Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Republican Convention: Tell me why.....

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like

    Republican Convention: Tell me why.....

    Please tell me why republican voters are not in an uproar over the lack of substance in the speeches given at the republican convention to this point. Aside from fred Thompson's chilling description of McCain's service in Vietnam, the content from all of the speeches is full of platitudes and embellishment. From a distance it seems that the republican voters in Minnesota are not too upset that the speeches do not contain a shred of real answers to the question of what specifically McCain would do as president. This includes the speech given by Bush as well.

    And yet I watch the crowd at the republican convention scream and cheer as the speakers essentially give the same speech that Obama offers except from the Republican point of view. It is funny to see the same group of voters who dismiss Obama's speeches as empty talk, applaud their representatives for doing the exact same thing. [B]Again, there has not been one substantive speech given about why John McCain will be a good president or what specific plans he has. [/B] Generalities such as McCain would cut taxes and defend the country sound nice but offers little in specifics.

    I take comfort in the fact that, when the convention concludes tonight, Sean Hannity will be outraged by the lack of substance heard in the speeches tonight. He will take the republicans to task on this about a half hour or so after Santa Clause comes down my chimney.
    Last edited by intelligentjetsfan; 09-02-2008 at 11:15 PM.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thompson was excellent, Lieberman sucked, and I didn't watch anyone before that. But I agree, these conventions are where politicians bring their 'A' game meat 'n potatoes speeches and prattle on for hours about nothing. McCain should get up there and outline his blueprint for American progress, something neither candidate has articulated well.

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2723499]Thompson was excellent, Liberman sucked, and I didn't watch anyone before that. But I agree, these conventions are where politicians bring their 'A' game meat 'n potatoes speeches and prattle on for hours about nothing. McCain should get up there and outline his blueprint for American progress, something neither candidate has articulated well.[/QUOTE]

    I agree that election speeches are all basically the same. It is meant to garner the desired response by the voting base. The problem I have is with the hypocrisy of some of the voters who are outraged by the speeches Obama gives-yet scream and cheer for the same type of speeches. With the main difference being that their speeches were given by their candidates.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    3,924
    Post Thanks / Like
    But Lieberman being an (I) and still registered as a Dem why would he be so for Mccain in this election and not state the reasons or meat and potatoes in his speech to vote for McCain. Hes trying to pursue voters but he's not providing anything substancial to vote for him other than he thinks McCain is a better man for the job than Obama. Ok Why?

  5. #5
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Red Bank
    Posts
    214
    Post Thanks / Like
    Tonight was about McCain the person. Tomorrow and the next day will begin their push to get people behind him on the issues... and of course they'll continue to attack Obama.

    Also, Thompson's speach was great for the Republicans in the audience but Lieberman's was far more important. What he did you don't see everyday. It's huge and the Democrats will surely do whatever they can to make him suffer if McCain doesn't win. Because if that happens he'll probably have a job as Sec. of State or something near that level. That being said, I agree that it wasn't the most moving of speeches, but you have to put things in context.

  6. #6
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2723508]I agree that election speeches are all basically the same. It is meant to garner the desired response by the voting base. The problem I have is with the hypocrisy of some of the voters who are outraged by the speeches Obama gives-yet scream and cheer for the same type of speeches. With the main difference being that their speeches were given by their candidates.[/QUOTE]

    Obama speaks better than most politicians in Washington, therefore people will typecast him as elitist or slick. I don't support him and won't be voting for him but I agree with you that the same types of speeches are being given at the RNC.

    Look at the crowds in these conventions. Everyone in there is either a(n):

    a. campaign worker
    b. elderly person
    c. student (representing their college political club)
    d. worker with a lobbying group/union with a sign that says "(blanks) support (candidate)"

    You won't get substance at these conventions save for a few good speakers.

  7. #7
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,890
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2723515]Obama speaks better than most politicians in Washington, therefore people will typecast him as elitist or slick. I don't support him and won't be voting for him but I agree with you that the same types of speeches are being given at the RNC.

