Well....did anybody watch the RNC?

[Joe Chalupa]

Senator John McCain spoke very well.

Giuliani looks like he's already campaigning for his shot in 2008.

Other than that it was what I expected.

[exstatic]

Rudy G hasn't a prayer of getting the GOP presidential nomination in his current life. He was shacked up with another woman at Gracie Mansion while he was still married, for chrissakes. He'd never get the support of the Religious Reich.

I didn't watch, but then again, I didn't watch the DNC either. I think on both occasions, my sock drawer needed re-arranging. Seriously, they need to do away with these white elephant events. The nomination threshhold delegate count is usally wrapped up by May anyway.

The major party convention has turned into a waste of time, money, and effort. It would be like broadcasting the Electoral college vote. Who the **** wants to see that? All the real action has already taken place.

[Tommy Duncan]

This was reality night. We are in a post 9/11 world, not in a 9/10 one where 4 months in Vietnam is enough to address the threats that face this country. Giuliani's past is irrelevant in this context.

[Joe Chalupa]

I agree, but terrorism was around before 9/11 and it'll be around long after we are gone.

Even Bush admitted it is war that cannot be won.

But it is a war that must be fought and contrary to what many believe, we were fighting terrorism before 9/11.

It is Bush's strongest asset and I don't blame him or the GOP for using what they have.

Giuliani didn't impress me as much as I thought he would.

[NeoConIV]

I saw most of it tonight. McCain's speech was a beast. He played nice with the opposition, but he spoke with so much conviction on why you shoudn't vote for Kerry.

Rudy's speech was also very good, although prone to going off on tangents, but hey, he's Rudy. He can do as he damn well pleases. Priming for a bid in 2008? I don't see it at all. Not because of his extra marital affair, but two equal reasons. First, pro-choice. Second, as incredible as he is, he's just not cut for the presidency. And I don't think he'd want it either. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it.

But Tommy's right. It was reality night. Like McCain said, we're still closer to the beginning of the war on terror than the end, and I agree. And like Guilanni said about our enemies around the world 'hearing from us' after 9/11, "Is there really any doubt that our enemies will continue to hear from us if he's elected again".

Of course not. With Kerry as president? A LOT of doubt.

Tonight had a lot of ooomph. Great start indeed.

[Joe Chalupa]

I have NO DOUBT that Kerry will defend America.

As Senator John McCain stated so eloquently, we are all Americans. He has no doubts with democrats sincerity and I have no doubts about theirs.

Go USA!!

[NeoConIV]

Giving a timeline of a troop pullout in Iraq? That's causes me to question Kerry's so called 'high mindedness', his so called 'thougtfulness', his so called 'intelligence'.

I hate to sound all partisan and everything, but damn. Kerry is not the man for job. His voting record sucks to high heaven on defense....blah blah blah.....anyways, announcing a timeline for a troop pullout is stupid and careless. Sucking Chirac's wanker and announcing troop exits in Iraq? Yeah baby, give me that!

[Joe Chalupa]

You do sound partisan, as you always do and I probably do as well.
Well for me..Damn it, 4 more years of Bush just doesn't sit well with me. I'd vote for McCain before I'd vote for Bush.
The problem with Bush is he had no plan for getting out of Iraq. Perhaps less sucking of Blair and Peres' wankers?

[exstatic]

Giuliani's past is irrelevant in this context.

In this context? Agreed. He'll still never get the nomination, though. That was my point.

Oh, and Neo? It was much more than just an affair. He moved his wife out, and moved his chica into Gracie Mansion while he was mayor.

[NeoConIV]

It was much more than just an affair. He moved his wife out, and moved his chica into Gracie Mansion while he was mayor.

Ok, and?

[Tommy Duncan]

Giuliani would be a tough sell to the base but he could force the GOP back to the Western brand of conservatism (the Goldwater-Reagan-Alan Simpson-Cheney brand) which is much more libertarian in nature than the evangelical-tinged conservatism that is prevalent today. The problem, of course, is that the evangelicals in the party are much more organized.

I think a primary fight that establishes a counterweight to the evangelicals in the party on social issues would be a good thing.

[NeoConIV]

I think a primary fight that establishes a counterweight to the evangelicals in the party on social issues would be a good thing.

Naaaaah!!

[Tommy Duncan]

Why not? There are a lot of people who want the government out of their pocketbooks and out of their bedrooms, to paraphrase Barry Goldwater. Reagan was an adherent to that tradition of conservatism, and while he did win the social conservatives over he never exactly gave them what they wanted.

The GOP needs to lose the image of being antagonistic to people who don't toe the social conservative line. The Goldwater brand of conservatism was not anti-faith. I think most reasonable people can understand that the best way to deal with attempts to cir scribe religious expression is not necessarily by fighting back with policies that attempt to impose it but rather by fighting to maintain the individual right to it. The problem is that the social conservatives don't seem willing to see this point. In general, a libertarian-esque political philosophy could be an electoral winner for a long time for the GOP and it would make the GOP compe ive again in California and the Northeast where a lot of voters do vote based on which party mirrors their views on social issues. This is not to say the GOP has to become "pro-gay" or "pro-abortion". It does need to advance the notion that people should be free to live their lives with minimal government interference. Choice in that context is a powerful idea. If the GOP can embrace it then it can make the Demos the party who wants to impose their social values on you.

[NeoConIV]

Why not?

Heed my emoticon. Mere teasing from a religious right wing nutjob. I think it would be all good too.

[T Park Num 9]

Very well said Tommy.


Ive said for a while, IMO my problems with W are that hes shifted the Republican party a little too far to the left.

I agree 100% again with the fact that if a YOUNG republican candidate came with a , if the states want to ratify it, FINE, if not, THATS THERE CHOICE, the US Government will have NO SAY.

If a GOP candidate would run on Much less government, more self expression and self governing, that person would win the popular vote 70 to 30.

But once again,

Bush over Kerry is another of the lesser of two evils.