September 08, 2004
Thoughts From A Week After
It has been one month and four years since Governor George W. Bush took the stage in Philadelphia to accept the Republican Presidential nomination. The U.S. has seen a few changes since then though. Despite all that, the same archetypical images were present in this year’s convention as were present before. Each speech was filled with bloated patriotism and motivational lines like Bush’s statement, “This young century will be liberty’s century.” The flags and signs still waved support and the crowd still hummed with excitement. The red, white, and blue ribbons and balloons were everywhere in sight. On top of all that, the expenses for the convention were estimated at a phenomenal $64 million for the four nights.
By comparison, even the acceptance speeches between Bush and Cheney follow similar design. Cheney lands some low blows on the leading Democrats, and Bush follows them up with some of his Texas charm. Speakers like John McCain were present in both conventions praising their party leader. Each convention had a few quirky moments though as was the case with Zell Miller jumping the Democratic ship to preach this year at the convention. Perhaps Miller would have given off an aura of greater credibility had he not later admitted wanting to challenge Chris Matthews to a duel.
There have been some intriguing ideas surrounding the fact that the convention was moved up exactly one month. One major reason could be to catch more of the historical convention boom going into November. There will be thirty less days for the boom to level off this time around. A second reason was perhaps so that more of the pre-convention funds could be spent. What does an election attempt need more than additional cash? The third reason involves the proximity of the convention to the anniversary of 9/11. Even the convention’s location suggests this is not a far out idea. The number of references to the World Trade Center attacks, as well as the key platform issue of the War on Terror is even more suggestive.
What sets this year’s convention off from the 2000 counterpart is in fact the use of terrorism as an issue. Each convention has the same statements about the economy, education, healthcare, and social security. There are even repeated lines such as “the soft bigotry of low expectations” and “compassionate conservative”. There are a lot of current issues mentioned again like tax code reform, prescription drug benefits for the elderly, and social security updates. Most of these issues were outlined in the 2000 platform but never really worked out for Bush. Should we trust him when he says he will do it this time around? In the end though, what took up the entire speech in 2000 comprised less than half of Bush’s 2004 speech. The rest of the speech was filled with the War on Terror and Iraq. Ironically there was no mention of Bin Laden in Bush’s speech. This is no big deal. At least we caught Donald Rumsfeld’s friend, Saddam, and put him behind bars.
All sarcasm aside, the 2004 convention had several important themes. Strength and clarity were two. A renewed vision for compassionate conservatism came forth which once again tried to focus new ideas on the economic and social realm of the U.S. There was also an overall theme of unity for the nation. A nation with a leader as polarizing as President Bush could use a little unity. The role of the “love him or hate him” president has been cast well. Many political pundits have said there has never been a president that makes people so very sure of the way in which they felt about him. In many polls the percentage of unsure voters has gotten slimmer and slimmer until there is almost a 50/50 split of opinion. Major portions of the convention were dedicated to luring this narrow strip of undecided into the Bush camp.
As we all know, the use of such themes and patriotism had excellent results for the Republicans in 2000. The full results of this September convention are still unclear though. Will there be a disappointment with the Bush boom as there was with the Kerry boom? It is hard to tell right now. All signs point in the direction of a positive result coming out of the convention though, and Bush could sure use a big jump in the polls with just two more months to go. As if the 2000 election wasn’t close enough, this election cycle is sure to come down to the wire.
Each speech was filled with bloated patriotism and motivational lines
Well…yeah, I guess that’s sort of what happens at political speeches in general and at political conventions in particular. How does this differ from the Dems in Boston?
the expenses for the convention were estimated at a phenomenal $64 million for the four nights.
Not to be confused with the estimated
$95 million for the Democrat circus in Boston, right? Looks downright thrifty to me. Evil Republicans…probably stole even that from widows, children and people on fixed incomes.
There have been some intriguing ideas surrounding the fact that the convention was moved up exactly one month.
