Not only was Schwarzenegger’s speech simply brilliant, but the timing was exquisite. He walked on stage at exactly 10:00 PM EDT, just as the network coverage was starting. So viewers who had been watching The Amazing Race, Scrubs or According to Jim (on CBS, NBC and ABC, respectively) literally didn’t have time to change the channel before seeing the Governator’s face. I’m guessing that, as a result, a lot of people who were not planning to watch probably did so, figuring, “Hey! It’s Arnold! I don’t care about politics, but I’ll watch Arnold!” If any of those folks happen to be swing voters in swing states, that’s good, good news for Bush.
It bears repeating: Karl Rove is a genius.
Here’s the full text, including Arnold’s line about the “two Americas” meme:
Now, the other party says there are two Americas. Don’t believe that either. I’ve visited our troops in Iraq, Kuwait, Bosnia, Germany and all over the world. I’ve visited our troops in California, where they train before they go overseas. And I’ve visited our military hospitals. And I can tell you this: Our young men and women in uniform do not believe there are two Americas!
They believe we are one America and they are fighting for it! We are one America — and President Bush is defending it with all his heart and soul!
Like I said before: Wow.
P.S. I was right: the Republicans are much better at this convention thing than the Democrats are. I can think of only three remaining key questions: 1. How will Cheney do tomorrow night?; 2. Will Bush on Thursday live up to the awesome billing that he’s being given?; and 3. Will Hurricane Frances distract media attention (particularly during the news cycle immediately after Bush’s speech) enough to reduce the bounce?
P.P.S. Andrew Sullivan, on the other hand, is less impressed:
When you see who really runs the GOP (funny Tom DeLay isn’t in prime time, isn’t it?), you begin to realize why a cross-dressing ex-mayor, a dissident Californian and an unelected ex-librarian are among its major spokespeople. …But Jenna and Barbara really did steal the show. Compared to the earnest, mature, almost somber Kerry daughters, these two were upper-class brats, giggling, cooing, pointing to friends in the crowd, giggling over their lines, and generally showing the maturity of the average “American Idol” contestant. … So we have an Austrian-American bodybuilder with a history of orgies and a couple of spoiled, hard-drinking party girls fronting for a party whose platform is inspired in large part by Biblical fundamentalism. Yep. It would be hard to convey a more vivid reflection of our fractured culture than that. …
Another theme was the alleged ideological diversity of the GOP. See - we allow our dissidents prime speaking spots, they argue. But the test of diversity is whether those speakers can actually dissent from party nostrums, and speak their own minds. But McCain, Giuliani, and Schwarzenegger all avoided any mention of domestic disagreements and merely vouched for Bush’s character and qualifications to be a war-leader. That’s not diversity. On the real issues that divide the party - the spending, the deficit, stem-cell research, the incompetence of the Iraq occupation, the FMA, immigration - there was and will be no dissent allowed. The platform is the most hardline religious right document ever put together by the GOP. In that way, the dutiful appearance by one dissident after another, all of whom merely express confidence in the blessed leader, comes off as actually quite creepy. Yes, they are welcome as Republicans. But only if they toe the line in public and help re-elect the ticket. Will their views be accommodated after the election? Are you kidding? And the real leaders of the party, and its intellectual inspirations, are kept off-stage. Yes: politics as usual and no big deal. But please spare me the diversity crap.
Sullivan makes some good points (and some less good ones). I should clarify that, in praising Arnold and so forth, I’m praising the strategy only; I’m not saying I agree with the politics, or suggesting that the convention isn’t a hypocritical farce. But it’s possible to acknowledge the tactical brilliance of one’s opponents — indeed, it’s critical to have the ability to do so, or else self-delusion results. Well, I for one am not deluding myself: the last two days have been very, very bad for John Kerry’s chances of winning the presidency, with the only potential limiter on the damage being the possibility that the ratings were low and the viewers were mostly hardened political junkies rather than undecided swing voters.
|
Categories: Election 2004
|
September 1st, 2004 at 12:36:33 am
First, the twins were horrible. Horrible. But I still love Barbara. ;-)
So Sullivan says the platform is the most right-wing, religious platform the Republican Party has ever seen? Mr. Sullivan, welcome to the loony bin. Ten years ago, nobody squelched pro-gay marriage activists–they simply didn’t even exist for the most part. Just over thirty years ago, abortion wasn’t an issue–each state decided for itself that policy. And just over forty years ago, it was American consensus that prayer and Bible reading in school was a positive, necessary thing for the moral development of American children. The GOP hasn’t moved right; the Democrats have moved left, and they’ve taken the culture with them to some extent. The “biblical fundamentalism” that Sullivan snorts at is simply a genuine belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, a position that was almost standard for all Christians fifty years ago, but is now less and less so due to liberal scholarship attacking it relentlessly.
