Liveblogging Tuesday's Republicans
Tuesday September 2, 2008
Categories: Republicans
Just so you know, I'm watching all this from a brew pub across the street from the XCel Center, drinking beer with a Crunchy Con reader. I like this vantage point much better! Beer goggles make Dubya look better. By...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Mr. Sig just said that Fred Thompson's speech is reminding him of the best man's speech at a wedding. I can't figure out why anyone thinks that the "dating" the "Flame of Florida" story should be brought up yet again, as something that does him credit. But maybe Thompson knows his audience . . . .
Great...
...Nothing on issues or how he will lead.
...All about he's a badass.
Great...
Just what we need.
Another four years of a "badass" in the White House.
Perfect.
And you, Rod, are supporting this...
Great.
Richard Nixon ran on this theme in 1960. It is astonishingly durable.
Ressentiment always is.
Ressentiment
?
Resentment? Re-sentiment? Wha...?
I don't think Barack or Joe know yet how or if to deal with Sarah Palin. Barack seemed like a student trying to fake his way through a wrong answer to the question about experience, played on CNN this afternoon, when the best he could do was compare her mayorship of a small town to running his 2500-person campaign. Huh?
Possible Repub bumper sticker: "My #2 is more experienced than your #1."
Perhaps she has more experience. But when you're inept, does that experience count?
Now that I see it, I guess it's understandable, but I'm quite surprised at the military focus of tonight. Isn't this country a bit more than that? I'm not so sure that middle-America is going to relate to this as well as they did in 2004 -- and that did not give Bush a huge win. After the past several years, I have my doubts.
Main tone: nationalistic militarism in search of a new leader.
I guess that's why it's no longer my party.
EddieinCa - if you want to know about issues go to the McCain web site. There are pages of specifics. And you'll also find that his ideas and positions are very different than what Bush supported last 8 years, meaning that when Barack and Joe say McCain is just another 4 years of Bush, they are knowingly deceiving their audience.
Hey, thanks for using that word, Mark in Houston. I know what it means--nevertheless I looked it up on Wikipedia to see if I could help out Kevin with a brief quote. As I result, I got to read about Max Scheler's take on it, which I'd never seen before. Scheler expressed something I've always felt, and this is very helpful to me. I'll have to look him up and read more.
God's love is an expression of His superabundance. The motive for love is not charity nor the neediness of the lover, but it is rooted in a deeply felt confidence that through loving I become more personalized and most real to myself. The motive for the world is not need or lack (à la Schopenhauer), but a creative urge to express the infinite fullness of being.
Yes. And very cool. I think I'll let Kevin figure it out for himself. Knowledge is valued more when you put in a little effort to gain it . . . .
Mark in Houston,
You would know.
Um.. Noodle Beach...
Rick Davis, campaign manager for John McCain's presidential bid, insisted that the presidential race will be decided more over personalities than issues during an interview with Post editors this morning.
"This election is not about issues," said Davis. "This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."
Care to revise your comment?
People are going to make accusations about Gov Palin -- like calling her inept -- with no supporting proof whatsoever -- simply because they don't like her politics, they don't like McCain, or they don't like Republicans.
Ah yes, speeches reflective of the glory that was Rome. Oh wait, they were a brutal, though effective, empire, that crucified Jesus.
Republicans pick weird role models.
Thompson gave a backwards-looking redmeat speech. 1960s themes with pictures of McCain as a POW behind him. As political rhetoric it is effective, although those pictures of McCain behind him were downright creepy and bizarre.
Poor Joe Lieberman.
"People are going to make accusations about Gov Palin -- like calling her inept -- with no supporting proof whatsoever -- simply because they don't like her politics, they don't like McCain, or they don't like Republicans."
Yeah, whatever. Like Pubs don't do the same. I don't have to lay out Palin's ineptitude. It's fairly self-evident.
EddieinCA: "Great...
...Nothing on issues or how he will lead.
...All about he's a badass"
Uh, the whole night was about how McCain would lead. And, Thompson made it quite clear that tonight wasn't the night to discuss every little issue; there are two more nights left for that. Were you watching?
