-think (of which a demonstration is a perfect example) than a careful study of even past or present history.

The left marches to extend the franchise? Huh? What century do you think we’re living in. The voiceless and powerless masses? Who are they? The “voiceless masses” of America (if there are such) have more to gain by starting a business, finding a job, or enrolling in college than venting in the streets. I have no problem with people demonstrating—it shows that democracy and freedom of expression is alive and well. But it takes no bravery, intellect or integrity to join a mob. In fact, it shows more intellect to not submerge one’s individuality within the mass of conformity represented by large numbers of people all saying the same thing. And anyway, ou couldn’t even do it if the administration were as draconian and authoratarian as you insist.

I don’t think anybody would say that the right takes part in them with anything approaching the frequency or scale of demonstrations on the left. Is this even arguable?

Yes. Actually I would go so far as to say that conservatives have done an admirable job of adopting (some would say co-opting) that tactics of the civil rights movement. (Even if it is a sad perversion sometimes, like sending a group of congressional aides to pose as outraged citizens and disrupt vote counting.)

One march that comes to mind - every year on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade about 250,000 pro-lifers march on Washington.

Rob, if I were a praying man I’d sure start praying after reading your post.

For your information, you’re talking to a homosexual atheist who makes his living in the arts. As such, and a conservative, I think I could tell YOU a little something about what it actually means to maintain the courage of one’s convictions in the face of groupthink and blind partisan hostility.

But who has placed themselves in danger and been arrested in a free speech zone (on this planet), for doing nothing but voicing their opinion? Smashing windows, throwing bottles and looting stores may get you arrested, if that’s what you mean. Is it?

There seems to be some sort of imaginary martyr-complex eminating from those who express their political beliefs in demonstrations. A kind of narcissitic fantasy of being oppressed when no such oppression is actually taking place. A lot of grandstanding and posturing. Just think of all the torments suffered by those at the bottom of our society who have had the bravery to march, chant and cheer amidst in a mob! Such proletariat martrys as Martin Sheen and Barbara Streisand. How they have suffered—how I cry for them.

I think the left has much to add to political debate in this country (and has added much, as in the since eclipsed civil rights movement of thirty odd years ago). On some issues, I’m something of a leftist myself. But now I sure hope the left suffers electoral defeats, in this election or subsequent ones, to match the intellectual and ethical defeats they’ve already inflicted on themselves.

Having attended a few conventions myself, The idea that a person is getting something straight from the horses mouth is a bit odd to me. The conventions are preplanned, prescripted, and devoid of thought not only by most candidates but also by the supporters. Literally they are dog and pony show and I think most young people recognize this. Conventions are to solidify a power base by eliminating choices and come out with a clear stance (even if it is just choosing a person) and only very rarely do they actually express the heart of the matter, who the candidate is, and if we can trust them to execute the law.

william:
william:
william:
william:

I ipplaud your points points points points. Remember to hit “post” only once. The site will then post your message, even if it appears to NOT be doing so. And remember, many of us also did the same thing before we learned.

I agree that most of both conventions will be pablum. Of course, seeing Theresa Kerry tell a reporter to “shove it” was a pleasant bit of unscripted fun. I can only imagine how reporters are going to try to hound her into future mis steps.

Martin, the characteristic difference between a Munich or Tehran march and an American leftist march should be obvious: in the former case, they are marching in support of the government, in the latter they are marching in opposition to the government. The left in America is perpetually the outsider insofar as they generally stand for change and progress against forces of stasis and consolidation of power.

Many of my comments about the right were intended to press the same buttons you pressed when you implied that people on the left don’t have a strong sense of individualism while people on the right do. I guess I got carried away, but my point was that there are stereotypes on both sides.

Ultimately, though, I do stand by the idea that those on the right do have a visceral dislike for nonconformity and for those who show disrespect for authority (it’s practically a defining characteristic of what it means to be a “conservative”). I also stand by the idea that the left tends to protest more vocally because the left tends to be ignored by politicians on the right more than the right is ignored by politicians on the left.