We can argue about whether these changes are good and bad, that’s fine. We can say we’re better off with legal abortion, no prayer in schools, unlimited stem-cell research, and full gay marriage. But don’t call those who don’t agree and remember an older era where their positions were orthodox, consensus American views extremists. Ahnold can get along with Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, and the rest just fine, as can Rudy Giuliani. Republicans can disagree, even in white-hot anger, but fundamentally we cherish certain values together and we unite on those principles. To charge Republicans with fraud because they put their best faces out there–whether they are moderate (Giuliani, Ahnold), or conservative (Laura Bush, Zell Miller)–and want to expand their party to include more diversity, well that’s just rich, and it’s pure bitterness speaking on the part of Sullivan, who can’t get over the fact that Bush has supported the FMA–something that won’t ever pass anyway.
September 1st, 2004 at 1:01:18 am
Okay, I liked this rebuttal better:
“You may not agree with this party on every issue, but that’s okay; that’s what’s great about this country.� An echo of Guiliani last night. Okay, well, you can read this two ways. Either it’s a Calculated Rovian Ploy to make people think the GOP tolerates dissent while privately shipping the moderates to the Cryo-Storage facilities on Mars, or these guys are making a point that they have disagreements with the party because – are you ready? – because they have disagreements with the party, and would like to change minds from the inside. “Here we can respectfully disagree, and still be patriotic, and still be good Republicans.� Applause line, but I would have liked it if everyone stood and said NO DUH in unison. Was there such an emphasis on disagreement among the keynote speakers at the DNC? I don’t know. I don’t know what they disagree on, exactly, except the War. And whether Bush should be flayed with a cheese grater or one of those orange-peelers you get at Williams-Sonoma. The kind with the nice wood handle. Fits right in your hand.
God I love James Lileks!
September 1st, 2004 at 1:07:43 am
Andrew, please. When the Soviet Union fell, some elderly people walked the streets of Moscow with signs of Czar Nicholas II and clamored in favor of a return to a monarchy. They disagreed with the thought of a democracy and remembered a time when their position was an orthodox, mainstream Russian view. That doesn’t mean that they weren’t extremists. The culture moved, the center was redefined as people’s views shifted, and what was orthodox even in living memory became extreme. That’s a much more drastic shift than has happened here in the US, but it serves to illustrate that just because someone remembers a time in which his or her position was mainstream and orthodox does not necessarily mean that he or she is automatically not an extremist.
Perhaps you’re right that the GOP has stayed static while the Democrats marched to the Left and the country’s center therefore moved with it. You certainly are correct that a number of GOP positions of today were the orthodoxy of the past. But I submit that it doesn’t matter whether the center as moved to a new position or the GOP has moved to a new position–saying that it is more extreme than in the past is just another way of stating that it’s further from the country’s center than it was in the past. If I have a ruler balanced on a stack of pennies, it doesn’t matter if I move the ruler 4 inches in one direction while not touching the pennies, or if I move the pennies 4 inches in the opposite direction without moving the ruler–the ruler still fails to balance unless other changes are made. I don’t necessarily agree that the GOP is more extreme than it used to be, but merely stating that its positions haven’t changed while those of society have in no way counteracts that claim.
Finally, the fact that someone’s belief is genuine in no way protects it from being scoffed at. One of my closest friends genuinely believes in the existence of psychic powers, and puts weight behind the words of professional psychics. It doesn’t matter to me that her belief is genuine; I look down upon it anyway for what it is, not for the character of those who believe in it. You yourself have taken exception to opinions of mine expressed here and in e-mail, yet all of them have been genuine thoughts based upon the available evidence and logic. A few of them even are mainstream. That doesn’t mean that I expect you to let them be, and I consequently expect you to allow people to scoff at ideas that fit the same category when the tables are turned. To refuse to be critical of a belief because of the goodness of those who hold it strikes me as a kind of reverse ad hominem attack. Yes, biblical inerrancy has been attacked–all thoughts and beliefs are at one point or another. Those that survive and spread in the face of such attacks are the superior ones, such as, say, the heliocentric view of the solar system. It’s simply natural selection on memes in action.
