2008 Republican Convention–More

Several fine individuals addressed the 2008 Republican Convention in Minneapolis.

Former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge gave a serious address.

“Some actually questioned his resolve. They were waiting for that white flag of surrender. He looked at me and said, ‘Tom, you and I both know I have been through worse.'”

“He spread some papers across the table and said, ‘Let me tell you how I think we can.'”

“That’s John McCain.”

“Where some people see defeat, John McCain pursues victory.”

“John knows you run to win, but you win to govern. So who but John McCain but John McCain understands that America’s security and prosperity are tied to the security and prosperity of the rest of the world. He has already earned the trust and admiration of the rest of the world.”

“We need a leader who fits the times, not merely a candidate who feels its his time to lead.”

“It’s not who can take a 3am call. It is about who has answered the call throughout his entire life.”

“It’s not about building a record. It’s about having one.”

“It’s not about talking pretty. It’s about talking straight.”

“The challenge of our times is not simply to change. It is to leave nothing to chance.”

“He does not think in red versus blue. He only thinks in red, white, and blue. That’s John McCain.”

“He always puts his country first. A Reagan conservative, an optimist, a go to guy. That’s John McCain.”

“I’m so very proud to say that’s my friend. That’s John McCain.”

South Carolina Lindsay Graham had a lot to say. His state knows more than a thing or two about the military.

“This speech is for the troops. By every measure, the surge has worked.”

“15 out of the 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi government.”

“This week, Anbar province, once an Al Queda stronghold, has been returned to the Iraqis.”

“I promise you, above allothers, Al Queda knows the surge has worked. The only people who deny it are Barack Obama and his buddies at Moveon.org.”

“Why won’t they admit i? Because Barack Obama’s campaign is built around losing in Iraq.”

“The soldiers gave Senator McCain something he knows a lot about…straight talk.”

“Some said that calling for more troops was political suicide. You know what? It was the right thing to do.”

“We came within 2 votes of a Congressionally mandated surrender. One democrat broke ranks. Thank God for Joe Lieberman.”

“It was John McCain that stopped the democrats from losing this war.”

“Those who voted to cut off funding will be footnotes in history. We are on the road to victory, we are winning, and America is safer.”

“Barack Obama preaches his support of the troops, but will not acknowledge their success. The troops have worked too hard for a patronizing pat on the back.”

“If Barack Obama cannot appreciate that we are winning in Iraq, he should not be Commander in Chief. I am not saying he doesn’t care. I am saying he doesn’t get it.”

“We should all be grateful that Barack Obama was unable to defeat the surge. The surge was a test for Obama. He failed miserably.”

Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee then served up some of his bonhomie as only he can.

“John McCain will follow the fanatics to their cave.”

“Some of you enjoyed Barack Obama’s Excellent Adventure to people overseas who don’t vote.”

“It’s not what he took. It’s what he brought back…European values.”

“It was Abraham Lincoln who said that ‘A government that can do everything for us is a government that can take everything away from us.'”

“My family was not rich. My dad worked hard.”

“The only soap we had in my house was lava. It did not make for a good shower.”

“I’m not a republican because I’m rich. I’m a republican because I don’t want to end up poor waiting for the government to rescue me.”

“Sarah Palin had more experience as Mayor of Wasilla than Joe Biden had running for President.”

“John McCain is not marked by what he wants to receive, but by what he has already given.”

“John McCain is one of the people who fought for freedom so I could have a school desk.”

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney offered some red meat for the crowd.

“For decades, the Washington sun has been rising in the East because that is where the elites are. It should rise in the West, from Arizona.”

“Barack Obama is a liberal. Only a liberal could favor giving Gitmo detainees more rights than that of U.S. citizens.”

“Only a liberal could favor the teachers unions over the students.”

“Only a liberal could favor doing nothing on energy over investing in nuclear power.”

“I spent 25 years in the private sector. Liberals don’t have a clue. They think economic growth comes from government.”

“America can’t lead the family of nations if we can’t grow.”

“Dependency is death to initiative. We must government dependency like the poison that it is.”

“The part of big ideas is better than the party of big brother.”

“China is acting like Adam Smith on steroids. This is no time for timid liberal empty gestures. We need to take a weed whacker to government regulations that cripple businesses.”