You’re absolute right. Oh wait, there was that Democrat convention thing…and the Olympics. No, it had to have been some sort of evil plan by the Republicans. Everybody knows they stole the election in Florida, right?
What sets this year’s convention off from the 2000 counterpart is in fact the use of terrorism as an issue.
Now that’s a real stunner. We all know that terrorism was a much bigger issue back in 2000. We’ve hardly thought about it for the past three years since those nice Islamist fundamentalists changed their wicked ways. I don’t know why the Repubs keep harping on the subject.
A nation with a leader as polarizing as President Bush could use a little unity.
Seriously, I don’t think Bush can hold a candle to the Presidents Clinton when it comes to devisiveness. However much lefties dislike Bush, the dislike for the Clintons is no less intense from the right.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 8, 2004 01:49 PMNOTOTH,
I was writing about the RNC alone. I make comparison to the 2000 and the 2004 conventions and the changes that have come around because of terrorism. I was in no way using the RNC to make the DNC look better or suggesting the Democrats spend less money than Republicans. This is the independent section. I hold no loyalty to the Democrats, or even Bill Clinton. You’ve jumped to quite a few conclusions about me in just a few short paragraphs.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 8, 2004 02:38 PMThen I apologize, Adam. I didn’t read it that way and, in fact, wondered why the item even appeared under the independent heading. I stand corrected if I misinterpreted your intent.
Posted by: NOTOTH at September 8, 2004 02:47 PMThe Republicans put on an excellent convention and apparently connected with a lot of people. Their bounce was bigger than expected and it may have been a turning point in the election. Kudos to the GOP.
As for divisiveness, I would just say that we live in divided times, but this is not new. In the last three elections 1992, 1996 and 2000 — no candidate won a majority. This includes Al Gore’s 48.4% in 2000 and Bill Clinton’s 43% in 1992? If Bush’s lead holds up, he has a chance to break the 50% barrier. If more than half the voters choose him, he will be less divisive than anyone since 1988 – by definition.
NOTOTH, your Republican-style disinformation is laughably typical.
The $95 million DNC price tag you quoted includes security costs. Without security it was more like $40 million.
Of course, that Democratic cost number was the final tally. But the $64 million RNC price tag Adam quoted was only preliminary, dating from April of 2004. The actual final cost, including security, is thought to be closer to $200 million.
And that number is still just an estimate. New York is still adding up the costs. It’s too soon to tell, but like all bad news (particularly bad news about money from the Bush Administration) the preliminary numbers are always much much rosier than the final figures. My bet is that the final cost will be in the $250 million range.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 8, 2004 05:17 PM“Their bounce was bigger than expected and it may have been a turning point in the election. Kudos to the GOP.”
During convention & immediately after, 11 point lead. A few days later, 7 point lead. Now Zogby shows a 2 point lead. See a trend? It is going to be a nose to nose race. Temporal bumps are meaningless unless they occur days or hours before the polls close.
Bush is a wild card. He isn’t a conservative, he isn’t a liberal. He does what he pleases whether in the National Guard or as President. And so far he has not been held responsible for his reckless, flip-flopping, indulgent, and self-absorbed “I do what I want and defy anyone to stop me” attitude. His approval numbers are showing more and more Americans are seeing for who he really is.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 8, 2004 05:18 PMIf more than half the voters choose him, he will be less divisive than anyone since 1988 – by definition.
Good lord, are you saying that nowadays 51% is a mandate?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 8, 2004 05:19 PM51% wouldn’t be a mandate, but it would be better than we have had for sixteen years. One reason for all the acrimony is probably that more people voted against our recent presidents than for them.
Posted by: jack at September 8, 2004 05:25 PMSorry NOTOTH but I have to agree with C. Fahey on this one. The Rep. security will make the final tally alot higher. What, with all those innocent liberals throwing eggs, spitting and verbally and physically assaulting those evil Rep. delegates. Someone had to be hired to protect those innocent liberals.
