Republican National Convention

[matthewspeed]

Thank you for your posts. These are many things to consider. At this point I am leaning heavily toward McCain, but we have two months to decide. I have done my research. But I also listen to other viewpoints as well. I really want to see the debates in the coming weeks. I want to see Sarah Palin on Meet the Press and other news programs. I need to see the two candidates and their V.P. running mates answer questions without speech writers.

It is an interesting election, I must say!

I do take all of your thoughts to heart. We all want what is best for our country and ourselves. We all need to read between the lines of these candidates and that is precisely what I intend to do. This has been such a struggle for me during this election. I so much want to vote the right way. It saddens me to see the world, our country, the condition that is in. It brings tears to my eyes and the struggle make the right decision is great. I don't know if anyone else is feeling these inner turmoils as I am.

Again, I appreciate your honest and candid responses. I really do appreciate this forum.

God bless you all!

-Matthew

[keltic63]

moderator's note:

let's not devour our own.....


matthewspeed is one of ours, but of a different opinion than the majority of us. we all seem to be doing a good job of sticking to issues, but I want to remind all of us to keep it that way. let's not make it personal and cause hurt feelings on either side.


/moderator hat off/

[Daniel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/us...403PEquYedavAQ

At McCain’s Convention, Big Money Still Talks

ST. PAUL — Of all the whales at the Republican National Convention this week, Robert Wood Johnson IV, the billionaire heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune and owner of the New York Jets, may be the biggest.

He wore a thick stack of credentials around his neck all week, providing access to many of the convention’s most exclusive sanctums. He shared a skybox at the Xcel Energy Center with Rick Davis, the manager of Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign. More significantly, he was the only top fund-raiser with his name emblazoned on his own hospitality suite, the “Woody Johnson Minneapolis-St. Paul 2008 Host Committee Private Lounge.”

Mr. Johnson’s exalted status here shows that for all of Mr. McCain’s efforts to purge the influence of money in politics, the big donors still wielded sizable influence over this convention, getting singular access to the campaign and shaping the endless chain of parties and events outside the convention hall.

Of course, both sides of the aisle have been filling their coffers with the money of wealthy people. That's not the issue. What is at issue is the McCain's stance regarding campaign finance reform.

His actions don't quite agree with his verbage. What's that say about him to this voter? That he is playing the money game. Is that bad? Perhaps not. However, my point is simply this: we should look very carefully at what candidates actually do, not what they say they will do. In this case, McCain's actions do not agree with his own stated policy. Is that hypocrisy? One wonders. And it begs the question: is McCain the Maverick the he is touted as being, or another just another politician playing the game?

It strikes this viewer that something is amiss: Palin made much of the Washinton Elite last night, as though she and McCain were somehow different. But as I see it, you can't play the same game and say you aren't like those who you- in essence- seek to become.

A real maverick does more than claim the label. And the sad truth is that in the last year, McCain has adopted the same policies of president Bush. That says to the voter that McCain has sold his soul to get ahead. Nothing maverick about that.

[nmwolfboy]

Originally Posted by matthewspeed

It is obvious that Obama has not had the experience over the years with foriegn affairs and war.

Obama has served on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for four years. This also has entailed service on these subcommittees:
Subcommittee on African Affairs
Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs
Subcommittee on European Affairs
Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs and International Environmental Protection
Subcommittee on International Operations and Organizations, Democracy and Human Rights
Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs
Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Peace Corps and Narcotics Affairs.

Obama's running mate, Senator Biden, is chair of the Foreign Relations Committee. Obama has also made numerous trips abroad on foreign issues, often with Republican counterparts (such as the Russia trip in August 2005 with Republican Senator Dick Luger.)

If you've not checked out Project Vote Smart I highly recommend it. You can easily look up just about any candidate's biography, voting records, etc. Research, research, research!

I have compared the ratings given by a wide range (right to left) of Foreign Policy interest groups to both Presidential candidates, and Obama is consistently rated much higher than McCain on foreign policy issues. As a voter, that carries weight for me on their foreign policy credibility more than any media spin, regardless of whether the spin comes from the right or the left.

While Obama wasn't my first (or second) choice of candidate, I've moved solidly behind him since his record and positions have been consistent, match his rhetoric, and he routinely exhibits a better grasp of important issues than McCain. Also, Obama's choice of advisers far outclasses McCain's, imo. Obama continually selects his advisers from across the political spectrum, while McCain's choices more often tend to conservative idealogues and/or lobbyists. That's a stark contrast that I find unavoidable. Also, Obama is running a successful, positive, paradigm changing campaign while McCain's has been easily characterized as fraught with gaffes, ever-shifting positions, personal attacks and outright lies.