September 1st, 2004 at 1:34:15 am
Mike, I was with you and had no disagreement until that last paragraph. What in the world are you talking about? I think you misread me or something, I don’t know. My point was simply that the culture has changed, and there’s nothing new or extreme about the GOP’s positions. Andrew Sullivan is not comfortable with the fact that mainstream Americans, especially in the Midwest and South, support social conservative principles and don’t believe in gay marriage and abortion (e.g., Missouri, a swing state, shot down a referendum on gay marriage 70% to 30%; so 70% of Missouri voters are extremist and fundamentalists? According to Sullivan….) That’s fine. Let him whine and bitch. But his attacks on the party for having dissenting viewpoints–as if we’re only allowed to broadcast one message, one POV, and that is the caricatured platform that Sullivan would have us believe all Republicans must be brainwashed into supporting or else shipped off to another planet–is ridiculous and more off-kilter than even HRC’s attacks.
Conservative pro-lifers spoke today. Moderate pro-civil union Republicans spoke today. Gay marriage and abortion will both be strongly debated issues in the GOP because they are deeply personal issues about which people care very deeply. But unlike the Democrats, we allow that debate to take place within the party–over there, you toe the line and shut up. Remember the pro-life governor being nixed from speaking at the 1992 DNC? They haven’t gotten any more tolerant since.
What everybody in the GOP can agree on, however, are those principles so effectively expounded by Ahnold and others tonight and last night. We all want lower taxes, more responsible, less intrusive, and more responsive government; we all want a strong military with forthright American leadership in the world; we all want to foster business growth, whether that comes from small mom-and-pop stores or large corporations; we all want the individual to be the focus, not groups of people defined by their skin color, heritage, or sexuality. These are the things that unite us, and with which the Democrats often disagree. Rudy and Ahnold have every right to talk about those things, just as do Rick Santorum and Bill Frist.
What’s especially galling about Sullivan, though, is he actively cheered the DNC’s hypocrisy. He knew that 95% of the delegates at the DNC were anti-war, yet he was desperate to see Kerry and the Democrats pull off the charade that they was very little difference from Bush on national security and war on terrorism issues. What a contrast from last year, when that same Andrew Sullivan was rooting for Dean to win, so Americans could have a real, genuine contrast and debate about the war on terrorism and in Iraq.
September 1st, 2004 at 1:35:55 am
“I was right: the Republicans are much better at this convention thing than the Democrats are.”
No, we’re just better at being genuinely hopeful and optimistic than the Democrats are.
September 1st, 2004 at 1:47:03 am
The “biblical fundamentalism” that Sullivan snorts at is simply a genuine belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, a position that was almost standard for all Christians fifty years ago, but is now less and less so due to liberal scholarship attacking it relentlessly.
That’s the instance of genuine belief. I already explained why I felt that just because it used to be orthodox doesn’t automatically mean it’s not extreme. My last paragraph was then an attempt to explain why the fact that it’s a genuine belief doesn’t shield it either, and as part of that I included the character issue because of the common connotations associated with the word genuine. Following that, I defended attacking an idea. Note that I left the liberal part of it alone. ;)
September 1st, 2004 at 1:55:22 am
Mike, just wondering, but did I not say, “We can argue about whether these changes are good and bad, that’s fine.”? Perhaps do you think I meant that things such as prayer in schools, the inerrancy of the Bible, liberal scholarship, abortion, and gay marriage are fair material for debate? In no way did I defend these positions on the basis that they are right; I simply asserted they are not unorthodox and are not extreme/far from mainstream.
September 1st, 2004 at 2:28:51 am
Perhaps I did misread you, Andrew, but (to me, at least) your argument came across more as “these things were mainstream and orthodox as few as X years ago, and therefore are not extreme,” than “these things are mainstream and orthodox, I declare by fiat in response to Sullivan’s inference that they’re not, and they’re therefore not extreme.” I responded to them in that light.
September 1st, 2004 at 4:29:37 am
We all want less intrusive government
Really Andrew, and how exactly does the Patriot Act and NCLB support this argument?
The Patriot Act creates some of the most intrusive laws set in place in recent history, weakening or taking away a variety of civil liberties.
The NCLB takes local control of schools away from communities and allows the Federal Government to set standards that must be met nationwide without taking into account the unique situations of the various portions of the country.
Explain to me please how those demonstrate the GOP’s desire for LESS intrusive government?
We all want the individual to be the focus, not groups of people defined by their skin color, heritage, or sexuality.
Then why support greater use of racial profilling especially as a result of the Patriot Act?
Why create an ammendment solely to prevent an entire group of people from gaining a set of rights based only on their sexuality? If the focus is the individual and the GOP’s main argument against gay marriage seems to be that it harms traditional marriage, shouldn’t we instead focus on individuals who do harm to marriage, such as adultorers, divorcees, etc.