Posted by: Tim at September 8, 2004 05:57 PMTim, nobody spat on any Republican delegates. No delegates were physically assaulted. You just made all that up. An unfortunately typical Republican tactic these days.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 9, 2004 02:49 AMAdam,
While I agree that the RNC convention this year may have got some people caught up in the moment, but unlike 2000, people have come to realize that this election is truely about our future.
Bush and company is now playing the fear card that they said the Dems did in 2002 about going to Iraq. How Americans view the facts and react to them over the next few days is anybodys guess.
Yet, Kerry holds the high hand in this debate. Face to Face debates Kerry can beat Bush with facts on almost every real issue. Maybe thats way Bush does not want to debate real questions from real people. Shows a proactive approach to handling problems. One off the wall remark or a Da would seal his fate. His dear like eyes could cause a crash.
On the airwave, K&E is holding the high ground on the tongue. Engaging brain before mouth is a virtrue that does not lend itself favorable to Bush and Cheney.
Stump speeching, Kerry has solid message and Bush spends most of his time bashing Kerry. Guess it is up to who’s BS you believe.
Check out the different electoral colleges results. The places Bush wins is mostly country, but Kerry cuts through the heart of it. It will be an interesting night.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 9, 2004 03:25 AMHenry,
That night will be interesting alright. The debates are bound to be harsh on Bush though. But then again, looking back at the debates against Ann Richards in the mid 90’s for Governor, it’s clear that Bush can debate hardcore. Why he has turned into this speech bumbling puppet president since then is beyond me.
Posted by: Adam Ducker at September 9, 2004 09:58 AMCF- I am sorry if what I saw while I was THERE is different that what you saw reported. Constitutional rights were violated. Police abuse did happen, everywhere. Even reporters were told to quit filming or be arrested. And yes, I did see extreme left groups assault, harrass and threaten the delegates.
You cannot get all the facts by watching TV or listening to the radio.
Yet, Kerry holds the high hand in this debate. Face to Face debates Kerry can beat Bush with facts on almost every real issue.
I’m not sure that Kerry will be able to win, even when the facts are on his side. In the 90-second format of the debates, quick sound bites can trump reasoned logic, and Bush is very skilled at the quick attack statements. Also, having the facts helps only if the electorate is informed enough to know which candidate is speaking the truth and which is lying, and I don’t trust the media to hold both candidates accountable. I also don’t trust the populace to see facts instead of bias when lies are exposed.
Wow. I’m cynical.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 9, 2004 05:07 PMAdam,
Bush has one weakness when he debates. That weakness is off the wall thinking. Now he might be able to speak well on a question with a 30 second time bite for the answer, but what I and others want to know can Bush think on his feet.
Lawnboy, are your cynical or stating facts? I think the latter is true. The media for all their ranting of being liberal has not held Bush and the republicans to the same level of overview as Clinton and the democrats. Therefore, they have not educated the masses on the facts and how they play into all the debates.
As far as the populace goes, most of Bush’s supporters are the same people that supported Carter and his father. Although some are intellegent, I’m afraid that their wallet makes up their mind.
If Kerry hopes to win the debates, he must take the high road. Yet, we must understand that the high road does not mean he can’t slam Bush. The wording of the questions come into play on this. For example, Bush is asked about mission accomplished. His answer is simple. We finished with the heavy equipment and started providing security thats why I said it. Now Kerry can respond with a long explination or he can look at Bush and simple state “Where was the plan for peace you promised Congress and the American citizens?” Since Bush can not explain how he won the battle for Iraq, nor has ever had a plan for the peace. Any remark from him will lead to a stumbling act around the facts.
Like I said before, It will be an interesting night.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 9, 2004 09:59 PMHenry- I am surprised to hear that “most” Bush supporters are not intelligent and only think with their wallets. Most Bush supporters I know are not unintelligent.
