Republican Convention Wrap-Up

[Steve R.]

I was quite disappointed. The quick summary, Romney - in his acceptance speech - came across as a blame Bush Republican (or should I say ersatz Democrat). Fundamentally, the Republicans assert that they want the government out of the economy and out of our personal lives. Yet Romney, as President, is claiming that he will create jobs and manage the economy. Seems contradictory to the Republican philosophical stance.

Romney proposes to somehow tackle the Nation's deficit spending and National debt without raising taxes. Yet he wants to have a "BIG" military and apparently wants to use it.

Romney evoked the concept of "liberty"yet there were no proposals at the convention to eliminate repressive legislation such as the Patriot Act, to eliminate the creep towards a police state, and/or to restore copyright/patent law to their original intent.

Romney evoked the concept of "free-trade". Well free-trade means free-trade yet Romney seems to want to start a trade war with China. (As an aside, it is somewhat hypocritical for US politicians to speak of fostering economic growth by subsidizing US companies but then claim that other countries, such as China, are cheating when they subsidize their companies.)

 

[Vassago]

I agree. He didn't really go into detail what most of his plans really meant. Furthermore, I find it more difficult to support a party that will bend and break their own rules, change their rules to silence their own candidates and delegates. If they are willing to do that to their own, what are they willing to do to the rest of us? I would have had more respect if he had insisted Ron Paul had the chance to speak that he had earned.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Obviously I am biased because I am a Democrat, but the best way to change the Republicans is to hand them defeat. John Huntsman was recently on the Colbert Report - he actually seemed like a moderate Republican, and the RNC did not even want him present.

Fiscal conservatism makes logical sense - it all comes down to determining what is important, and then base tax rates & spending on that.

Social conservatism, on the other hand, should not be linked to a political party. IMO, if you won't vote for a guy because he is a different religion than you, that is just as bad as not voting for a guy because his skin color is different than yours.

If the Republicans would embrace fiscal conservatism and drop social conservatism, I think they would stand a much better chance in the elections.

 

[Steve R.]

John Huntsman was recently on the Colbert Report - he actually seemed like a moderate Republican, and the RNC did not even want him present.

During the Republican debates, I remember being reasonable impressed concerning his foreign policy remarks.

Romney, is a bit difficult to gauge since he is not fully disclosing his real intentions because it is campaign season. But he seems to want to visibly flaunt American military and trade power. Reignite the cold war???????

PS: I am not a Republican. And philosophically I cannot be a (an 18th century) Libertarian due some "big" government beliefs concerning the environment, consumer protection, etc. Maybe I could start the Post Modern Libertarian Party.

 

[Adam Caramon]

The DNC seemed much more positive than the RNC. A lot of good speeches, with Bill Clinton taking the cake. The crowd was much more diverse than the RNC.

I think Deval Patrick's speech was also quite good, and significant as he was the governor of Massachusetts right after Mitt Romney.

 

[Vassago]

I did notice there was a lot more positivity at the DNC. I think a lot of it was focused on the fact there weren't rule changes and cheating involved to exclude a candidate. The Republicans definitely seem much more divided right now than the Democrats. Just two years ago, I wouldn't have thought that would be possible.

 

[Adam Caramon]

The Republicans definitely seem much more divided right now than the Democrats.

Agreed. The Republicans are in the midst of an ideological battle.

However, at the DNC, I was a bit shocked when they voted to amend their platform to include a reference to god and Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. There were far more than a 3rd of the delegates voting AGAINST adding it back in. The moderator took the voice vote 3 times. He seemed incredibly shocked as well. The 3rd vote was no different than the first two, but the moderator simply declared the motion passed.

While I felt that was a bit like "cheating", it was nice to see so many individuals against it. It tells me that we're advancing as a country.