Post by Galvin on Aug 31, 2004 21:04:08 GMT -7
I was listening to Ahnold (Der Boobengrabber) give his speech at the Republican National Convention this evening and I have to say that, even though I don't agree with some of what he said, all in all it was a hell of a speech. He was definitely the Barak Obama of this convention. I like Ahnold even though I don't agree with everything he says. I have a feeling about him that is similar to a feeling about a lot of politicians I used to have quite a bit in the past but one which seems to have vanished lately.
His rags to riches immigrant story was undeniably appealing and I couldn't help thinking back upon other conventions as I listened to him. These were other conventions that produced candidates I voted for, more were Repubican candidates than Democrat in fact, and I wondered what happened to the Republican vision and agenda over the years that I wasn't able to get behind Ahnold's current choice of president, aside from the fact I believe GWB isn't up to the job he has taken on and has been spending most of hs efforts into putting the best face on a hideous "catastrophic victory" in Iraq and an economy that is increasingly hemorraging.
In fact, most of the people I have heard speak at the convention in the last two days were very reasoned and reasonable and brought back the old feelings of reassurance that I used to experience when listening to various candidates offered by the Republican party in the past. "So what has changed?", I asked myself.
I also asked myself what was there that seemed to be missing in this convention. I had the feeling that somethng had changed and it took me a while to put my finger on it. I think it is the enforced absence of some of the more "in your face" rants from people like Buchanan or Gingrich that I remember from conventions past. The warm fuzzies about the Republicans blew away for me and many others back in the early nineties with the advent of the takeover of the party by the "New Conservatives", now referred to popularly as the "Neocons".
Prior to their rise I had no trouble listening to, debating, or agreeing with a lot the party had to offer but the new and more strident style of rhetoric, the "my way or the highway" and "no compromise" attitudes of those who basically took control of the party in the early nineties were a major turnoff.
It may be just my imagination, but I seem to detect a conscious attempt by the present RNC to get away from allowing the more strident neocons to speak, this in an attempt to present an image more palatable to the more moderate of the undecided voters. The most ideological and loudest of the previous and many of the present crop frankly scare the hell out of a lot of people and I think the RNC is finally figuring that out and is attempting to minimize their impact by keeping them quiet.
So, given this kinder and gentler image I see being portrayed, why did I not find myself more drawn to the party I often used to support? I think it is because even though the message is being presented more reasonably in many ways, as a rational human being I know that the more strident neocon ideologues are still there, though they may be silent for the moment, and they are still largely calling the shots and I find that continues to be scary as hell.
I watched the Democratic National Convention a few weeks ago and heard the usual group of people ranging from the reasonable to the ridiculous that spoke there. Even the most radical and strident were allowed their say even though their ideas and following are nowhere near to being the norm some on the right would have us believe.
So I sat there tonight asking myself why I couldn't go back to being able to support the present Republican candidates and administration as easily as I might have been able to in the past.
Simple. I have seen the party change over the last ten or so years and it is obvious to me that control of the party- both the parties in fact- has been taken over by the more radical elements of each. I am really sick and tired of people whose idea of a discussion is shouting down the opposition. The old days WERE better.
His rags to riches immigrant story was undeniably appealing and I couldn't help thinking back upon other conventions as I listened to him. These were other conventions that produced candidates I voted for, more were Repubican candidates than Democrat in fact, and I wondered what happened to the Republican vision and agenda over the years that I wasn't able to get behind Ahnold's current choice of president, aside from the fact I believe GWB isn't up to the job he has taken on and has been spending most of hs efforts into putting the best face on a hideous "catastrophic victory" in Iraq and an economy that is increasingly hemorraging.
In fact, most of the people I have heard speak at the convention in the last two days were very reasoned and reasonable and brought back the old feelings of reassurance that I used to experience when listening to various candidates offered by the Republican party in the past. "So what has changed?", I asked myself.
I also asked myself what was there that seemed to be missing in this convention. I had the feeling that somethng had changed and it took me a while to put my finger on it. I think it is the enforced absence of some of the more "in your face" rants from people like Buchanan or Gingrich that I remember from conventions past. The warm fuzzies about the Republicans blew away for me and many others back in the early nineties with the advent of the takeover of the party by the "New Conservatives", now referred to popularly as the "Neocons".
Prior to their rise I had no trouble listening to, debating, or agreeing with a lot the party had to offer but the new and more strident style of rhetoric, the "my way or the highway" and "no compromise" attitudes of those who basically took control of the party in the early nineties were a major turnoff.
It may be just my imagination, but I seem to detect a conscious attempt by the present RNC to get away from allowing the more strident neocons to speak, this in an attempt to present an image more palatable to the more moderate of the undecided voters. The most ideological and loudest of the previous and many of the present crop frankly scare the hell out of a lot of people and I think the RNC is finally figuring that out and is attempting to minimize their impact by keeping them quiet.
So, given this kinder and gentler image I see being portrayed, why did I not find myself more drawn to the party I often used to support? I think it is because even though the message is being presented more reasonably in many ways, as a rational human being I know that the more strident neocon ideologues are still there, though they may be silent for the moment, and they are still largely calling the shots and I find that continues to be scary as hell.
I watched the Democratic National Convention a few weeks ago and heard the usual group of people ranging from the reasonable to the ridiculous that spoke there. Even the most radical and strident were allowed their say even though their ideas and following are nowhere near to being the norm some on the right would have us believe.
So I sat there tonight asking myself why I couldn't go back to being able to support the present Republican candidates and administration as easily as I might have been able to in the past.
Simple. I have seen the party change over the last ten or so years and it is obvious to me that control of the party- both the parties in fact- has been taken over by the more radical elements of each. I am really sick and tired of people whose idea of a discussion is shouting down the opposition. The old days WERE better.