“We need to stop the Tyrannosaurus Rex of unions.”

“We can save energy. Let’s keep Al Gore’s private jet on the ground.”

“Republicans believes that there is good and evil. Radical violent Islam is evil, and John McCain will defeat it.”

“The democrats didn’t talk about evil last week. Straight talk is better than politically correct talk.”

“We will never allow America to retreat in the face of evil extremism.”

“Just like you, there was never a day that I wasn’t proud to be an American.”

Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman did his part to calm the crowd. After all, noise control is important, and it is difficult to sleep at a convention when people are yelling and screaming with excitement.

“We are all members of our larger family.”

“As for George Washington, we are living the worst nightmare in the city that bears his name.”

“God only made one John McCain, and he is his own man.”

“If John McCain is just another partisan republican, then I am Michael Moore’s favorite democrat.”

“As for Barack Obama, eloquence is no substitute for a record.”

“Obama voted to cut off funding for the troops on the battlefield.”

“John McCain authorized the surge. Thousands of our trops are coming home with honor.”

“John McCain is a man that our allies will trust and our enemies will fear.”

“These are no ordinary times, and John McCain is no ordinary candidate.”

Tom Ridge, Lindsay Graham, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Joe Lieberman are all good men. They are men of integrity with success in their various endeavors.

So why are none of them on the ticket?

Because none of them should be.

Tom Ridge is the most plausible of the 5 men. Every 4 years he is mentioned as a possible candidate. He is a Catholic, a powerful coveted voting bloc. He is a respected former governor that would instantly make Pennsylvania a likely win. His stint heading the Department of Homeland Security gives him credibility on Foreign Policy.

Unfortunately, he is pro-choice on abortion. This by itself would be less of a liability if he was more charismatic. If Rudy Giuliani cannot make it on the ticket, than the republican party is not ready for Tom Ridge.

Lindsay Graham should be beloved in the party because of his stint as one of the impeachment managers a decade ago. He delivered the best line of the entire process when he spoke of President Clinton. “The White House is a bully pulpit, but it should never be occupied by a bully.”

The downside is that South Carolina is a solid republican state. There is no strategic advantage. A bigger downside is that Graham is also a Senator. Tickets need executives, not legislators. Yet the biggest problem with Graham is that he is also a maverick. From supporting McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform to participating in the Gang of 14 on judges, Graham has enraged the base. He also enrages the base on illegal immigration. His nickname is Lindsay Grahamnesty.

Mike Huckabee has a good sense of humor, and is self deprecating in the same manner that Ronald Reagan was, an important trait.

Having said that, he is a disaster for everybody except the social conservatives. As a tax raiser, the Wall Street Journal Conservatives would be in a state of open revolt. Additionally, his hard line stances on social issues make him qualified to lead rural Iowa and nothing else. The democrats would paint him as a knuckle dragging neanderthal, leading to a democratic landslide.

Mitt Romney is a successful business executive who rescued the Olympics. Then again, rescuing the Olympics can be positive or negative depending on how one views those colossally boring games. Mitt Romney would make an excellent attack dog, a quality for a Vice Presidential candidate.

His downsides are numerous. For one, the democrats would paint him as a flip flipper because some of his positions changed when he decided to run for President. Evangelicals may or may not be willing to vote for a Mormon. Yes, this is bigotry, but bigotry exists. Yet the biggest problem with Romney is that his own success would be used against him. During tough economic times, a multimillionaire preaching personal responsibility and tough love would be a disaster. Democrats are masters of class warfare, and Romney would be easy to attack.

As for Joe Lieberman, he should be chosen if the republican party is out of its (redacted) mind. He is a lifelong democrat, who even as an independent, still caucuses with the democrats. He is dead right about the War on Terror and dead wrong about most everything else. To be on the republican ticket, one has to be a republican. Also, Lieberman is mind numbingly boring. He does put Florida in play, but puts people to sleep most everywhere else.

With John McCain as President and Sarah Palin as Vice President, there are roles for the rest of these fine men.

Mitt Romney would be a great fit as Treasury Secretary.

Mike Huckabee could be Secretary of Education, or head up the President’s faith based initiatives program.

Joe Lieberman could be Secretary of Defense, or Secretary of State if he wants to help Simon Wiesenthal clean out anti-semitism from its most hateful locations. Unless McCain secretly hates Lieberman, the Defense job would be a good reward.