They know it is a FACT that kerry will raise taxes. They know it is a FACT that kerry is a liberal and therefore it is a FACT that he does NOT believe in the whole Constitution.
They know it is a FACT that Bush cut taxes.
They THINK Bush is for the whole Constitution, but we know how much he has trampled on our rights. This is where they are misguided in their thinking. To say “most” Bush supporters are unintelligent is a really partisan statement.
As for the debates. They will be interesting, but you have to know that both sides will only be saying what they think will get them votes. No details and no answers, just what they think the sheeple want to hear.
It’s actually pretty sad.
kerry is a liberal and therefore it is a FACT that he does NOT believe in the whole Constitution
And that’s a great example of the difference between an actual fact and hyperbole. Your statement here is inherently meaningless, yet it is inflamatory.
I suppose you meant that, as a liberal, he probably doesn’t support your interpretation of the highly disputed 2nd Amendment. However, since it’s a disagreement of interpretation, not disavowal, your statement is false. Also, Kerry hasn’t issued a stand on gun control (that I can find), so you have misplaced guilt by association.
Please, learn what FACT means before ranting again.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 10, 2004 11:58 AMLawnBoy- Good to hear your opinions. Thanks.
First of all, your statements are exactly where the liberal views are wrong when concerning the Constitution. It is meant to be the rule of the land, not interpreted to mean what you want it to mean.
I was not refering to just the 2nd Amendment, although it is very clearly written and means exactly what it says, the right to keep and bear arms. It is not meant to protect our right to hunt or to target shoot, it is meant to protect us from govt. plain and simple.
But, onto others: No place in the Constitution does it say “seperation of church and state” does it.
The Constitution also very clearly states the two types of legal taxes.
The fourth amendment is also very clear. However, some president to care of that with the no-knock rule now didn’t he.
I know that the Constitution is supposed to be FACT. Not interpreted to mean what you want it to mean.
Posted by: Tim at September 10, 2004 01:03 PMTim,
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
This “sentence” is far from clear. The NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others consistently miquote the ammendment to support the idea you hold. For example, the Second Amendment Foundation misquotes it as A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The key change is that they removed the first and last commas! They changed the meaning of the words by changing the text of the amendment!
Without those changes, the meaning of the text is highly disputed. In particular, the last comma separates the right to bear arms from the clause banning infringement.
Does the last cause refer to the right to bear arms or to the militia? Grammatically, neither and both are defensible.
This isn’t a question of favoring a strict or an interpreted constitution. This is a matter that the language itself cannot be read unambiguously to support either interpretation.
It is far from “very clearly written.”
Of course, groups on either side have published historical analyses to defend their interpretation (a good one for you is here), but I’m not enough of a scholar on the issue to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Separation of Church and State is not textually in the Constitution, but it has been accepted generally as a way to refer to part of the first amendment. This is far from being a FACT showing the liberals don’t believe in a part of the constitution; we accept a convenient phrase to describe part of the constitution, but we don’t ignore any of it.
I’m not sure what you mean about taxes, so all I can say is that the 16th Amendment supports income taxes. If that’s not your argument, then never mind.
No idea what you’re saying on the 4th.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 10, 2004 01:52 PMLawnBoy- you can find kerry’s stance on the 2nd Amendment and other issues at this website.
http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/John_Kerry.htm#Gun_Control
Thanks for your comments
Posted by: Tim at September 10, 2004 01:55 PMTo counter the FreeRepublic link I had above, here’s the counterargument from the Brady Campaign.
Thanks for the site. Very useful.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 10, 2004 02:11 PMLawnBoy: You do not have to try and disect the 2nd Amendment to say what you think it means. All you have to do is read the State Constitutions from which the U.S. Constitution was created from. Take some time and read the Federalist papers also. With an open mind please.
