Buckeye RINO

The Democrat National Convention wrapped up with a speech by Barack Obama that was more contentious than anticipated.  While many pundits predicted that surrogates and VP nominee Joe Biden would act as the attack dogs and deliver the red meat, the speeches of said surrogates mostly fell flat.  Much of the mood of unity in the audience during the early going appeared to be bolstered by the musical performances of famous singers.  Barack Obama assumed the role of attack dog, not reaching the lofty heights of his famous keynote speech of four years ago.  Overall, I think the climax of the convention occurred on the 3rd night, with the speech of Bill Clinton.

I won’t elaborate a whole lot.

The convention love fest finally began with the conclusion of the delegate roll call vote, with Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York playing the pivotal role.

The theme of the evening was supposed to be national security, but the early speakers seemed to be stuck on last night’s theme until U.S. Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland delivered his speech.  Having said that, Cummings’ speech was lackluster.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton delivered the home run speech.  Really.  His speech included everything Obama could have hoped for, and the delegates, universally, ate it up.  Naturally, I disagree with some of Clinton’s assertions, but the speech, as a device to unify the convention, structure the dialog for the upcoming general election campaign, and bolster morale, Bill Clinton brought the goods, and the resulting elation brought down the house.  For those who deny Bill Clinton has a knack for politics, they just need to see and hear the speech, and they’ll develop an appreciation for just how expert he is.

I’ve never been a fan of the Clintons.  I’m still not.  Even as Bill Clinton was talking about Barack Obama rebuilding our military, a voice in the back of my head was saying “And isn’t Bill Clinton partly responsible for why our military needs to be rebuilt?”

Nevertheless, as I said, Bill Clinton hit it out of the park.  For those who were wondering how Barack Obama could possibly get a double-digit bounce in the polls from his convention, Bill Clinton might have single-handedly garnered that bounce.  Polls in the next few days will reveal how effective Clinton was, but I suspect it was very effective.

The remainder of the speeches of the evening paled by comparison.  That crescendo of emotion that was experienced during the Clinton speech never reached those heights for the remainder of the evening, not even when VP nominee Joe Biden spoke.

There were some tender moments, though, when some former military personnel spoke, and a video montage paid tribute to our veterans.  The thought that passed through my mind is that I hope Code Pink of Berkeley, California, is watching, and that I hope Code Pink will rethink Marine Corps recruitment.  Our nation would not be the greatest nation on earth without our men and women in uniform.

“Tell me with whom you walk, and I’ll tell you who you are.” –U. S. Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-California)

Does that sound like the introduction to a swiftboat commercial tying Obama to Ayers and Rezko? I think Congressman Becerra chose the wrong motto in urging the Democrats to believe in Barack Obama.

The early speeches during the 2nd night of the Democrat National Committee (which I watched mostly on C-Span) lacked the warm fuzzies of the first night. Nearly all the speeches were passionless. Many were delivered with deadpan facial expressions in loud monotones. It’s easy to see why Obama is the nominee based on his ability to give speeches. The rest of the party appears to be nearly devoid of talent in that regard.

The “Bush-McCain” litany against the Republican nominee was the broken record of the evening.

Exceptions to the dreariness noted above plus a few random observations are noted below:

• Barack Obama predicted that the Republicans would run a campaign based on fear. Today’s Democrat convention speakers consistently invoked fear of faltering economy as a reason to reject McCain and choose Obama. There was little optimism other than the video montage intro to New York Senator Hillary Clinton.
• For all the VP buzz she was generating, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius was singularly uninspiring in her speech.
• Dennis the Menace should have been given a primetime speech. Rep. Kucinich was an exception to the rule. While others delivered droning, wooden speeches, Kucinich was a passionate, animated cheerleader that really stirred the crowd (even though I disagreed with a significant portion of what he said. It was wasted though, as the very next speaker didn’t carry through with the momentum Kucinich created. The spirit of the crowd quickly dissipated as the convention descended back into numbing boredom.
• Both Kucinich and Governor Ted Strickland began their speeches with a mention of the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones. Clinton also remembered Stephanie Tubbs Jones during her speech.
• The on-air personalities at MSNBC have already lost that euphoric feeling that airing the Olympics provided. The anchors, reporters, and contributors at MSNBC, for the 2nd straight day, were contentious with each other and resentful toward other networks. Joe Scarborough asserted himself a bit more this morning, breaking through the group-think barrier, but his co-workers were becoming disgruntled with him (though not as disgruntled as they were with Pat Buchanan). I can’t imagine the chemistry within the NBC family being this toxic during the days when Tim Russert was still alive. I think his absence has caused the staff to be less cohesive.
• U.S. Senator Bob Casey of Pennsylvania pointed out that he is the token pro-life speaker tonight, but that’s all he said on the topic. Perhaps he should have elaborated more, as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden have gotten an earful from the Catholic Church over their pro-life stances over the past two days.
• Gov. Ted Strickland needs to compare notes with Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. Schweitzer made Montana sound like utopia, with bipartisanship, economic growth, energy sector growth, improved education, tax cuts, and budget surpluses. Montana is one of the 8 states in the USA that I’ve never visited, so I have no firsthand knowledge of the situation on the ground in Montana. (If you’re wondering, the other states I’ve never visited are Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico.)
• Schweitzer and Kucinich were the cheerleaders of the day.
• Strickland, Kucinich, and Governor David Paterson of New York delivered the most “red meat” that elicited any sizable audience response. Otherwise, the litany of grievances offered by other speakers against “Bush-McCain” yielded anemic responses.
• Schweitzer should have been the keynote speaker, not Mark Warner of Virginia. In four more years, if the Democrats nominate a new candidate based on his/her speaking ability as happened this time, the nominee might be Schweitzer.
• Clinton was the focus of the night, kept the audience involved, included the expected message content, but didn’t hit a home run. The video montage was more inspiring than the speech.
• Clinton’s zinger of the night was saying it was appropriate for Bush and McCain to hold a convention in the Twin Cities next week because it’s hard to tell those two Republicans apart. Clever, if false.
• Clinton’s plea for the election of Obama was rooted in partisanship.