Tom Ridge could be the head of the National Security Council.

Lindsay Graham could be the head of Veterans Affairs.

We shall see.

eric

15 Responses to “2008 Republican Convention–More”

  1. Both parties are infamous for their goofy, shlocky, broad rhetoric and assertions. But since this post is about the GOP, let’s take a look at some of those silly statements…

    “Where some people see defeat, John McCain pursues victory.”

    Okaaayyy… What is “victory?” We deposed Saddam, we helped establish a federal republic, the ethnic cleansing/rearrangemet is about done… what more do you guys need to do over there so that you can declare “victory”? I don’t get it.

    “15 out of the 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi government.”

    We hear this one a lot. Does anyone know what the “benchmarks” are?

    I do.

    First of all, the benchmarks are not toggles – there’re not just done/not done. They are measured in various ways by the GAO, a few Iraqi councils, the Bush administration, and the pentagon. Each has their own way of assessing. The GAO uses a “met/partially met/unmet” system, while the administration uses a “satisfactory/unsatisfactory” system, as examples. Here’s an administration report from May: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4000162/Final-Benchmarks-Report-9-May-2008

    As you can see, the “benchmarks” show a mixed bag. And not all of the “benchmarks” appaer to be in the best interest of the Iraqi people – like the oil law benchmark. So to say “15 out of the 18 political benchmarks have been met by the Iraqi government” is a broad over-simplification of a complex situation, and is just a simply inaccurtate. What the admintstration calls “satisfactory” is often something that has yet to be “met” by any reasonable standard.

    “This week, Anbar province, once an Al Queda stronghold, has been returned to the Iraqis.”

    All 25,000 American troops in Anbar are schedules to remain in place. The 10,000 troop drawdown has been cancelled. The PIC in Anbar is run by Islamist politicans, assuaging the very people who would still be attacking us had we not implimented this process. While this should be considered a step forward, it is by no means some great momentous occasion.

    “I promise you, above allothers, Al Queda knows the surge has worked. The only people who deny it are Barack Obama and his buddies at Moveon.org.”

    Al Qaeda was driven out BEFORE the surge by the Awakening. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the surge. Also, the Iraqis, tired of our occupation and being dragged into our fight with Al Qaeda simply quieted down. The surge had nothing to do with that. And fnially, the “surege” was not much of a surge, barely bring the troop numbers to where they were in the early days of the invasioon. So anyone who says simply “the surge is working” is either lying, misrepreseting the situation on the ground, or simply doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

    It just goes on and on like this, and the GOP voters just lap this shlock up. Fortunately, only about 36% of the population is still hooked on this particular brand of Kool Aid.

    JMJ

  2. CaroleM says:

    Aw, g…. why so hard on Joe? He didn’t put me to sleep. Oh. Wait. I read his speech, I didn’t hear it. Oh well, carry on! ;->

  3. CaroleM says:

    Wow, J. You’re so smart. You should be president.

    NOT!

  4. Micky 2 says:

    Jersey.
    All the folks in Anbar did was squeel on the bad guys.
    It took force to remove them.
    Please, you make it sound as if they chased every last insurgent out of town with pitch forks and shovels.

    I’n not explain much more to than the fact that violence is down 80%.

    Also, here we go with the double standards on the left.

    #1) The Iraqis have not stepped up to the plate.
    #2) It was the Iraqis who cleaned up Anbar, not the US.

    Although Bambi could not just come out and say the surge worked and did say said that the Iraqis have not stepped up to the plate, I will agree with him that the Iraqis are not doing their part.
    Which can only then leave the credit to our troops.

    JMJ;
    “Worked at what?”

    Enough with the childish questions designed only to envoke ridiculous conversations to explain the obvious.
    In all of 5 1/2 years you’ve not one good thing to say about anything connected to Bush and as soon as any progress is made in Iraq you are too quick to give the credit to anyone but Bush and our troops.

    Grow up.