    Look at the crowds in these conventions. Everyone in there is either a(n):

    a. campaign worker
    b. elderly person
    c. student (representing their college political club)
    d. worker with a lobbying group/union with a sign that says "(blanks) support (candidate)"

    You won't get substance at these conventions save for a few good speakers.[/QUOTE]

    Probably. Plus some realities:

    1. The far right social stances of the past 8 years (banning abortion, banning sex ed, banning evolution in schools, anti-gay agendas) won't fly this election. The country wants a socially centrist president. Not someone pandering to the religious right, But at the same time the republicans don't want to alienate the religious right--they need them. So those hot-button social topics are out.

    2. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is so muddy that nobody, republican or democrat, knows what to do. So no specifics there. Nobody wants to be tied to anything specific. Same thing regarding the economy, budget deficit, health care, social security, outsourcing, etc.).

    3. Also note that neither the republicans or democrats have much to say about illegal immigration. Don't expect either to do much about it. They both want those illegal votes, plus both get a ton of money from companies whose profit margin benefits from hiring illegals (and screwing US taxpayers).

    In the end, neither party wants to talk about anything seriously so all that's left are vacuous platitudes. Obama's blather is this Kennedy-esque drivel about breaking from the past, forging a new future. WTF is that supposed to mean? A new future how exactly? Stop trading off being young and take a position on something for Christ's sake. McCain keeps pushing the one-trick pony of "Obama will raise your taxes." Guess what, Johnny? 8 years of Bush whipping out the credit card whenever he got in a jam has resulted in one hell of a bill. At some point somebody has to pay it cuz ignore a bill and it only gets worse. Are you saying you don't have the guts to break the bad news?
    Last edited by BushyTheBeaver; 09-03-2008 at 12:26 AM.

  8. #8
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,163
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2723508]I agree that election speeches are all basically the same. It is meant to garner the desired response by the voting base. The problem I have is with the hypocrisy of some of the voters who are outraged by the speeches Obama gives-yet scream and cheer for the same type of speeches. With the main difference being that their speeches were given by their candidates.[/QUOTE]
    Just what kind of specifics are you looking for from from Fred Thompson, Laura Bush or Lieberman, anyway?

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    11,969
    Post Thanks / Like
    The night was focused on what Thompson described:
    [I]
    "It's pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, [B]'Who is this man?' [/B]and [B]'Can we trust this man with the presidency?'[/B]" [/I]

    [I] "This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders. Strength. Courage. Humility. Wisdom. Duty. Honor."[/I]

    But, they definitely mentioned specifics and substance:

    *His life experience as a maverick and an honorable soldier, American, and civil servant provided by the speakers demonstrated a lot of substantial testimony to his character

    *There were several emphasis on his record as an Independent Thinker, and as decision maker, able to think outside the Beltway and his own Party (Reagan: station troops in Beirut; Immigration; Military Strategy: On the right side of History).

    *Reformer of Campaign Finance (McCain-FeinGold)

    *Reformer of Washington Porkbarrelling (Lobbying, Ethics and Earmarks Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007 I believe was mentioned)

    *He was on the right side of history, whereas Obama was on the wrong side:
    advocated for and supported what turned out to be a successful, game-changing strategic maneuver called "The Surge" in Iraq, against the broad shoulder of the liberal groupthink of the media and the Congress that would have had us cut and run, and even eliminate funding for troops on the ground...

    *Economics: Cut Taxes, Drill to Reduce Dependency, Reduce Government.

    But the night was a vouching for his character. Wait until the Ticket speaks for specifics...

  10. #10
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    2,988
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BushyTheBeaver;2723540]Probably. Plus some realities:

    1. The far right social stances of the past 8 years (banning abortion, banning sex ed, banning evolution in schools, anti-gay agendas) won't fly this election. The country wants a socially centrist president. Not someone pandering to the religious right, But at the same time the republicans don't want to alienate the religious right--they need them. So those hot-button social topics are out.

    2. The situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is so muddy that nobody, republican or democrat, knows what to do. So no specifics there. Nobody wants to be tied to anything specific. Same thing regarding the economy, budget deficit, health care, social security, outsourcing, etc.).

    3. Also note that neither the republicans or democrats have much to say about illegal immigration. Don't expect either to do much about it. They both want those illegal votes, plus both get a ton of money from companies whose profit margin benefits from hiring illegals (and screwing US taxpayers).