I believe that what we need most is a leader who inspires us to work together regardless of our differences rather than a fear mongering leader who thinks nothing about promoting divisiveness.

[ctozrn]

Wow. Very well said. Great research! Thanks for all the interesting information. I also really respect the positiveness of his campaign. I feel as though he is being honest and truthful. I really trust him. I think he is a good man. I don't get that feeling from McCain. Even as Palin continues to say that the Democrats are trashing her family, his only comment has been that Palins family is off limits. Obama has not said one negative thing about her family and has even defended their privacy!

I thought it was interesting to see that the Palin family will be on the front cover of People magazine this week. It hits the stands Friday I think.

http://www.people.com/people/article...223201,00.html

I thought she wanted privacy???

Christine

[Rick336]

I thought McCain gave a very unimpressive speech. The only part that moved me was his story of being captive in the Vietnam prison. He's sure not the great speech maker that Obama (or even Palin) is.

After Palin's speech last night I was a little worried that the Republican Convention would overshadow the Democratic Convention. Now, I'm not worried.

I've been in front of the TV every night for a month with the Olympics and the two conventions on every night. Now that it's all over, there's nothing on TV!!

I wonder when the new fall TV schedule starts.

Rick

[u-dog]

I hope, Rick, that you have been faithfully watching the Daily show and the Colbert report every night after the RNC. Otherwise, you should probably seek immediate treatment for PTSD. Intrusive Sarah Palin images ... Joe Lieberman flashbacks ... recurring John McCain nightmares. It could get ugly.

[Daniel]

Meaning- I agree with the points made in an editorial in the NYTimes.

Editorial

The Real John McCain

Published: September 4, 2008
By the time John McCain took the stage on Thursday night, we wondered if there would be any sign of the senator we long respected — the conservative who fought fair and sometimes bucked party orthodoxy.

Certainly, the convention that nominated him bore no resemblance to that John McCain. Rather than remaking George W. Bush’s Republican Party in his own image, Mr. McCain allowed the practitioners of the politics of fear and division to run the show.

Thursday night, Americans mainly saw the old John McCain. He spoke in a moving way about the horrors he endured in Vietnam. He talked with quiet civility about fighting corruption. He said the Republicans “had lost the trust” of the American people and promised to regain it. He decried “the constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving” problems.

But there were also chilling glimpses of the new John McCain, who questioned the patriotism of his opponents as the “me first, country second” crowd and threw out a list of false claims about Barack Obama’s record, saying, for example, that Mr. Obama opposed nuclear power. There was no mention of immigration reform or global warming, Mr. McCain’s signature issues before he decided to veer right to win the nomination.

In the end, we couldn’t explain the huge difference between the John McCain of Thursday night and the one who ran such an angry and derisive campaign and convention — other than to conclude that he has decided he can have it both ways. He can talk loftily of bipartisanship and allow his team to savage his opponent.

What makes that so vexing — and so cynical — is that this is precisely how Mr. Bush destroyed Mr. McCain’s candidacy in the 2000 primaries, with the help of the Karl Rovian team that now runs Mr. McCain’s campaign.

There could not have been a starker contrast between Mr. McCain’s night on the stage and the earlier days of the convention, a carnival of partisan rancor. It was not a forum for explaining policies or defining ideals, certainly none ever associated with Mr. McCain.

On Wednesday, the nastiest night of the week, Mr. McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, and other speakers offered punch lines, rather than solutions for this country’s many problems — ridiculing the Washington elite (of which most were solid members) and Barack Obama.

“Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights,” Ms. Palin said.

Mr. Obama, in reality, wants to give basic human rights to prisoners in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, only a handful of whom are Qaeda members, and shield them from torture. So, once upon a time, did Mr. McCain, but there was no mention of that in St. Paul, or of the bill he wrote protecting those prisoners.

Mike Huckabee dismissed Mr. Obama, the first black candidate of any major party, as a mere “symbolic” choice for president.

At the same time, the Republicans tried to co-opt Mr. Obama’s talk of change and paint themselves as the real Americans. It is an ill-fitting suit for the least diverse, most conservative and richest Republican delegates since The Times started tracking such data in 1996.

It was, in short, a gathering devoted almost entirely to the culture war refined by Mr. Rove in Mr. Bush’s two campaigns.