  5. Micky, the problem with your logic is that you’re confusing who and what were the problems in Anber to start with. Remember, the vast majority of the post-invasion violence in Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with “terrorists” or Al Qaeda. It was cause by the vacuum of controlling authority in the provinces. What brough the violence down was not the surge, but rather the after-effects of mass ethnic cleansing and realignment. Sunnis left Shia towns, Shia left Sunni towns, Arabs left Kurd towns, Kurd left Arab towns, etc. Remember, nearly an entire FIFTH of the population has been physically displaced and almost half of that number are no longer in the country at all and have no current hope for return. And THAT is why violence is down. The surge is and was always irrelevent. A pile of steaming political cr@p-aganda.

    JMJ

  6. Micky 2 says:

    Say what you want Jersey.
    We are not talking about 2002-3-4or 5 are we ?
    We are talking about the recent surge. Do not confuse the time frames.
    And to boot have the nerve to tell me I am confused.
    Its only plain to the most elementary of intellects that you are so full of BDS that you will distort even the simplest and plainest of facts connected to any effort involving Bush.
    Which discounts you from rational debate right away.

    I have had this debate with you before and have no desire to refresh the memory of a stubborn child with the statistics and facts I have shown you of Iraqis who are returning to their homes, what missions in what towns and provinces our troops have succeeded in and on and on.
    I dont care to engage with someone who will not deal with rational facts that are a matter of common knowledge simply because he is so partisan and full of hatred he cant see straight.

    What your last statement is saying in essence is that our 4000 + troops all died for nothing and that the results of the surge are simply collateral effect of ethnic cleansing.

    In your blind hatred for our president you have managed to insult the vision and goals of our men in uniform.
    I would love to see what would happen to you if you got in some Marines face and tried to pass that pile of crap off on him. I would pay good money

  7. http://www.brookings.edu/saban/~/media/Files/Centers/Saban/Iraq%20Index/index20080731.pdf

    You neocons really should at least take the time to educate yourselves about the war statistics so at the very least you have some idea what you’re talking about on rare occasion. You’re pols incessantly lie to you and you have no clue they’re doing it. They play you guys like cheap, plastic recorders.

    As you can see from the above link, violence began to drop precipitously long before the full deployment of the 28,000 “surge” troops in June of 2007. The main pupose of the surge was to secure Baghdad by entrenching troops and setting up what is bascially a maze of tall walls throughout the city to restrict and control movement and transportation and separate hostile neighborhoods. This can hardly be thought of as some great victory. The minute those walls come down and those troops withdraw, all that pent up hostility will erupt anew – and maybe even worse. The “surge” is really a seige. Seiges can’t go on forever. That’s a well-known military fact of life.

    And no, those well-over 4000 troops did not die “for nothing,” they died for obscene oil and bidless government contractor profits.

    JMJ

  8. Oh, and by the way, my old boss (from just two years ago) was a marine, had arms like steel girders, knew exactly how I felt about the war, and almost completely agreed with me. The two navy officers I worked with knew exactly how I felt, and though they disagreed, they were mature about it. So, if you’re saying that marinines all agree with you, you’re wrong, and if you’re saying that marines are like rabid animals that can not act like adults, well then that shows what you really think of our troops.

    JMJ

  9. Micky 2 says:

    “if you’re saying that marines are like rabid animals that can not act like adults, well then that shows what you really think of our troops.”

    Yea right, thats what I said. “If” ?

    You pulled that right out of your arse just to try and turn around something you said that was really dumb.

    Be nice if once you included all the facts;
    “The main pupose of the surge was to secure Baghdad by entrenching troops and setting up what is bascially a maze of tall walls throughout the city to restrict and control movement and transportation and separate hostile neighborhoods.”

    The surge began with a major operation to secure Baghdad which was codenamed Operation Imposing Law, which started in February 2007. But only in mid-June 2007, with the full deployment 28,000 additional U.S. troops, could major counter-insurgency efforts get fully under way.
    Then,
    Operation Phantom Thunder was launched throughout Iraq on June 16, with a number of subordinate operations targeting insurgents in Diyala province, Anbar province and the southern Baghdad Belts.

    Also,
    The additional surge troops also participated in Operation Phantom Strike and Operation Phantom Phoenix, named after the III “Phantom” Corps which was the major U.S. unit in Iraq throughout 2007.

    So you see Jersey, once again you are caught being disengenuous by intentionally omitting information.
    Your claim in your first post that the clearing iof Anbar was due solely to the people themselves. Also whats disengenuous was your claim that we did not chase Al Queda out as they were not there during the initial engagements.