I watched the televised speeches of Barack Obama and Joe Biden from the steps of the Old Capitol in Springfield, Illinois, and I’m ready to offer a few remarks about how I viewed the spectacle.

I think this was a “preaching-to-the-choir” moment.  If this is the message that will be echoed again and again until the elections in November, I think it will fail to capture the imaginations and the fervor of those in the middle of the political spectrum.  The opening is still there for McCain to step up to claim the middle with his message.

To be truthful, of all the candidates that had announced for the GOP nomination for president in this election cycle, John McCain was not in my top five.  Furthermore, in four elections (primary and general elections of 2000 and 2004) during which George W. Bush’s name appeared on the ballot, I held my nose and cast a ballot for Bush only once, which was the general election of 2004.  In November 2004, even though there were many minor party candidates on the ballot, Bush was still the least of the evils.  The bottom line is:  I have not been a McCain fan nor have I been a Bush fan.

Though I have been a fan of neither McCain nor Bush, I have never gotten the two confused.  The two are not alike.

The overall message of today’s speeches by Obama and Biden are that McCain and Bush are identical, or at least nearly so.  The attempt to link McCain to Bush has been a trademark of Obama rhetoric from the beginning, and frankly, I don’t think that narrative works.  The polls show Obama and McCain are neck-and-neck while Bush’s approval ratings are low and a generic Democrat ticket is looked upon favorably versus a generic Republican ticket.  I think that’s ample evidence that the electorate does not equate McCain with Bush.

For Obama to stick with the “McCain equals Bush” narrative suggests that either he’s preaching to his own choir and that this rhetoric will fire up his base to drive high turnout or it suggests that he thinks middle-of-the-road voters are really, really stupid and gullible to accept this disingenuous (that’s putting it in the most generous of terms to call it merely disingenuous) narrative (or both).

I think, however, that the disingenuous tenor of the Obama campaign could be its undoing.  Obama says that McCain equals Bush.  Not true.  Obama said he would take public financing.  He didn’t.  Obama said that America wanted a new kind of politics that focused on issues and policies rather than distractions.   Instead, he turned down McCain’s proposal for joint townhall appearances to discuss issues and policies in favor of distractions from substantive matters by embarking on a European photo-op tour.  Obama promised greater transparency and clarity.  Yet, he gave very opaque and/or ambiguous responses at Saddleback Church (and has used the political art of distraction this past week in order to cut short the discussion of his utterances on issues and policies at said forum).  Obama said Hillary Clinton was not only on his short list, but would be on anybody’s short list.  His search committee didn’t even bother with including Clinton in the vetting process.  Obama said all week that his VP announcement would come at any minute, and that the first to know would be those that signed up to receive text messages.  Those who held their breath for the text message that would appear “any moment now” became blue in the face and passed out, and they weren’t the first to know, after all.  Obama says he’s a new kind of politician.  He is not.

Those independent-minded voters who approach the elections with an open mind will not be impressed by a “McCain = Bush” message that’s intended for listeners of the follow-the-herd-mentality.  As events move forward toward election day, it appears that the falsehoods from the Obama camp will only accumulate.  Obama appears to be banking on America’s gullibility.  I’m not that gullible.

Any moment now, text messages may crisscross America as Obama reveals his vice presidential pick.

Who would I like to see in the Obama VP slot?

Delaware Senator Joe Biden.

Why?

Because Barack Obama could possibly win the election, and, if that were the case, I don’t want the nation to splat on the ground in the international community like a skydiver without a parachute.  It’s all about Obama’s deficiencies on the foreign policy front, which is Biden’s strongest point.  Biden would be Obama’s skydiving parachute.

Democrat pundits are almost getting giddy with speculation that McCain may choose a running mate who has “pro-choice” views on abortion, specifically referencing Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman.  They’ve been daring, even goading, McCain to do it with teases such as “John McCain needs to show he can reach across political lines,” or “John McCain, the political maverick of 2000, wouldn’t even vote for John McCain, the strictly partisan hack of 2008.”

We’ll know the truth of the matter by the 29th of August.

But what would happen if McCain really did pick a Joe Lieberman or a Tom Ridge?  Would McCain win the middle of the political spectrum?  Maybe . . . maybe not.  He would definitely lose his hold on the base, though.  Would his base flock to Obama in that case?  No.  Would his base stay home?  A few would.  So, would letting go of his base to capture the middle help McCain win the election?  Nope.   Why?  Because those in the disaffected Republican base would probably vote for a minor party candidate.  Obama could be like Bill Clinton, who won the presidency with a minority of the vote, because minor candidates may siphon a significant number of votes away from the Republican.

How do I know that minor party candidates would enter the equation for picking the president if McCain picks Ridge or Lieberman?  Because I, myself, have cast votes for minor party candidates when my conscience wouldn’t allow me to pick a Republican in a race in which the Democrat choice was also unsatisfactory.  Been there, done that.  Let me also say that Ridge and Lieberman are liberal on more issues than just abortion.  So, let me just warn McCain not to play with fire, and pick a VP that the base can support.

My preference for the Republican VP would be: Mitt Romney.