I’m not saying that the views you say can’t be what the GOP truly wants, or that the positions they have actually taken are what the GOP truly stands for, but it seems to be quite obvious that the two are at odds with each other. You can’t have both, so which is it?
September 1st, 2004 at 7:58:09 am
Ok, off topic on this subject, but on topic re: a discussion last week on this blog.
The double standard for Democratic 527 groups…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50985-2004Aug31.html
September 1st, 2004 at 8:09:41 am
Thanks, No name!
Here it is in link form. Excerpt:
• Kerry campaign lawyer Bob Bauer and Democratic National Committee counsel Joe Sandler also represent 527s …
• Harold Ickes, an executive committee member of the Democratic National Committee, heads the Media Fund.
• Bill Richardson simultaneously chaired the Democrats’ national convention and a 527. …
So, to the anonymous commenter who asked, “what do you make of the not one but two members of the Bush campaign directly linked to the SBVFT’s?” … which is it? Do you condemn these Kerry connections to 527s, or not?
If the answer is “not,” I have no problem with that — I don’t either, I think the whole thing is a non-issue — but I’m afraid you need to retract your criticism of Bush’s connections to 527s, which are very much of an equivalent sort to these.
September 1st, 2004 at 12:57:39 pm
Mike, sometimes when I’m tired, I use somewhat of a prosecutorial argumentation style: I throw everything out there and whatever sticks sticks. In general, I think “extremist” is the wrong term to describe something when the words “traditional” and “old-fashioned” are much more applicable. But even taking your logic and allowing that what formerly was orthodox can now be considered extremist, there is nothing about the GOP platform that is extremist. Take abortion, for example. Polls regularly show that about a third of the country believe abortion is always wrong, another third believe abortion should be totally legal, and the middle third generally are comfortable with early term abortions but not after the first trimester. How then is it extremist when a third of the country shares that view? By that logic, Republicans and Democrats themselves would be extremists because they each account for only about a third of the country by political affiliation.
Similarly with gay marriage. I keep hearing that Ahnold supports gay marriage. He doesn’t; he says he supports civil unions, but that marriage is between a man and a woman. But that’s a side issue. Look at John Kerry’s speech, where near the end, he said, “…and let’s never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States.” Every commentator quickly pointed out that he was taking a thinly veiled shot at the FMA. Well, let me ask you, why did he feel it necessary to avoid a direct mention and denounce the FMA? Why did he not say, “…and let us never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States, by passing an unnecessary amendment banning gay marriage”? Since we all know that’s what he meant, why didn’the say it? The answer is, because he would sealed his fate in states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and Missouri, the last of these states being one in which a referendum opposing gay marriage passed 70% to 30% this year. If supporting the FMA and banning gay marriage is extremist, that’s a whole lot of extremism going on, if you ask me. In fact, a near majority of Americans can thus be categorized as extremists, and certainly enough of those are people who are very seriously contemplating voting for John Kerry.
So there’s nothing extremist about the platform. Is it conservative? Absolutely. Does it reflect positions a lot of moderates in and outside of the GOP can’t stand? Definitely. Is it a barrier to many moderates from joining the party? I don’t doubt it. But if John Kerry can stand up in front of Americans and proclaim himself worthy to be a war president when 95% of the delegates who nominated him are anti-war, then it’s obvious that all these complaints about the GOP platform and the moderates being the face of the party during the convention are just cheapshot partisan attacks.
September 1st, 2004 at 1:24:37 pm
David, the Patriot Act is no saint, but the dire complaints about it are overblown, and it’s sufficient and necessary as a tool of law enforcement to help safeguard us from terrorism.
I’m no fan of NCLB, but while it wrongly federalizes a local issue, it also tries to interject Republican principles of management, accountability, and competition into the equation.
Regarding racial profiling, it is far more intrusive for the federal government to randomly search all comers instead of focusing on the ethnic groups where the actual threat is present.
The gay marriage issue is being fought within the DC. I agree with those Republicans who believe that this should be a state issue and for the legislatures to decide, but there’s also some legitimacy to the complaint that the courts might institute gay marriage by fiat, and in that scenario, the FMA is seen as the lesser of two evils. Myself, I’ve long been an advocate of focusing on divorce laws and bettering marriage and parenting over talking about gay marriage, since the former issues affect damn near everybody while gay marriage affects but a fraction of Americans.
September 1st, 2004 at 4:09:42 pm
Hahahahahahahaha