Home / Dem convention: Hypocrisy unleashed

Dem convention: Hypocrisy unleashed

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I really don’t know where to start.

I watched the convention last night and I can only come to one of two conclusions:

1. The powers that be are truly trying to revert the party back to our parent’s and grandparent’s Democratic ideals.

2. This is the biggest whitewash job I have ever seen.

I tend to lean towards believing the second option.

Unfortunately I didn’t take notes, but I was continually stunned by what I heard coming out of the mouths of the speakers as contrasted to what are known Liberal beliefs.

– Someone on the floor commenting on how Bush mislead the public in regards to the Iraq war. When asked why Kerry supported it, he stated that Kerry’s stance was based on faulty information from the CIA and other sources. (So Kerry was misinformed but Bush is a liar)

– A female speaker (I don’t remember who she was… not Albright) stating how the Dems are winning gov’t seats, gaining percentage-wise overall, and taking them away from the Republicans. (Umm, can you say “Gray Davis”? Hello?)

– Kerry calls for a “positive, optimistic” campaign in the months ahead… minutes after saying he would not be a president who would mislead us into going to war, and would not have a VP that would do anti-environmental deals with big business behind closed doors.

– Kerry quotes Lincoln in saying that we should pray that “God is not on our side, but that we are on God’s side”. (Extreme left-wing liberal, gay marriage supporters, and pro-abortionists are on God’s side? Which God would that be?)

– Kerry talked about keeping jobs here and higher pay, and making American companies more competitive. (Higher pay and benefits and you’re going to compete with foreign companies which offer neither producing products at lower prices?)

There was more, but I can’t really remember the details.

Vic

Powered by

About Vic

  • Good thoughts and I agree with you. The full text of the speech can be found here.

    Thanks for your post.

    David

  • [edited]

  • There always comes a point in the process where the challenger’s campaign team realizes they’ve had enough of going off to the extreme, and that it’s time to plunge back to the middle. That’s the challenger’s game- rally the base and then try to get the undecideds and moderates. Kerry’s no different. The point at which the Kerry team decided to seem more restrained was at this Convention.

    Those of us with firm allegiences on any side know the Kerry record, and will know that the convention represents a departure from the previous campaigning. If you don’t like Kerry, you will be inclined to find the shift disingenuous, at best.

    But Kerry’s speech was reaching out to those who do not have either firm allegiences or long memories, and for what’s it’s worth, that is the correct approach since those are the voters who will make the difference in November.

    Any incumbent gets to appear more consistent because he does not have to rally the base. The challenger does that for him.

  • Vic

    I agree with your thoughts, but given the recent history of both Kerry and the Democratic party, I think that the speech was just telling those who are undecided what they want to hear, while not going so far to the middle that he might alienate those in attendance.

    Did you notice the lukewarm response to Leiberman’s speech? He’s pretty conservative for a Democrat, and his statements reflected that without throwing the far left much of a bone.

    He’s pretty much the only Democrat I would even consider voting for.

    I also found it ironic that the Vietnam war was used to show Kerry as a hero, considering the history there.

    Vic

  • Shark

    No one gives a shit about Lieberman because he is the best Republican in the Democratic party.

    Well… that — and he looks and sounds like Elmer Fudd with constipation.

  • Shark

    “I’m chasing siwwy wiberals…”

  • Lieberman’s better than Zell Miller? who is speaking at the Republican convention. HA!

  • Zell Miller is a Dixiecrat. Yes, I know the term went out of the favor when most Dixiecrats became Republicans. (I think I heard Stom Thurmond’s coffin creak just now.) But, I guess Zell’s letter was lost in the mail a very long time.

    I notice the conversation is, well, ‘above’ the entry, except for Flanagan. Let’s not forget what is being said there:

    – Kerry quotes Lincoln in saying that we should pray that “God is not on our side, but that we are on God’s side”. (Extreme left-wing liberal, gay marriage supporters, and pro-abortionists are on God’s side? Which God would that be?)

    Far out, indeed.

  • Vic

    Mac,

    Thanks for at least adding something to the conversation.

    I debated adding that paragraph, but was just overwhelmed with the apparent moderation of Kerry’s speech… with the conspicuous lack of commentary on the topics I highlighted there, which are lynchpins of the Democratic party.

    Vic

  • First, let me say that I am not religious. But, the notion that the Republicans own God is pretty amazing to me. It seems to me that Democrats (or Hindus, Muslims, or animists, bicycle rides, vegans, whoever) have just as much right to ‘claim’ God as they do. I think the megalomania of the Right is tipped when it presents ‘God’ as if she shares Right Wing biases.

  • Typo in previous comment: Strom. Woudn’t want to get the hypocritical old goat’s name wrong, would we?

  • Lieberman’s better than Zell Miller? who is speaking at the Republican convention. HA!

    Yeah, he is, because he’s still in stealth mode and working from the inside :-)

    And then there’s the “Democratic” Leadership Council …

  • Vic

    think the megalomania of the Right is tipped when it presents ‘God’ as if she shares Right Wing biases.

    Actually, you’ve got it backwards: The Right share’s God’s “biases”. :-)

    Vic

  • I wrote:
    Lieberman’s better than Zell Miller? who is speaking at the Republican convention. HA!

    Hal wrote:
    Yeah, he is, because he’s still in stealth mode and working from the inside :-)

    I give.

