vbfan
Sophomore
Posts: 221 
|
Post by vbfan on Jul 27, 2004 2:54:11 GMT -5
Anyone happen to catch Clinton's convention speech, man he sure is good. He could talk circles around Bush, and Kerry for that matter. All the media talking heads liberal and conservative loved it. I have a feeling that if it was Clinton running against Bush this year he would win in a landslide, as opposed to the 50/50 propositiion the election is now.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Jul 27, 2004 8:56:36 GMT -5
He was great. Lucky for GW he will never have to debate Bill. Bill makes it looks so easy.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 27, 2004 8:56:48 GMT -5
Anyone happen to catch Clinton's convention speech, man he sure is good. He could talk circles around Bush, and Kerry for that matter. All the media talking heads liberal and conservative loved it. I have a feeling that if it was Clinton running against Bush this year he would win in a landslide, as opposed to the 50/50 propositiion the election is now. Clinton is a pretty good public speaker, certainly better than Bush #43 and Kerry, but still a distant second to one Ronald W. Reagan. And if it were Reagan (in his prime) vs. Clinton (in his prime), it would be a landslide for the Gipper. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2004 9:20:58 GMT -5
And if it were Reagan (in his prime) vs. Clinton (in his prime), it would be a landslide for the Gipper. Define "prime." Or are you saying Reagan's prime was his 70s? Regardless, Reagan was an awful President, but you are probably right. For some reason, America loved the guy. I never did understand the attraction... |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 27, 2004 10:00:33 GMT -5
Define "prime." Or are you saying Reagan's prime was his 70s? Regardless, Reagan was an awful President, but you are probably right. For some reason, America loved the guy. I never did understand the attraction... Hang on, Ruffda, don't be alarmed. But, it could just possibly be...maybe...perhaps...that the American public was just a wee bit smarter than you when judging Presidents. I know that's a shock, but try to cope. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2004 10:09:58 GMT -5
Maybe. Doubt it. I'm pretty bright.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Jul 27, 2004 10:37:05 GMT -5
Hang on, Ruffda, don't be alarmed. But, it could just possibly be...maybe...perhaps...that the American public was just a wee bit smarter than you when judging Presidents. I know that's a shock, but try to cope. It could have been the monkey you know. |
|
|
|
Post by itsallaboutme on Jul 27, 2004 10:55:23 GMT -5
It's "Bed time for Bonzo".
|
|
|
|
Post by 7thWoman on Jul 27, 2004 11:02:39 GMT -5
For some reason, America loved the guy. I never did understand the attraction... There are lots of reasons, but I think the biggest one should be obvious. He was an actor. It's the same reason your state voted for Jesse Ventura, the same reason my state voted for Arnold. Entertainers are the gods of the modern age. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 27, 2004 12:39:23 GMT -5
There are lots of reasons, but I think the biggest one should be obvious. He was an actor. It's the same reason your state voted for Jesse Ventura, the same reason my state voted for Arnold. Entertainers are the gods of the modern age. Not only was Reagan an actor, his undergraduate degree was in Economics. People can laugh, but I believe that the skill set you acquire as an actor actually helps in public office. Public confidence in elected officials is a key indicator of overall approval rating, and one thing actors certainly know how to do is put on a good face. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jul 27, 2004 12:47:31 GMT -5
Not only was Reagan an actor, his undergraduate degree was in Economics. Of course, he learned it almost before concepts of social security were even around, and given his career, I doubt he kept up to date with the field. If you are saying that, in politics, it is more useful to look good than to be good, I don't think anyone will argue. Heck, I would say Reagan is the poster child for that. Given his personality, he could be a total truck up as a president and still be popular. Odd, that's pretty much exactly how it went. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 27, 2004 13:11:42 GMT -5