JPL: "Ah yes, speeches reflective of the glory that was Rome. Oh wait, they were a brutal, though effective, empire, that crucified Jesus.
Republicans pick weird role models."
The United States has been comparing itself to the Roman Empire since DAY ONE, literally. Furthermore, It's evident Rod's use of the term was more rhetorical, not in the literal "Messiah Crucifying" sense. However, since Obama has put himself into a Messiah role, perhaps it's appropriate after all!
Two months 'til the election, and we're still doing biography. It's really time for policy.
"I don't have to lay out Palin's ineptitude. It's fairly self-evident."
If you're going to lay out such asinine comments, you should at least have the guts to put your name on them.
Yes. And very cool. I think I'll let Kevin figure it out for himself. Knowledge is valued more when you put in a little effort to gain it . . . .
Teach a man to fish....I just wasn't sure if Mark was making a pun I didn't get or made a spelling error or what-all. I didn't realize we were speaking French. No italics, n'est-ce pas?
Anyway, thank you for the clue. And, BTW, Sig, apparently my dad has lurked on this blog from time to time and pointed out that I was uncivil toward you some months back. I apologize for any past offenses.
Re: Palin. I don't think "elitism" will work here. People want answers to their questions about her. It's not elitist to want to know more than her position on abortion. It's common sense.
Decent speeches, but neither one were real barn-burners. Lieberman's speech in particular seemed a little forced and transparent in what it was trying to accomplish. But McCain is a very attractive candidate, so it makes sense to make it all about him instead of the GOP brand or platform right now.
I TiVo'd the CSPAN coverage so I could hear all of the speeches, then I watched ABC coverage. (I like Charlie Gibson--reminds me of an uncle.)
Anyway, I think it is a shame how little time the networks are devoting to the conventions. Only and hour of coverage, and most of that is punditry. ABC only showed excerpts from the Thompson and Lieberman addresses. These commentators love to hear themselves talk more than they want to examine the actual message. It is all about the package and presentation than what is said. A real triumph of symbolism over substance.
Chaotic Good! Man, I'd love to play some good ol' DnD with you Rod! Excellent reference.
Even though I'm much older now, I still find myself reaching for DnD terms sometimes with old friends. Like when I was trying to explain the evolution of my political views from a strong belief in social democracy to a firm believer in order and tradition.
He didn't get it.
"You know, like when I was in college I was Chaotic Good, right? Now, I'm Lawful Neutral."
"Ah! I see!"
Richard Nixon ran on this theme in 1960.
Remind me who won again that year?
Remind me who won again that year?
Doh!
McCain, Chaotic Good? Oh puhleeeze! Like elves? McCain is like a Wood Elf? Loved by Unicorns? No way. I'm thinking more Chaotic Neutral, with True Neutral tendencies.
Refused to veto torture. Pro-Iraq War. For getting into more conflict with Iran and Russia. All definitely Chaotic, neutral to evil. But pro government having control over women's bodies, pro increased government surveillance, hence pushing the True neutral tendency, leaning both towards Law and Evil.
Race? I'm thinking kind of Duergar to be honest. But, giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe some kind of mountain dwarf.
Tolkien character? Gimli.
(The preceding message approved by Liberal Geeks Alliance for Reasonable Government)
I'm curious. What do people here think about what Thompson said about taxes?
Ah yes, speeches reflective of the glory that was Rome. Oh wait, they were a brutal, though effective, empire, that crucified Jesus.
Republicans pick weird role models.
JPL, when we talk about noble Romans, we're usually talking about Cincinnatus, not Caligula.
I hope this is helpful.
The best thing I've read so far said something to this effect:
John McCain and Sarah Palin
REAL change we can believe in
Choose Liberty - Choose Life - Vote McCain-Palin in November.
Obama is an inflatable doll. All air. He has done nothing, and he is nothing.
Gotta agree with you there Kirk. The Dems I know had the same complaint about their convention. Good to know both sides agree on at least one thing.