    “Al Qaeda was driven out BEFORE the surge by the Awakening. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the surge. Also, the Iraqis, tired of our occupation and being dragged into our fight with Al Qaeda simply quieted down. The surge had nothing to do with that.”

    So I guess our marines didnt know who they were shooting at in Anbar ?

    I have read documant after document of accounts supporting Iraqis who volunteered info as to safe house locations and weapons caches belonging to Al Queda.
    I guess they were all hired actors as some sort of conspiracy based propoganda ?

    http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

    Blogger and independent reporter Michael Yon, who has been embedded with the troops in Iraq for years, had suggested the surge strategy before it was formalized. In his book, Moment of Truth in Iraq, Yon argued that Petraeus had turned defeat into victory in Iraq and that the surge had succeeded. Historian Larry Schweikart argued in his book America’s Victories: Why the U.S. Wins Wars, that the surge’s success, in part, came from the incredible casualties the U.S. military inflicted on al-Qaeda in Iraq and on the “insurgents” from 2003 to 2006—some 40,000 killed, about 200,000 wounded, 20,000 captured, and nearly 10,000 deserted. Those levels of attrition on an enemy the estimated size of al-Qaeda were substantial and deeply damaging, not only to the terrorists’ efforts in Iraq, but had the effect of depleting them worldwide. Moreover, Schweikart argued, virtually all estimates of enemy casualties were severely undercounted (as are all numbers of guerilla casualties) given the inability to know identify bodies which were completely annihilated by explosives or to count carcasses dragged away, as well as how many would die later after attempted medical treatment by other Al Queda sympathizers. By virtually every indicator, not only did the surge work, but it had broad implications that the American Congress, especially the Democrats, were not even considering.

    Really funny how after we send in all these troops things quiet down. Hmmm. conspiracy ?
    Coincidence ?
    I doubt it.
    And yea, I talk to soldiers who sometimes just dont get it.
    But most of them do not feel the way your friend does.

  10. parrothead says:

    I get so sick of people who talk about bidless contracts who obviously know NOTHING about government contracts. Obviously Jersey you have never been in involved with government contracting. Anybody who has ever been involved in letting a government contract knows that the process is so convoluted, bureaucratic, and takes so long that you find any legal way you can to avoid the competition process. It is not some political conspiracy it is simply the work of a career civil servant trying to accomplish something before the money expires or the situation is catastrophic. The fact is both parties like to imply corruption by high ranking administration officials but they have nothing to do with the situation.

  11. ” Obviously Jersey you have never been in involved with government contracting.”

    It’s funny how what is “obvious” to a Neocon is rarely actually true. I HAVE had experience with government contracts. And what you said may be true some of the time, but I found that dealing with the government can be a little difficult, because of the QA standards, but really is no different than dealing with any other large instituion, public or private. They’re all the basically the same.

    But no serious person can deny that most of the original contracts, and most that are still in place, were bidless and handed out to friends of the Bush administration and GOPers on the Hill. You’d have t be a liar or completely ignorant of the situation to say otherwise.

    JMJ

  12. parrothead says:

    Having bid on a govenrment contract tells you nothing about the internal process for letting a contract. The time and cost it takes internally plus all the protests makes it very unwieldy. There are very few ocntractors who can handle the efforts you are talking about and most of them are “friends of both parties and were also friends of the Clinton administration.” Defense contractors cozy up to both sides and more improtantly they develop good service relationships wiht the civil servants who manage the contracts. Anybody who knows ANYTHING about how htis process works knows that. there were similar accusations about Loral and the Clintons and they were just as inaccurate. Just like in any major DoD effort the Program manager attempts to spread the wealth to contractirs in as many congressinal districts as possible since that will garner more support on the hill. As supporting a local district is more important to congressman than anything. Contracting is driven by CIVIL SERVANTS who have learned ot manipulate the system. That is reality. All comments like yours are form the truly uninformed.

  13. parrothead says:

    For example the Navy is doing a recompete of an existing $100M range support contract the expires the end of September. They have been working on it for a year and the Request for Proposal has not hit the street yet. They have already put in place a 6 month bridge contract which hopefully will give them the time to get this done. SO that’s 18 months to recompete an existing contract. For something brand new it takes a lot longer. That is why no-bid contracts come into play for things that are urgent.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.