Also, joining a protest does take some bravery: it requires one to voice one’s political opinions in a public place, not to mention telling all your friends and family what you did over the weekend, even if some of them might disagree. It may not take a ton of intellect, I’ll admit to that, but people who get up early to expose themselves to ridicule for expressing their political beleifs in public aren’t simply joining a mindless mob, either.

The point of protest is twofold: first, to tell our leaders that people who disagree with them exist. In the case of the Iraq War, Bush acted like he had 100% approval for going to war, and many Americans (and many citizens of our allies) literally hadn’t had enough time to think about it (nor did they have accurate/honest information upon which to make a decision). If Bush’s Administration were capable of rational thought, they would have seen the protests around the world and realized that the Iraq war was likely to cost the US (and the US alone) billions of dollars, that nobody would help us, and that support from those countries that did help us would be feeble and easily rescinded. The view of the 2002 anti-invasion protesters has turned out to now, in 2004, to be the view of the majority of Americans. Bush should have listened.

By the way, I sympathise with your distaste for group activities: I also dislike that aspect of protests. I also dislike rock concerts for the same reason. I hate typical protest speakers (they all suck these days) and I hate being lumped together with the “anti-Israel” and “free Mumia” and the black-ski-mask kiddies. Believe me, I have a lot of sympathy for your position.

You may be surprised to learn that I’ve only gone to three protests in my life (a NOW Pro-Choice march in Washington DC in 1990, an anti-Persian Gulf War protest at the UN in 1992, and an anti-Iraq Invasion demonstration, also at the UN, in 2003).

That said, you should have seen the crowd at the 2003 NYC protest: for every dreadlocked anti-WTO kid there were literally 500 perfectly normal New Yorkers — without signs, stickers, or any other flamboyant regalia to indicate that they were anything besides concerned citizens, fed up with America’s reckless rush to war. They all simply came, like I did, to help create a stunning political message. One that was, sadly, ignored.

-Cf

William, you couldn’t be more wrong. The Democratic Convention tonight is full of philosophical and practical thoughts as demonstrated by Al Gore and Jimmy Carter so far. You really should take your blinders off and stop prejudging yourself out of opportunities to listen, think, and learn.

CF your comments…..
>The point of protest is twofold: first, to tell our leaders that people who disagree with them exist. In the case of the Iraq War, Bush acted like he had 100% approval for going to war, and many Americans (and many citizens of our allies) literally hadn’t had enough time to think about it (nor did they have accurate/honest information upon which to make a decision). If Bush’s Administration were capable of rational thought, they would have seen the protests around the world and realized that the Iraq war was likely to cost the US (and the US alone) billions of dollars, that nobody would help us, and that support from those countries that did help us would be feeble and easily rescinded. The view of the 2002 anti-invasion protesters has turned out to now, in 2004, to be the view of the majority of Americans. Bush should have listened.>

As a conservative woman that is pro-choice, for gun control, neutral on the death penalty and gay marriage, I find your characterization of conservatives disturbing to say the least. Which is the exact reasons I find your mindset stuck in the 60’s and not of this planet.

To say that conservatives have a jingoistic and unquestioning sheeplike respect for their leadership is as far from the truth as the rhetoric spewing from the left that cites Bush as a liar and Clinton as a saint. And a lie repeated enough times will be believed. It doesn’t even have to be validated by any rhyme or reason or have a scintilla of truth. It just needs to be said and it is believe as if it were some universal truth. Which is the reason that I find demonstrations and protests particularly distasteful. Because most protestors (maybe not you) are not equipped with all the facts nor do they care. But yet they seem to march in lockstep with a mob mentality.

