Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
NYC to GOP: Drop Dead
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by David Sands: [QB] OK, because Jay was nice enough to post his comments in numbered paragraphs (ever think about a career as a paralegal?) I thought I would make some passing comments. 1. It depends on how you think it should be remembered. I don't remember who first said it, but I think it's telling that when Democrats thought about it at their convention, a hush of respect came over the room. When Zell Miller talked about it at the Republican convention, there were hollers of defiance. It's a question of personality. Different strokes for different folks (even if I think some strokes are better than others). (BTW, I wish Gary Coleman would keep pursuing politics. He would make a great person to have in an executive branch...) I for one think that the war on Islamofascism is the most important issue of this election. Because I think it should be prosecuted with vigor, I have no problem it being brought up as a reason to vote for the incumbant. Both parties have done it before, e.g., FDR and Lincoln. 1.a. Depending on what you think the proper role of the national government is vis-a-vis the states, opinions tend to run one way or the other on the issue of education. Just because Bush doesn't want to finance schools using national funds doesn't mean he wants to see kids intellectually malnourished. He believes it is an issue of the states, which is traditionally where it has been lodged. If you have a problem with funding, (I hate to sound trite, but I really don't know another way to do this, but) take it up with your local school board. Or better yet (at the risk of going off topic), vote for candidates that would enact laws for vouchers or charter schools. 2. and 3. (Together.) These are actually one in the same issue. Let me give you the key passage from Jonathan Last's piece from earlier today on the Weekley Standard online: [QUOTE] THE BULK of tonight's prime-time speeches were attacks against Kerry. What does that mean? It means that Republicans are running a campaign of contrast--they are running on ideological division--at least tonight. How to square this with Monday night's outreach to Democrats and undecideds? Part of the answer is that Republicans want to have it both ways: They want to reach out, and go very, very negative on their opponent. There is some precedent for this. In 1988 George H.W. Bush ran a campaign which said, essentially, (1) I'm kinder and gentler and, (2) Dukakis is a nut. This mixed message worked for Bush 41. Still, the mixed message is not what a strong incumbent typically strives for. So what is Team Bush trying to do? Their message is unified on a basic level. The one universally coherent message this week is that Republicans believe the only topic which matters is the war on terrorism. If that is your strategy, then both tacks--the trumpeting of Bush's record and the attacking of Kerry's--are part of the same whole. [URL=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/554ziwxe.asp]Weekly Standard piece[/URL] [/QUOTE]3.a. Just wait until we see some confrontation on Kerry's testimony in 1971 to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and his voting record as the junior senator from Massachusetts. It's going to get a lot more negative before it's over. They're not wimps for not bringing it up yet, only saving their best arguments for last (not unlike a good high school essay). 4. This is a phenomenon I've seen elsewhere. No one who actually knows anything about how politics work think that policy is supposed to be the centerpiece of conventions. (Hell, I recall reading an extended essay on William McKinley talking about how his administration's policies were determined months before his election.) The idea that conventions are where we hammer out our differences died in the nineteenth century (with a [i]very[/i] few notable exceptions). These days, a lot of policy (I don't know enough to say [i]most[/i]) has been given to the experts at think tanks. On the right you have [URL=http://www.aei.org]the American Enterprise Institute[/URL], [URL=http://www.cato.org]the Cato Institute[/URL], [URL=http://www.hoover.org]the Hoover Institute[/URL] [URL=http://www.heritage.org], and the Heritage Foundation[/URL]. On the left you have ones like [URL=http://www.brookings.org]the Brookings Institution[/URL] and [URL=http://www.fordfound.org]the Ford Foundation[/URL]. This doesn't answer the question of [i]whether[/i] it ought to be that way, but realistically, I don't see an alternative that is possible. Conventions have become sales pitches. And, to make a final point, isn't that the [i]first[/i] priority of politics? Selling your policies as best for the people? 4.a. I'll give everyone the same answer I gave my brother (who is nuts about science and policy): some issues are just more important than others. (Warning: peroration approaching.) I disagree with Bush a lot of issues, but none of those is going to matter a damn bit if we get blown to smitherines because Kerry is willing to soft pedal Iran and not prevent a regime that honest-to-God thinks we are the Great Satan from getting enriched uranium it can give to any organization who agrees we should be fried to a crisp because of who we are. I would be genuinely surprised if this changed anyone's mind, but I thought I would do my part. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3