Republic National Convention - painful!

Jeez, I hated watching the Republican National Convention today. I'll probably hate it more tomorrow, but let me vent about today first.

Where to start?

A-h-n-a-l-d! as in Schwarzenneger - or however he spells his name. Like Bush, people don't like his policies, but they like him. What is UP with that? Seems like we are trapped in a world devoted to The Cult Of Personality. People must be scared, or tired, or stupid - they just want to escape from political reality and cheer for someone who PRETENDS to offer solutions. There is an article on Slate today about why liberals need to stop loving Laura Bush - she is NOT someone who moderates her right-wing husband - she SUPPORTS him. Well, liberals like to think that Ahnald's not so bad - he is moderate on abortions, moderate on gay marriage, moderate on ... I don't know what else. Well, FORGET IT. HE WANTS BUSH TO WIN. Worse, HE WANTS TO BE PREZ. AND ONCE THERE, HE WILL BE LED AROUND BY THOSE WHO CONTROL THE INFORMATION HE RECEIVES. As governor, he is probably fairly accessible - yeah, to lobbyists, non-special interests, etc. Well, as prez, he would be like Bush - at the mercy of, for example, people like Dick Cheney and Carl Rove. I don't know about Ahnald, but we know Bush does not read newspapers - He probably does not read much period. He gets briefings from a few close advisors - and he makes decisions based on limited information. We should not even BLAME him for making bad decisions. He knows not what he does.

OK - that's one rant about today's convention events. I did not see much else that happened there today - except for Laura Bush's speech. I'll have to think about what she said that pissed me off.

Oh - one other thing. Watching Maria Shriver cheer while Ahnald slammed Democrats was pretty sickening.

Spreading Domocracy - or Capitalism?

So Bush says we cannot win the war on terror, then flip-flops and says we can. What a hypocrite!

The latest quote is that we will win the war on terror by spreading democracy. (Or did McCaine say this? Who cares!) The good news, I guess, is that we will no longer be supporting dictators, right? Only democracies.

Personally, I don't think spreading democracy will make us any safer. What they probably mean is spreading american capitalism will do so - by making the rest of the world into couch potatoes like us. Like that will stop someone who HATES american capitalism because it corrupts his religion!

What WILL help in the fight against terrorism is making this a fight that the rest of the world participates in - not just an american war. That's what Kerry wants to do.

Now, I don't love Kerry - too wishy-washy, too inarticulate - he needs to learn to give a decent SOUNDBITE. Maybe he needs new speech writers - like Bush does.

What a bunch of LOSERS!

Kerry is inarticulate!

Is this the best resin's that John Kerry can use against the attacks on him from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? That they are in league with the Bush campaign? How about "I stand by my record, I stand by the statements of those who served with me - now let's talk about something important."

I despair for his campaign - he seems complete inept at speaking clearly about anything relevant.

Zell Miller on Meet the Press

I was watching Meet The Press on NBC yesterday, and Zell Miller, the democrat from Georgia who is supporting George Bush, was there.

One of the things he said was we are safer now, because the terrorists are concentrating on Iraq, and we would rather have them there, than attacking us in the streets of the US.

That's saying we are glad there is a mess over there. Did anyone argue that when suggesting we go to war? Or are they willing to admit that was part of the plan? If we had avoided a mess over there - which we assumed was part of the plan - would we still be safer?

The other complaint I had about the interview is that the reporters - Tim Russert in this case, who I like generally - the reporters never ask all the question I want answered. For one, I would have liked to ask Zell Miller "aren't there lots of things you disagree with George Bush about?" I would have liked to have heard his answer.

Kerry's vote against the $87 Billion is valid

For those who fault Kerry for voting against the $87 billion for the war - first, he wanted to separate the $67 billion in troop aid from the $20 billion in Iraq aid, so he could vote FOR the former while adding conditions to the latter. Second, he wated to make sure there was some FUNDING for the Iraq aid component, as opposed to more deficit spending.

Does anyone really believe he would have left troops there without ammunition and armor?

I don't know if he voted as he did hoping the bill would be defeated - so a new one could be created - or he made a protest vote knowing the bill would pass. But either one is valid.