    In the end, neither party wants to talk about anything seriously so all that's left are vacuous platitudes. Obama's blather is this Kennedy-esque drivel about breaking from the past, forging a new future. WTF is that supposed to mean? A new future how exactly? Stop trading off being young and take a position on something for Christ's sake. McCain keeps pushing the one-trick pony of "Obama will raise your taxes." Guess what, Johnny? 8 years of Bush whipping out the credit card whenever he got in a jam has resulted in one hell of a bill. At some point somebody has to pay it cuz ignore a bill and it only gets worse. Are you saying you don't have the guts to break the bad news?[/QUOTE]

    Couldn't have put it better. The issue of immigration in particular amazes me; [b]nobody[/b] wants to discuss it because both candidates agree on that issue (a major embarrassment to the GOP big wigs).

  11. #11
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=XingDaorong;2723592]Couldn't have put it better. The issue of immigration in particular amazes me; [b]nobody[/b] wants to discuss it because both candidates agree on that issue (a major embarrassment to the GOP big wigs).[/QUOTE]

    McCain's (historical) stance on immigration is deplorable.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from)
    Posts
    13,340
    Post Thanks / Like
    Nothing of substance ever comes out of a convention.

    Did you just wake up from a long sleep?:zzz:

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper;2723600][B]Nothing of substance ever comes out of a convention.[/B]

    Did you just wake up from a long sleep?:zzz:[/QUOTE]

    Exactly. Convention speeches have always been nothing more than fluff.

    The debates will hopefully give us a better idea of what either guy would do if elected.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    It's all relative
    Posts
    3,445
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper;2723600]Nothing of substance ever comes out of a convention.
    [/QUOTE]

    No doubt. It's all hot air.

    The republicans just mention 9-11 and terror about 732% more than the democrats, so they'd have you believe that only a republican president will keep you "safe".

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,481
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2723488]Please tell me why republican voters are not in an uproar over the lack of substance in the speeches given at the republican convention to this point. Aside from fred Thompson's chilling description of McCain's service in Vietnam, the content from all of the speeches is full of platitudes and embellishment. From a distance it seems that the republican voters in Minnesota are not too upset that the speeches do not contain a shred of real answers to the question of what specifically McCain would do as president. This includes the speech given by Bush as well.

    And yet I watch the crowd at the republican convention scream and cheer as the speakers essentially give the same speech that Obama offers except from the Republican point of view. It is funny to see the same group of voters who dismiss Obama's speeches as empty talk, applaud their representatives for doing the exact same thing. [B]Again, there has not been one substantive speech given about why John McCain will be a good president or what specific plans he has. [/B] Generalities such as McCain would cut taxes and defend the country sound nice but offers little in specifics.

    I take comfort in the fact that, when the convention concludes tonight, Sean Hannity will be outraged by the lack of substance heard in the speeches tonight. He will take the republicans to task on this about a half hour or so after Santa Clause comes down my chimney.[/QUOTE]


    As an "intelligent" person, I would expect you to know that political conventions are nothing more than party pep rallies. I didn't watch the DNC and, so far, I haven't watched any of the RNC. I'll probably watch a little bit tonight, only to see how Palin handles herself.


    EDIT> I did, however, see Keith Olbermann's brilliant analysis of Fred Thompson's speech. Evidently, instead of listening to Thompson's speech, Mr. Olbermann was counting the number of times Thompson cleared his throat. According to the brilliant Olbermann, Thompson cleared his throat 70 times. I'm glad that MSNBC has decided to offer their best and brightest minds to deliver such brilliant insight.
    Last edited by SanAntonio_JetFan; 09-03-2008 at 09:13 AM.

  16. #16
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Long Island & Section 337
    Posts
    4,859
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2723770]As an "intelligent" person, I would expect you to know that political conventions are nothing more than party pep rallies. I didn't watch the DNC and, so far, I haven't watched any of the RNC. I'll probably watch a little bit tonight, only to see how Palin handles herself.