On Thursday, Mr. McCain said he would reach out to “any willing patriot, make this government start working for you again.” Mr. Bush, too, promised the same bipartisanship in his campaigns, and then governed in the most divisive, partisan way.

Americans have a right to ask which John McCain would be president. We hope Mr. McCain starts to answer that by halting the attacks on Mr. Obama’s patriotism and beginning a serious, civil debate.

Maverick McCain? I heard him proclaim himself as one. But using the tactics of Rove and Co? Nothing maverick about that.

Know what disturbed me the most when Palin spoke? When the audience started chanting "Drill Baby Drill!" It was the response of a mob.

What does that say about the Republican Party? That Republicans are very angry. And they are- as another Times columist has pointed out- promoting the politics of resentment. Know what? If democrates aren't careful, it could get McCain elected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/05/op...rugman.html?hp

[Matt Algren]

Okay, I didn't watch the speech last night (darn not having reliable signal), but I'm reading the transcript. A couple observations:

I've fought the big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, and the first big-spending pork-barrel earmark bill that comes across my desk, I will veto it. I will make them famous, and you will know their names. You will know their names.

You'll know the name of Governor Sarah Palin, who is an expert at pork-barrel earmarking. Wasilla received $11.9 million in earmarks from 2000 to 2003. As a candidate for governor in 2006, Palin backed funding for the bridge to nowhere. After her election, she killed the project when it became clear the state had other priorities. Palin didn't 'reject' the funds as she indicated last Friday, she just moved the 223 MILLION DOLLARS from the federal government to other unspecified projects in her state. This year she submitted to Congress a list of Alaska projects worth $197.8 million.

I've fought to get million-dollar checks out of our elections.

The McCain campaign is using a loophole in the federal matching funds program allowing him to accept personal donations 30.4 times larger than Obama's individual limit of $2,300. Sen. McCain's advantage is that he can stop fund raising now, collect the $84.5 million he is due in federal matching funds and concentrate on campaigning.

Doesn't sound like a reformer to me.

My tax cuts will create jobs; his tax increases will eliminate them.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but is he talking about trickle-down economics? Seriously?

For workers in industries -- for workers in industries that have been hard-hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one, while they receive re-training that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage.

Forgive me, but I sincerely doubt this is true. First of all, it goes well outside the standard definition of 'small government'. In fact it smacks of welfare. And I'd like to see something more specific than 'a decent wage'.

Let's remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

The biggest barrier to qualified instructors is NCLB. Any plan that doesn't remove or make drastic changes to that program is cosmetic at best. And again, this 'help bad teachers find another line of work' is pretty darn anti-small-government, never mind the question of which teachers are bad and which ones are good.

Defend the rights of the oppressed.

You seriously don't want to go there, John.

[ctozrn]

I have read pages and pages of links to all these articles on Sarah Palin on all of these posts on this forum. It is clear that she is lying about so many things. My question is this, how come my local paper has reported none of it? There are no articles on the REAL Sarah Palin that we have all read about from various sources such as NY Times, Time magazine, and Anchorage Daily News to name a few. I am really afraid that people are not going to hear about these really important truths. There are many people that use their local paper as their only source of information. How come we aren't seeing this reported everywhere?

Christine

[Rick336]

The LA Times has a great editorial by Gloria Steinem about Sarah Palin:

"She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger."


Here's the article:


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,7915118.story


Rick

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by Rick336

The LA Times has a great editorial by Gloria Steinem about Sarah Palin:

"She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions; she tried to use taxpayers' millions for a state program to shoot wolves from the air but didn't spend enough money to fix a state school system with the lowest high-school graduation rate in the nation; she runs with a candidate who opposes the Fair Pay Act but supports $500 million in subsidies for a natural gas pipeline across Alaska; she supports drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, though even McCain has opted for the lesser evil of offshore drilling. She is Phyllis Schlafly, only younger."

Rick

That is the clearest, most succint description I've yet seen. Truthfully, after hearing her speech on Wednesday, it occurred to me that there's another way the Republicans are carrying on the Bush traditions. Just as Cheney was an insurance policy for Bush, so too, is Palin. If they win the election and anything happens to McCain, we're in for more trouble that we can even begin to imagine. It's absolutely terrifying.

kara

[Thaddus]

I didn't get much out of the RNC either. I am am now certain that Cindy Mccain can sure read me a great bedtime story. And John, i wish had a set of pom poms for the end of his go, go, go, fight, fight, fight, win, win, win rah. But, then again, I was sorta beside myself worrying that Sarah would experience some sort of wardrobe pop-out malfunction.