When you accept and generally refer to something because it is convienent, you are damaging and dumbing down it’s real meaning. I am an athiest but even I understand that this country was founded on religious beliefs. This part of the 1st simply means that we cannot have state run churches or church run govt. It does not mean we cannot place the ten commandments on public property.
The Constitution clearly states direct and indirect taxes and what they are. The 16th violates that. Thats all I meant by that.
The 4th should protect persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The no-knock rule allows police to bust down doors and do what they want. No warrant needed in some cases. The IRS violates this also everyday.
Our rights are dying everyday. It’s not just the liberals or the conservatives doing it either. I know both sides are equally to blame. (Don’t get me going on the Patriot Acts) All I am basically saying is that we should respect the Constitution the same we did when it was first written. In order to do that, we must first study what the founders had to say, not what the so called judges of today want it to say.
Please take some time and study the Constitution and the Federalist papers. Study where they came from. I promise it won’t make you a right wing extremist.
On the 2nd Amendment, the text is poorly written and grammatically incorrect. There is no doubt about that. The FreeRepublic article I linked to says that the last comma was a copying mistake, and the original intent was what the NRA says. The Brady Campaign examines the grammar and the legal history to come to the opposite conclusion. I think the original intent might actually have been what the NRA thinks it was, but that’s not what the text says and that’s not how it’s been interpreted over the years. Both sides have reasonable arguments coveredby bad grammar, and neither side should be accused of ignoring part of the constitution.
The Constitution clearly states direct and indirect taxes and what they are. The 16th violates that. Thats all I meant by that.
The 16th doesn’t violate the constitution; it changes it. That’s the meaning of amendment, by definition. This doesn’t help your claim that liberals do not believe in the whole constitution.
All I am basically saying is that we should respect the Constitution the same we did when it was first written.
That’s a reasonable statement, and I wouldn’t have argued it. You raised my ire by saying that Liberals don’t accept the whole constitution without saying anything about Conservatives. If this conversation had started from this point instead of my reacting to an attack on all liberals, I would have communicated very differently.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 10, 2004 03:30 PMTim, your argument about taxes doesn’t hold water. The Constitution provides for amendments which then become part and parcel to the Constitution. The 16th Amendment was legally and constitutionally provided and thus, is an inherent part of the Constitution.
To argue otherwise is to argue that none of the other amendments are part of the Constitution like the Bill of Rights.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2004 03:32 PMTim said, “All I am basically saying is that we should respect the Constitution the same we did when it was first written. In order to do that, we must first study what the founders had to say, not what the so called judges of today want it to say.”
The founding fathers provided for a judiciary that would resolve disputes over what was intended and is meant by the language of the Constitution. Thus, the founding fathers DID intend that judges, not masses, individual citizens, the Legislature nor the President, be the final interpreters of the Constitution.
It is truly one of the great strengths of the Constitution and major reasons it has survived all of the changes in our nation since its ratification, that Supreme Court judges and no others are the final arbiters of the intent and meaning of the Constitution.
It has also become the Constitution’s Achille’s Heel with the rise of partisan political parties and their influence upon the Oval Office to partisanly select potential Justices to be confirmed by a party dominant Senate. This poses one of the more serious threats to the Constitution in our country’s history.
Posted by: David R. Remer at September 10, 2004 03:42 PM> I am sorry if what I saw while I was THERE is
> different that what you saw reported. Constitutional
> rights were violated. Police abuse did happen,
> everywhere. Even reporters were told to quit
> filming or be arrested. And yes, I did see extreme
> left groups assault, harrass and threaten the
> delegates.
Tim, were you a delegate?
I work a couple of blocks from the convention. I watched some protests. Lots of people I know watched them or even participated in them. I read quite a bit about them, too, in the local press.
I saw and heard about the same stuff you always see at protests. People yelling, cursing. Cops pushing people, arresting people. I did not see, nor have I heard any reports about, delegates being physically assaulted or being spat on. I doubt you did either. You didn’t prove otherwise. You didn’t even dispute those two claims. In fact, you seem to be blaming the cops for crossing the line as much as protesters. What’s your point?