Of course, he learned it almost before concepts of social security were even around, and given his career, I doubt he kept up to date with the field. If you are saying that, in politics, it is more useful to look good than to be good, I don't think anyone will argue. Heck, I would say Reagan is the poster child for that. Given his personality, he could be a total truck up as a president and still be popular. Odd, that's pretty much exactly how it went. Actually, what I am saying is, more than anything else, being the President of the United States means being able to play a role. To project confidence and self-assurance to calm an entire country when things aren't going so well (as was the case early on in Reagan's presidency). To be able to play that role consistently when representing our country's interests on the world stage. I thought Carter before him was a genuinely good person, however, there is no way Carter could have negotiated as effectively with the Soviet Union the way Reagan did throughout his Presidency. Reagan understood the key elements of timing and delivery, and how those elements were as important, if not more important sometimes, than the content of the message itself. Knock Reagan all you want, nothing I say will change your mind. However, in the coming years, as historians and think tanks look back on his Presidency, there are many significant accomplishments that will be listed. For me personally, two of the most enduring will always be the signing of the INF Treaty in 1987 which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons from Europe and the beginnings of START treaty negiotiations (which culminated under Bush #41) that has reduced nuclear stockpiles to a fraction of what they once were. Did he do everything perfectly? Of course not, no president ever has or ever will. But what he did was good, and what he believed in was true and he never strayed from his beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Jul 27, 2004 13:24:41 GMT -5
Knock Reagan all you want, nothing I say will change your mind. However, in the coming years, as historians and think tanks look back on his Presidency, there are many significant accomplishments that will be listed. For me personally, two of the most enduring will always be the signing of the INF Treaty in 1987 which eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons from Europe and the beginnings of START treaty negiotiations (which culminated under Bush #41) that has reduced nuclear stockpiles to a fraction of what they once were. Did he do everything perfectly? Of course not, no president ever has or ever will. But what he did was good, and what he believed in was true and he never strayed from his beliefs. And 138 members of his administration were convicted, indicted, or investigated for illegal acts while he was in office. I'd love to hear how that compares to the Clinton administration. Clinton scandel: having an extramarital affair in the Whitehouse Reagan scandel: selling arms to terrorists to support government overthrow They both initially lied as they denied it. But in terms of the country, only one was relevent. |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Jul 27, 2004 13:43:15 GMT -5
DNC Day 1: An Evening of Losers
By Jonathan V. Last
Weekly Standard | July 27, 2004
Boston
JOHN KERRY and John Edwards want to bring you a stronger America. It says so on their signs and the slogan flickers across the thin, ticker-tape video screens that ring the Fleet Center, repeating over and over and over. To that end, they've decided to open their convention with the two biggest losers in the recent history of the Democratic party: Al Gore and Jimmy Carter.
Introduced by Bill Richardson, Al Gore emerges to a warm, if not thunderous ovation. By way of introduction, Richardson notes that Gore was the choice of more Americans in the last election. That seems a little cruel. Imagine if Craig Ehlo spent his entire life being introduced as the man who got beat at the buzzer by Michael Jordan, or Guy Lewis was always introduced as the guy who lost the NCAA championship on Jim Valvano's last second prayer.
Gore is supposedly one of the two "untouchables" this week--speakers who are allowed to say as many mean things about George W. Bush as they want. As such, there's some excitement about his remarks tonight, with many Republicans hoping he'll give a repeat performance of some of his recent, crazed harangues.
These Republicans stand disappointed. Gore's talk is casual and wistful. He makes a number of jokes about his 2000 loss ("You know the old saying: you win some, you lose some. And then there's that little-known third category.") Gore says that he "didn't come here to talk about the past," but that's all he really does.
"In our democracy, every vote has power," he says. "And never forget that power is yours. Don't let anyone take it away from you, or talk you into throwing it away." That's Gore's first reference to Ralph Nader. His second comes a few minutes later when he says, "For those who supported a third-party candidate in 2000, do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?"
Gore is so fixated on the past that he doesn't even mention John Kerry's name until nearly nine minutes into his remarks. After a brief, terribly unconvincing testimonial (Kerry's "word is his bond"), Gore says, "To those of you who felt disappointed or angry with the outcome in 2000, I want you to remember all of those feelings. But then I want you to do with them what I have done: focus them fully and completely on putting John Kerry and John Edwards in the White House."