[Daniel]

Thanks for posting it Rick. Would have missed it otherwise.

[Zerbie]

Originally Posted by ctozrn

. My question is this, how come my local paper has reported none of it? There are no articles on the REAL Sarah Palin that we have all read about from various sources such as NY Times, Time magazine, and Anchorage Daily News to name a few. I am really afraid that people are not going to hear about these really important truths. There are many people that use their local paper as their only source of information. How come we aren't seeing this reported everywhere?

Christine

If this is something you feel strongly about, how about a letter to the editor of your local paper. Cite the points you've learned that concern you about Palin, write them into a short letter to the editor, and submit it. If they print it, you will have informed thousands of readers.
(Check your paper's guidelines for word limits, and how they want letters submited, and always include your name and phone # so they can verify that you wrote it.)

[ctozrn]

That's a great idea, maybe I will! I just can't believe she has gotten so popular despite what we read here.

Kinda scary!

[sauu4equality]

Didn't get to read this a few weeks ago. While I am having an extremely hard time finding compassion for the views of those leaning McCain I can sympathize with being filled with turmoil about who to vote for. 4 years ago I voted for Bush. I was crying in the booth. I didn't know if I was making the right decision. I felt like a vote for Kerry would be betraying my family who always taught me that the Republicans were "the good guys." I live in Texas, so my vote wasn't really a factor. I can certainly understand being torn. I have watched the bipartisan career with McCain with great respect. His campaign, however, has been dirty. Way dirtier than Obamas. This to me highlights that there is a character problem. Also, do you trust someone who has used hatred as a way to get votes? The pick of Sarah Palin was a pick to get back Evangelical voters. She herself is an evangelical. Her judgement of the world and our place in Wars and other foreign policy is severely clouded by her worldview. While McCain will likely be in charge of military action he will likely not survive his first term. Sarah Palin will be the president if McCain is elected. While you have bought into the media's exact description of both candidates (McCain: national security, family values (pro-life) Obama: Economy, social justice) you are not seeing the new McCain for who he is. To me National Security starts with Diplomacy. That means you don't take military action until you have to. That is Obama's plan. If you really believe we should shoot first and ask questions later then vote for McCain. That is the national security argument. As for being pro-life Obama was quoted by his Law Professor as saying we should seriously consider the opinions of those concerned about the rights of an unborn fetus. And the Democrats anti-death penalty/anti-war views are much more pro-life than any republican view (Obama is not Anti-war or anti-gun just so you know). I too describe myself as an independent and am registered as such. But I want a president who considers all of its citizens. While Obama has been painted as a leftist, he is far from this. He is willing to hear the concerns of all Americans. Can you say that about McCain?

[Gennee]

Originally Posted by matthewspeed

Sorry folks, I actually am enjoying the convention. I like Sarah Palin. I may not agree on all the issues, but she is the real deal. I have to be objective here. She is tough, and she gets things done. Plain and simple. Her experience as a governor shows that. She will buck heads with her own party if needed. I see this more with the Republicans. The Democrats seem more about party unity. And about her knocking Obama, that is politics, whether we like it or not. The Dems do the same thing. We've got to get thick skin folks.

I am an independant. I have a love/hate relationship with both parties. I want gay rights and health care, so I am for the Dems in that manner. On the other hand, I am pro life and I want national security. I want to get out of Iraq just like anyone else, but I am not convinced that Obama/Biden have the experience with foreign affairs and dealing with terrorists. On the other hand, Biden has more experience in this arena than Obama, and that is a good thing.

It's a false notion that McCain will be a Bush clone. How can that be when the Republican party originally did not want McCain due to his position as more of an independant? He, like Palin, will challenge his own party on issues that don't meet up to their own convictions.

I am still weighing out everything. I will probably be one of those voters to make my final decision on voting day! LOL! I am being pulled in both directions.

I have made my decision that I am not going to vote democrat just because I am gay. Many of my gay friends think I should do just that. I am an independant thinker with many convictions, as many on this forum are. Before I can make an ethical decision, I have to be objective and read betweeb the lines on every word from both candidates.

This truely is the hardest presidential race for me to decide on.

Hi, Matthew. I like what you say. You have a good grasp of your bliefs and opinions. I am a registered independent. I left the Democratic party a few years back because they are not the party that I once knew. I agree with the Republicans on some issues but, IMHO, don't speak to the average citizen. Also being a minority, I don't find Republicans all that welcoming to folks of a different nationality. I may be wrong on this but that's my opinion.

Gennee