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at September 10, 2004 04:09 PMLB- You are correct. I should have made it clear that I believe both sides ignore parts of the Constitution to make it support what they want.
The NRA and Brady group are only about making money, I dislike both groups and their tactics.
The 16th, I believe, does not change a prior injust, it does change the meaning of the way we are supposed to be taxed.
I did make these my selections though because these are the main ones I see liberals changing the meaning of. They are not to be “interpreted” they are the law. I could raise issues with Republicans about many of these also. But this is the Liberal board and I just want to try and understand how and why liberals think this way.
I really am glad you choose to offer your opinions for me though. Thank you.
CF- No I am not a delegate. I was there to have my voice heard also. 99% of what went on was true American rights being expressed. Yelling a message to delegates is fine, telling them to get their asses out of here or its going get kicked out is verbal assault. Pushing a delegate, even alittle, is physical assault. Just because a “camera” doesn’t catch someone spitting, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Watching someone yell “you make me sick” and then spitting on a delegate who is trying to get into a bldg. is only what I saw. Didn’t have a camera so I have no pic.
The police are to monitor the safety of the protestors. They are not there to corral them into pens or arrest them for frivilous things. The only protestors I blame for anything are the far left, extreme liberal ones who gave “all” the protestors there a bad rap. I do not support this administration and you pre-judging me only shows just how divided this country has gotten. All this over two elitist clowns, neither one capable of running a Taco Bell, but one will still run the country. SAD
David: So if the 3/4 pass an Amendment limiting free speech, that is adding to the Constitution and should be completly accepted? The 16th took what the founders said about taxes and threw it away. There are two types of legal taxes and “income” falls into neither one. And even today, people argue the fact if it was properly ratified. A little on the fringe side I know, but still worthy of a look.
It was not intended for the judges of today to interpret the Constitution. They are supposed to uphold what the Constitution says. If they need clarification, the history is there for them to read. They should not read a part of the Constitution and say what they “think” it means. They should review all that was written from those who created it and not what some neocon or liberal judge before them had to say.
Your last paragraph was beautifully written. I only wish more people would read it and actually take the time to research for themselves, so they can see how many rights we have lost and are losing everyday. Thanks for that David!
Posted by: Tim at September 10, 2004 05:46 PMSo if the 3/4 pass an Amendment limiting free speech, that is adding to the Constitution and should be completly accepted?
That’s exactly what an amendment means. The amendment changes the constitution. You’re right that the text of the 16th amendment violated the constitution as it stood before that - which is exactly why an amendment was needed - that change the constitution.
Similarly, Article I Section 3 of the Constitution said that state legislatures elected US Senators. That was completely changed by the 17th amendment, changing the constitution.
You can see this in action here, where they show the constitution with the parts that are now invalid as links to the amendments that replaced them.
So yes, an amendment eliminating free speech would be valid. so we’d have to fight to stop it, just as we fight to stop the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
Posted by: LawnBoy at September 11, 2004 11:56 AMLB: What you have said is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution. Your last paragraph states it so clear. You said-
So yes, an amendment eliminating free speech would be valid. SO WE’D HAVE TO FIGHT TO STOP IT, just as we fight to stop the Defense of Marriage Amendment.
A corrupt government fears not or cares not for a populace it can control.
A corrupt government “FEARS and RESPECTS” an armed populace which is accountable to.
Posted by: Tim at September 13, 2004 11:24 AMTim,
A corrupt government fears not or cares not for a populace it can control.
A corrupt government “FEARS and RESPECTS” an armed populace which is accountable to.
This statement of yours shows why the debates will be interesting. Bush has to defend how many alligations? Kerry may have stayed above the belt; however, I wouldn’t put it past him to throw one hard low one. We will find out.