Also, nice catch, Rod. Goldfarb was an idiot for trashing D&D. The guy who introduced me to the game was a Gulf War vet. A friend recently convinced me to play some games- he's a naval officer (granted, a rather moderate one who doesn't mind Obama). One of the players is a gun collector, which is a rare thing where I live. Nerds know no ideology.
I thought the 'bucket' comment in reference to taxes was great.
I loved the speeches and the patriotism of the visuals and the heroes who were applauded.
I also loved hearing a Christian singer at a national convention.
At last I get to have an argument about alignment on a political blog.
Chaotic Good is also the alignment of rangers. And Barbarians. You know, outdoors-y types? Like their guns...er, bows? Don't have any Druidic hang-ups about killing and eating animals? Sounds pretty red meat to me, man.
Granted, it is also the hippie alignment.
Lieberman talking all nicey-non-partisan is wierd given Thompson's speech (and even given some of Joe's comments).
Most of the speakers in the next two days are going to hammer away at the Democrats -- so what did Joe Lieberman think he was saying. seemed really weak and pleading to me.
Now that I see it, I guess it's understandable, but I'm quite surprised at the military focus of tonight. Isn't this country a bit more than that? I'm not so sure that middle-America is going to relate to this as well as they did in 2004 -- and that did not give Bush a huge win. After the past several years, I have my doubts.
there's nothing surprising about this at all. the focus on military service is all about cementing the shaky illusion that america has a reason to even be in iraq, let alone send more troops and more of our dollars there. remember, there are many private interests at stake with this war.
america is going to relate to this. they need a reason to rationalize their loved ones fighting a war that when scrutinized doesn't have a very clear foundation.
I loved Thompson's comments on taxes. He is so right. If you think BO's taxes won't affect you, you are sorely mistaken. Great analogies.
How come the Republican's aren't talking about lower taxes, limited government and spending cuts??
On a side note, Jesse Ventura and DL Hughley on Larry King just said that the Republican convention reminds them of Nazism. Classy!
I could see maybe a chaotic good leaning for Palin, definitely outdoorsy, Alaskan independent frontier spirit sort. But I don't see staunchy pro-life, even in the case of rape or incest, as fitting a Chaotic alignment...definitely more Lawful, although Good or Evil might be a personal call there.
McCain doesn't really seem very outdoorsy. Wouldn't go barbarian or ranger for him. More like a lightly fallen Paladin, not evil, but he doesn't get the cool horse anymore.
In other political alignment calls, I'd go:
Obama - Neutral Good
Cheney - Lawful Evil
Bush - Lawful Neutral
Bill Clinton - Chaotic Good, shading Chaotic Neutral
Saddam Hussein - Neutral Evil
And our own beloved Rod - I'm giving him the shout-out for Lawful Good with a solid intelligence, but used Wisdom as a the dump stat. :)
You guys are confirming my suspicions about D&D; that is, you people make it up as you go along. I'm starting to have flash-backs from junior high.
So, I saw people holding up signs and chanting "country first" all night. What does this mean? This question isn't at all a snark, I really want to know how people interpret this slogan. Extra points if you can place this in context with actual policies or deeds.
Palin would have to be lawful due to the strict religious conservatism. If you actually live in a place like Alaska, owning guns etc is the norm, not a rebellion against a more settled alternative.
You can be chaotic without being an outdoorsman or a hippie, though. Bards and Rogues being the game-world examples. McCain is a gambler at heart.
I'm hesitant to apply the good-neutral-evil axis to living politicians in a democracy. It's hard to look through the pandering from them and my own cynical defenses. I'd really like to say "good" for both Palin and Obama, though. I'm not so sure about McCain or either Clinton.
Yeah, D&D is by definition about making stuff up. Stuff like alignment is just an excuse to be unapologetically nerdy and take one thing too seriously (D&D) while taking the real subject matter (politics) less seriously than you would otherwise.
Mr. Dreher writes:
"My friends, this is the kind of character that civilizations have sought since the beginning of history." John McCain is going to run as a noble Roman."