It's a selfless and disciplined performance. Gore has jettisoned his angry, Deaniac persona and presented himself as a cautionary tale. Here is an Al Gore who admits he lost and makes no excuses for it. It's like a '50s health-class film strip on gonorrhea: Look at Al; if you're not careful, you could wind up just like him.
When Gore finishes, Tipper comes onstage. They reenact The Kiss from the 2000 convention, and then exit, stage right. Once upon a time, Al Gore was a Democratic heavy. Defeated, he became a fiery heretic. Defanged, he's now nothing more than a walking parable. Somewhere in a swing state, John Kerry is smiling. Mission accomplished.
A NUMBER OF SMART, important speakers followed--Glenn Close, Barbara Mikulski, a children's choir singing "This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land"--but the real excitement is in the box behind me when Michael Moore emerges, clad in a black shirt and blue jeans, with a green baseball cap. It's pandemonium. The nearest delegation is made up of folks representing Democrats Abroad. Their reaction is similar to what you would expect from a pack of 19-year-old boys if Britney Spears wandered, drunk, into their frat house. People vault over railings and push and shove their way up the short stairway to the balcony where Moore is holding court. Ever the gentleman, Moore smiles shyly and shakes hands and signs autographs. Dozens of expatriates can now die happy.
AL GORE'S defeat thus handled, it's time to get the other piece of Democratic detritus out of the way. By way of introduction, Bill Richardson says that President Carter gave us "a strong America." Hmmm. Now I'm just asking, but will John Kerry's "stronger America" be like Jimmy Carter's "strong America," only more so? Don't say you weren't warned.
President Carter gets a heartfelt and sustained ovation and emerges to "Georgia," which is appropriately slow and bittersweet. Unlike Gore, Carter mentions Kerry in his second sentence, before embarking on a prolonged, personal critique of George Bush.
Talking about his time in the Navy, Carter mentions that he served under Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower, "both of whom," he notes pointedly, "had faced their active military duties with honor." When John Kerry was called to military service, Carter winks, "He showed up."
It's the former president's biggest applause line, and it represents a theme: Nearly all of his applause lines are attacks on President Bush. Carter rails against the "super rich" (oops!) and frets that the goodwill from September 11 "has been squandered." The current president, Carter says, has "misled" us.
At times, Carter veers into intellectual incoherence. He charges that "the Middle East peace process has come to a screeching halt for the first time since Israel became a nation." This is true, of course. Except that the screeching halt occurred on Bill Clinton's watch, with the dissolution of the Oslo Accords.
Carter also performs a neat bit of revisionist history, explaining that America won the Cold War because of "sustained bipartisan support" for "the defense of our own freedom and the promotion of human rights." Never mind that this sustained support was often not bipartisan and that Carter himself was nearly always on the wrong side of it. No, the stunning thing is that the former president is holding up the duty to promote human rights as an argument against the war in Iraq.
On the subject of Iraq, Carter criticizes the Bush doctrine of "preemptive war," before complaining that president should have gone after North Korea, instead.
Towards the end of his remarks, President Carter asks the delegates to repudiate "extremism" and worried about "extremist doctrines" which are pulling America into dangerous waters. I'm assuming he was talking about Bush, but you never know. After his speech, Jimmy Carter repaired to small box behind my workstation. There, the former president of the United States and his wife, Rosalynn, sat down next to Michael Moore.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Jul 27, 2004 18:59:18 GMT -5
Clinton scandel: having an extramarital affair in the Whitehouse Reagan scandel: selling arms to terrorists to support government overthrow They both initially lied as they denied it. But in terms of the country, only one was relevent. Like I said, check back in 20 years. There is no doubt that the Reagan Presidency will be held in higher regard than the Clinton one. It is said that the thing that Clinton valued over anything as President was what his legacy would be. Well, he blew that right out the window with the whole Lewinsky affair. The difference between Reagan and Clinton is that Reagan went on record and accepted responsibility for the Iran Contra affair, going as far as addressing the nation in a televised address. Clinton? We're still waiting. Getting his slick willy serviced in the Oval Office wasn't the big deal, lying under Oath was the big deal. Anyone remember the name Gennifer Flowers? |
|