There is always a difference of opinions on any issue, which I respect, and find the mob like approach simply not the only way to get a point across. As for Bush Administration not listening to millions of people protesting across the planet; did it ever occur to you that is exactly why some or most conservatives respect him. Bush went into Afghanistan to revenge and annihilate Al Queda and remove the Taliban which most assuredly should have been done months or years earlier. Not only the Bush Administration or the Clinton Administration were able to exact this type of justice pre 9/11. And the same pre 9/11 mentality exists today as it pertains to Iraq. Leftist would much rather wait for the threat to be at their doorstep than take any steps to remove it before it becomes imminent.

The fact that Bush is relentless in this war against terrorism, an enemy that is new and different than any enemy we have ever seen before makes him honorable in my mind. He does not wait for approval from protestors or the UN to protect this country, which is the only duty he is constitutionally charged with, which is “to provide for the common defense”.

As for a United Nations solution, it seems ludicrous now in light of the fact that France and Russia were never going to approve any action that would have removed Hussein. If you want your security dictated by a corrupt organization that takes millions from a seemingly benign program such as the Oil for Food program, that is your prerogative. It is certainly not mine.

MAW, I never said anything about the UN. Just because I think that it’s important that America have allies doesn’t mean that I think we should kneel before the UN.

It’s baffling that you still believe that the Iraq invasion is related to the war on terrorism.

It’s even more baffling that you think that “revenge” is a legitimate tool of foreign policy.

Finally, what exactly is it that you dislike about protests? Am I wrong to assume that you dislike protests because they reflect disunity and disrespect for the government?

> Because most protestors (maybe not you)
> are not equipped with all the facts

Which is worse:
1) People marching in protest of a policy about which they don’t know all the facts.
2) People who stay silent when they don’t know all the facts about the issue.
3) People who quietly, contentedly, yet actively support a policy when they still don’t know all the facts.

-Cf

CF
Your comment that you demonstrated to protest the Iraq invasion in 2003 led me to believe that you put some faith in the virtues of the UN. Had you been demonstrating to get us out of the UN, I probably would never have mentioned it. As for me, the UN has made itself irrelevant by passing resolutions with absolutely no intentions of acting on them. Enough said of that.

My response to you on the Iraq invasion being related to terrorism is that I find it equally baffling that you don’t believe that it wasn’t. If the 9/11 Commission considered both the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration unresponsive to the warnings about Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, then how could anyone chastise Bush for taking action against Iraq?

And the only foreign policy tool (as you describe it) I believe in is doing what is in our best interests. To think that revenge wasn’t in some way a factor against Al Qaeda and the Taliban you may as well believe in the tooth fairy.

I believe I clearly stated my opinion about protestors, both those for and against policies they do not like. Not all, but many are motivated strictly by emotion and certainly not by taking the time to learn the facts. Therefore I find number 1 the worst, ‘People marching in protest of a policy about which they don’t know all the facts’. If they are motivated enough to march against a policy then they should certainly take the time to learn as many facts as possible and not just the talking points!

the UN has made itself irrelevant by passing resolutions with absolutely no intentions of acting on them.

With what? Despite rumors of black helicopters, there aren’t any UN troops. The UN counts on member nations to donate troops and on the United States to lead them.

Are you saying that Bush isn’t enforcing UN resolutions? After all, the US has a veto. It’s impossible for the UN to pass a resolution that Bush doesn’t like.

OK now, don’t go stupid on me here.

Everyone knows that the bulk of the forces are from the United States. Who doesn’t know that or that the UN doesn’t have troops to begin with.

You know perfectly well that 16 UN Resolutions over the past decade were repeatedly violated and ignored. If that doesn’t make the UN irrelevant, than what does? Possibly the Oil for Food program would be a tie for second along with the UN’s failure to act while thousands are being slaughtered in the Sudan.

Everyone knows that the bulk of the forces are from the United States. …You know perfectly well that 16 UN Resolutions over the past decade were repeatedly violated and ignored.

Don’t go stupid on me either, MAW.

You just made my point. If the resolutions were violated and ignored, it’s because the United States let that happen.