The idea of John McCain running as a "noble Roman", given his manifest and manifold ethical lapses, his contempt and disregard for the Constitution, and his choice of a woman of the disgraceful caliber of a Sarah Palin as his running-mate, is beyond farcical.
If the consequences for the country weren't so serious, I'd be laughing my head off at the sheer absurdist comedy of it all. As it stands I have to pick my jaw up off the floor in amazement whenever I recall that these people are serious contenders for high office.
This ticket is conclusive proof that American "democracy" is an unqualified failure.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Ok, so Lord Karth, Lawful Evil...the name alone gives it away! :)
Also, wouldn't HIGH Lord Karth have a bit more credibility? I mean, a HIGH Lord I could take seriously...but Lord alone???
Okay, an Obama economic adviser--Laura D'Andrea Tyson--is on Colbert, and according to her, 98% of all Americans will get tax cuts under Obama.
I guess 95% didn't track high enough in the polls, so they thought they'd raise the ante to 98%. Next it will be the Downy Play--99.99% percent of Americans get tax cuts, the other .01% get screwed.
What a great American that will be...
This ticket is conclusive proof that American "democracy" is an unqualified failure.
Posted by: Lord Karth | September 3, 2008 12:44 AM
Karth, on this I agree with you.
I cannot believe that these four are the best available candidates for their offices. Something must be wrong with the system for choosing candidates.
Well, actually, compared to our current plan, where 5% of American's get every kind of special break, and the other 95% get screwed, it's looking pretty good to me.
Karth, I must ask: why do you consider Sarah Palin a "woman of [...] disgraceful caliber...?" I'm curious; I don't see anything particularly disgraceful about her.
Also, according to this website: easydamus.com/character.html (add the usual) I am a Lawful Good Elf Cleric. In case it's important, or anything. :)
Seriously, my favorite D&D reference ever comes in Bill Amend's "Foxtrot" cartoon strip, and contains the following sentence: "My half-orc assassin-druid casts a +17 spell of the ghostly claw in conjunction with use of his +8.5 dagger of the spider gods while wearing the cloak of + square root-3 invisibility he stole from the Hall of Irrational Treasures..." I don't know, but there's something about the very *idea* of a "Hall of Irrational Treasures" I find terribly appealing.
On a side note, Jesse Ventura and DL Hughley on Larry King just said that the Republican convention reminds them of Nazism. Classy!
ARRRGGH!
Larry King is the reason CNN just makes my skin crawl, just a bit more than Nancy Grace on Headline News. He was much better on radio in the 80's. Now it [the show] is self-important piece-meal entertainment journalism, with serious guests few and far between. I mean, Jesse Ventura and D.L. Hughley on the Republican Convention is silly just on paper. You would have to expect a stupid statement like that.
I can see that for you, Erin. Turns out that, according to the same site, I'm a chaotic good human wizard. Whee!
Republicans remind him of Nazism?
WHO are trying to establish a cult of personality. WHO believes in "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? Who has chosen an "enemy group" to demonize?
I'm waiting....
Thompson isn't actually denying that Obama is going to lower taxes on the vast majority of workers though. He's saying that the majority of working people should deny themselves so that 'business' won't have to pay higher taxes on capital gains and dividends.
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is actually a communist slogan.
Ben Stein compared Obama to Hilter on Glen Beck not long ago. It was over his convention plans. Yay, politicians like rallies. So did Hilter! Slime time! As usual, it's a race to the bottom.
Evidently, I'm a Lawful Good Human Wizard. With really horrible stats because I generally gave "I'm about as good as everyone else" answers.
Richard Nixon LOST on that platform he ran on in 1960. The one you're praising Fred Thompson for using.
Just thought I might point that out.
According to the site mentioned by Erin, I'm a true neutral human cleric. (I like the cleric part; I remember the game being popular in the 1970s, but I'm not a game player and never knew the terminology.)
Richard Nixon LOST on that platform he ran on in 1960. The one you're praising Fred Thompson for using.