    EDIT> [B]I did, however, see Keith Olbermann's brilliant analysis of Fred Thompson's speech. Evidently, instead of listening to Thompson's speech, Mr. Olbermann was counting the number of times Thompson cleared his throat. According to the brilliant Olbermann, Thompson cleared his throat 70 times. I'm glad that MSNBC has decided to offer their best and brightest minds to deliver such brilliant insight[/B].[/QUOTE]

    I am sure we will read about this on his blog on Daily Kos. What a fair reporter.:rolleyes:

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=NYJCAP2;2723509]But Lieberman being an (I) and still registered as a Dem why would he be so for Mccain in this election and not state the reasons or meat and potatoes in his speech to vote for McCain. Hes trying to pursue voters but he's not providing anything substancial to vote for him other than he thinks McCain is a better man for the job than Obama. Ok Why?[/QUOTE]

    Politically speaking, Lieberman was a huge missed opportunity for McCain.

    I am not one of the Dems who gets all upset about him and calls him a traitor. To me, he's a single-issue congressman and his single issue --continuatiuon of George Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East-- is clearly an area where no longer fits in the Democratic party.

    Fine.

    He should have focused exclusively on why he favors McCain's approach and why he, having known McCain for ages, trusts him to do that.

    When he endorsed Sarah Palin --who he only met this week, has no foreign policy positions and disagrees with every domestic position Joe holds-- he lost all credibility. I also think he made a big error by taking a few factuially challenged slaps against Obama.

    All told, a weak speech.

    Thompson was better. A good red-meat-for-the-delegates-in-the-hall stemwinder. Won't convince anybody who wasn't already voting with him, but it probably did rile the base, which needs to be done at a convention. It was the first time in the election cycle I've seen Fred not looking like he was sipping iced tea while slumped on porch swing and fanning himself.

    Laura Bush was bizarre. To have the first lady --particulalrly THAT first lady, who is pretty far removed from the policy shop in that white house--delving into the administration's record is just weird. Of course, when Dubya showed up, we were all reminded why they didn't want HIM on camera defending his record.

    Strategic genius of the night: Putting one of the documentaries on immediately after Dubya, so the talking heads couldn't talk about him speaking.

    Tonight's lineup is, apparently, Romney, Giuliani and Palin: Must-see TV all around. Get your popcorn.

  18. #18
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=pauliec;2723597]McCain's (historical) stance on immigration is deplorable.[/QUOTE]

    The reason immigration isn't being discussed is because Obama and McCain essentially agree on immigration reform. They both enthusiastically supported the bill that Bush signed. So there's not much for the two of them to debate.

    McCain now says he wouldn't sign the bill he helped write (except when he's speaking to Hispanic audiences), and he doesn't want to remind his base of a reason they didn't like him to begin with.

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Piper;2723600]Nothing of substance ever comes out of a convention.

    Did you just wake up from a long sleep?:zzz:[/QUOTE]

    Exactly.

    I will be waiting for the debates, and hope they don't suck (also like normal) for the "good talk" from the two candidates.

  20. #20
    Waterboy
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    0
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2723882]Politically speaking, Lieberman was a huge missed opportunity for McCain.

    I am not one of the Dems who gets all upset about him and calls him a traitor. To me, he's a single-issue congressman and his single issue --continuatiuon of George Bush's foreign policy in the Middle East-- is clearly an area where no longer fits in the Democratic party.

    Fine.

    He should have focused exclusively on why he favors McCain's approach and why he, having known McCain for ages, trusts him to do that.

    When he endorsed Sarah Palin --who he only met this week, has no foreign policy positions and disagrees with every domestic position Joe holds-- he lost all credibility. I also think he made a big error by taking a few factuially challenged slaps against Obama.

    All told, a weak speech.

    Thompson was better. A good red-meat-for-the-delegates-in-the-hall stemwinder. Won't convince anybody who wasn't already voting with him, but it probably did rile the base, which needs to be done at a convention. It was the first time in the election cycle I've seen Fred not looking like he was sipping iced tea while slumped on porch swing and fanning himself.

    Laura Bush was bizarre. To have the first lady --particulalrly THAT first lady, who is pretty far removed from the policy shop in that white house--delving into the administration's record is just weird. Of course, when Dubya showed up, we were all reminded why they didn't want HIM on camera defending his record.

    Strategic genius of the night: Putting one of the documentaries on immediately after Dubya, so the talking heads couldn't talk about him speaking.

    Tonight's lineup is, apparently, Romney, Giuliani and Palin: Must-see TV all around. Get your popcorn.[/QUOTE]

    Great analysis, I agree 100%.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us