That doesn't make it a bad platform. There were other reasons Nixon lost, but I gotta drive through a flood this morning, so gotta run.
Richard Nixon LOST on that platform he ran on in 1960. The one you're praising Fred Thompson for using.
OTOH, Obama's father isn't around to buy votes for his son like JFK's was.
Apparently I went to bed earlier than some of you. I found the convention soporific, even though Mr. Sig kept glancing at me anxiously to see if my blood was boiling yet.
Neutral Good Human Druid here, 6th level. Though, as with all such tests, if I took it with the other side of my brain, it would come out different. My intelligence is 18. Ha. But alas, my charisma is only 14.
Turning down the censor a bit and taking the test again, I'm a Chaotic Neutral Human Ranger/Sorcerer. Heh heh heh. That sounds more like it. Hail, Discordia!
Hi, Kevin. It's unusually nice of you (as things go around here) to apologize for a past offense. For that alone, I magnanimously pardon you! Be assured that I've totally forgotten the whole incident, anyway. If I kept track of all the times people were rude to me online, my head would certainly explode. Give my regards to your kind father, whoever he may be. ; )
To return to the topic at hand, one phrase that caught my attention was Lieberman's "we need a president who understands the lessons of Sept. 11, 2001: That to protect America, we must stay on the offense, stop attacks before they happen and not wait to be hit again." Whaaa . . . stop attacks before they happen? Stay on the offense? Is that not the recipe for more pre-emptive strikes, and for a permanent, unending state of war? Was that supposed to be some kind of code phrase for attacking Iran? Support our troops--keep them at war until they're all killed. Then draft some more. [/sarcasm]
I'm not very good at predicting how these sort of things play to the voters, but for the life of me, I can't see how anyone can say the Republican Convention has been anything but a slow-motion disaster at this point: Watching it on C-SPAN, the hall looks half-full, the average age of the attendees looks to be about 67, the sepia-toned Reagan tribute (Seriously, he's been dead for four years, and out of office almost 20 years, wtf?), Bush having to basically phone in his speech, the droning and harumphing of Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman... the whole thing reminds me more of a funeral - and maybe it is. Palin has her work cut out for her, if anyone is going to kick some life and excitement into this thing.
Look, this isn't great oratory, but this Fred Thompson speech is brilliant. He's a great natural storyteller
Well, duh! He's an actor!
***
JPL, when we talk about noble Romans, we're usually talking about Cincinnatus, not Caligula.
I highly recommend Garry Wills' book Cincinnatus, about the Founders' use of the Roman Republic as a source of imagery, role models, etc. (I used to live in Philadelphia, and there is a building near Independence Hall where, over the door, there is a statue of Benjamin Franklin in a toga.)
I'm not very good at predicting how these sort of things play to the voters, but for the life of me, I can't see how anyone can say the Republican Convention has been anything but a slow-motion disaster at this point:
Even some of the folks at the National Review agree. I've never seen so many bored, white people in my entire life. Compare it to the enthusiasm you saw last week. And these are people who think Bush has done a great job.
I imagine there will be more excitement--how could there not be--because Palin's speech is likely to be the highmark of the convention. Her nomination is historic and was meant to motivate the base. She deserves her moment in the spotlight, especially given the negative attention she's created since Friday.
Erin Manning @ 1:24 AM writes:
"Karth, I must ask: why do you consider Sarah Palin a "woman of [...] disgraceful caliber...?" I'm curious; I don't see anything particularly disgraceful about her."
I've written about this on some other threads, but I'll say it again. Here goes:
Her failure to properly raise and supervise her children allowed one of them to go out and disgrace her family. She cannot establish/maintain elementary discipline in her own household; to allow her to continue in authority over public funds and a public trust (her office of provincial Governor) would be utter recklessness. For good taste and common sense, it ranks right up there with allowing a drug addict or drunk to remain public treasurer after he's seen shooting up or sloppy drunk in the office.
Her flaunting of both this wayward daughter and the young rake who got said daughter pregnant (on national television, no less !) is direct evidence of a lack of self-control and character which is irresponsible in a parent and even more dangerous in a public official.
It is tantamount to endorsing the behavior and the indiscipline behind it. Our standards of conduct for those who hold public trusts are low enough as it is; do we really need to endorse lowering them further ?
I'll say it again: Bristol Palin needs to get out of the public spotlight, marry the father of her child, and quietly get on with the business of raising the child, and that forthwith.
Sarah Palin needs to withdraw from the ticket and resign from public office, with public apologies. Immediately.
And to answer your (presumed next) unspoken question: if one of Barack Obama's daughters (or sons, if he had any) disgraced her family and family name like this, I would demand the same thing of him. Honor and dignity require no less.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Good grief, Karth. I couldn't disagree more strongly with you.
Is there no room in your worldview for mercy and forgiveness? Or should the girl be cast out onto the streets, branded a harlot, and expunged from the family Bible?
As to "elementary discipline" being the problem, I'm a strong believer in discipline, but I believe it has natural limits when a child is old enough to interact with her peers without constant adult supervision. Do you think it was St. Monica's fault that St. Augustine had a child out of wedlock? Should she have hidden her face in shame and disgrace over her disciplinary faults?
And what about the father? Has he no role in keeping his daughters from falling into sin?
This is a surprisingly ungentlemanly attitude on your part.
7:15 AM anonymous was me. Sorry.
Erin Manning @ 6:23 PM writes:
"Good grief, Karth. I couldn't disagree more strongly with you.
Is there no room in your worldview for mercy and forgiveness? Or should the girl be cast out onto the streets, branded a harlot, and expunged from the family Bible?"
Please re-read what I wrote: Bristol needs to do the right thing by her child. She needs to marry the father of that child and begin the process of raising it out of the spotlight. It is the merciful thing to do for both Bristol and the child. I did not, nor do I now, call for her to be cast out of her family.
The publicization and outright flaunting of this matter in the public eye is nothing short of bizarre. It is one thing to make the best of a bad situation---and this is certainly a bad situation. It is quite another to hold it up as something to be emulated.
"As to "elementary discipline" being the problem, I'm a strong believer in discipline, but I believe it has natural limits when a child is old enough to interact with her peers without constant adult supervision. Do you think it was St. Monica's fault that St. Augustine had a child out of wedlock? Should she have hidden her face in shame and disgrace over her disciplinary faults?"
As parents (with due respect, milady, I don't know if you are a parent or not, but I will make the happy assumption that you are, for purposes of discussion) we are obligated to inculcate good morals and values in our children. This, manifestly, the Palins have failed to do, certainly with regards to proper sexual conduct and self-control.
The Palins made an assumption that Bristol was MATURE enough to handle herself around young males without adult supervision, and acted accordingly. Not "old" enough, but "mature" enough. Her CONDUCT is direct evidence of both failures in this regard.
"And what about the father? Has he no role in keeping his daughters from falling into sin?"
Certainly, and I fault him as well. Mrs. Palin comes under more immediate scrutiny because she is trying (against considerable evidence) to hold herself out as meeting the higher standards that should be required of those seeking to hold a high office of public trust. The father, for all his alleged masculinity, has failed in his most basic masculine responsibility of preventing harm to the members of his House.
As to "mercy" in these matters, I quote Dr. Thomas Fleming (editor of Chronicles magazine) from another website: "Forget Christian, a Greek or Roman father would have killed the boy with his own hands." Even an American father of 50 or 75 years ago would have taken out the shotgun and made the young man do the right thing, and that presently, or face the wrath of Messrs. Smith and Wesson. Yet today, a family who aspires to high public office not only does not have the young rake in question arrested for statutory rape, but actually flies him in to appear on national television.
I ask you this, respected lady: Is there nothing wrong with this picture ?
"This is a surprisingly ungentlemanly attitude on your part."
I would like to think that a gentleman upholds certain standards, milady Manning, especially with regards to one's responsibilities to his House and Line. I would not presume to the title, but I try to uphold the standards.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.