  • I was at the convention, and attended events like the centrist Democratic Leadership Council presentation. I can tell you that the DLC types were very happy with Kerry, and that the Kucinich delegates still dislike him.

    I think that speaks well for Kerry, and I believe he is enough of a politician that he would govern from the center, as Clinton did, even if his heart is on the left.

  • Vic

    Well I guess that would be the question if Kerry were elected: Would he influence the Party or would it influence him…

    Vic

  • God is a BlogCritic.
    Proof: S/He is invisible here, as befits whoever does not report to post duty.

    Eric is my witness, I swear.

  • God is on the side of whoever is claiming Him/Her at the time. Doesn’t really matter. Because until you do meet your maker, it’s all rumor and opinion as to what He/She really thinks.

  • boomcrashbaby

    God is on the side of whoever is claiming Him/Her at the time.

    oh, really? So if a candidate claimed God at the time, and also ran on the platform of killing everybody who disagreed with him, then God would be on his side, just because he claimed him? I don’t think so.

    Americans who claim God plays preferential treatment in politics walk a dangerous road, unless they can come up with a disgruntled flaming bush or speaking golden calf to substantiate their claim.

  • Vic

    So if a candidate claimed God at the time, and also ran on the platform of killing everybody who disagreed with him, then God would be on his side, just because he claimed him?

    Sure sounds like the point of view of the Islamist extremists, doesn’t it?

    Americans who claim God plays preferential treatment in politics walk a dangerous road, unless they can come up with a disgruntled flaming bush or speaking golden calf to substantiate their claim.

    I agree. Actually, when Kerry quoted Lincoln, he said the right thing: We should hope that we are in God’s side.

    The only problem with that statement was the fact that it came from a representative of the Democratic party, which seems to have been taken over by far left liberals. Kerry may indeed have those beliefs, but most anyone else who is a mouthpiece for the party right now most certainly does not IMO.

    What’s ironic about that is that at its core I think that the basic principles of the Democratic party are very much in line with the principles of Christianity.

    Faith is demonstrated by actions, not by statements.

    Vic

  • boomcrashbaby

    The only problem with that statement was the fact that it came from a representative of the Democratic party, which seems to have been taken over by far left liberals.

    My perception of the Republican party is that it has been taken over by neocons.

    I wonder where that leaves middle America?

    What’s ironic about that is that at its core I think that the basic principles of the Democratic party are very much in line with the principles of Christianity.

    I’m unfamiliar with a lot of your posts here at BC, but from what I had read, I had assumed you were a right-winger. Therefore it is surprising to see you type this. Although I agree with you 100%.

  • Vic

    Yes, I am a conservative, but when I look at what the Dems represented in my parent’s day I see a party that was about helping those that needed a hand to get on their feet.

    Unfortunately today’s Dems have twisted that into wanting to give money to those who don’t *want* to get on their feet. Those who just want something for nothing and expect to be taken care of without expending the required effort to do it themselves, and want those who have worked hard for their wealth to hand it over.

    That and the promotion of if-it-feels-good-it’s-ok-no-matter-the-consequences philosophies.

    I’m not blind, I realize that many of those with massive wealth in the corporate world are not exactly philanthropists. The problem with the $200,000 threshold is that encompasses MANY small self-employed business people who are most certainly NOT equivalent to Enron executives. People who have worked extremely hard to build a small business and sacrificed to provide a bit more of a luxurious life for their families.

    BTW, just what the heck is a neo-con? I hear that term bandied about but have yet to hear a definition.

    Vic

  • Gene

    More like “Femocrats”. Did you know that John Kerry is a Vietnam Vet? Wow! He has a bunch of purple hearts. I heard that he likes Edwards “purple helmet” stuffed in his stink star.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Unfortunately today’s Dems have twisted that into wanting to give money to those who don’t *want* to get on their feet.

    I assume you are referring to people who cheat welfare and the like in this comment? I know of no Democrat or Democratic platform that advocates abusing the system. I also know of no Democrat who secretly wishes for it.

    But how is someone scamming 400 dollars a week off welfare, worse than a multi-million dollar tv evangelist getting millions more tax-free in faith based initiatives so he can help the downtrodden (and keep from having to spend his congregations own donations to do so? This way he can use his own congregations donations to finance the excavation of diamonds from his South African diamond mines? ala-Pat Robertson?
    I think Democrats are opposed to welfare abuse, but perhaps see a lot more things in this country that need fixing first because they harm this country more?

    the promotion of if-it-feels-good-it’s-ok-no-matter-the-consequences philosophies.

    I think I know where you are going with this, but should ask before I say anything. Can you give me an example of what platform/philosophy with negative consequences is being promoted simply because ‘it feels good’?

    A neo-con is the Right’s polar opposite version of the far left, that conservatives repeatedly talk about. There’s moderate conservatives, moderate liberals, and then there are the far ends of both spectrums…..

  • boomcrashbaby

    In regards to comment 23, why is it, that commenters who are to the farthest right of the political spectrum (i.e. neocons) are the ones who can very seldom make a comment about ANYTHING with having to drag anal sex into it?

  • A neo-con is the Right\’s polar opposite version of the far left, that
    conservatives repeatedly talk about. There\’s moderate conservatives,
    moderate liberals, and then there are the far ends of both
    spectrums…..

    I think you’ve got that wrong. The neo-cons may be the loudest and most visible part of the right now, but it’s the paleo-cons (like Buchanan) who are the far end of the spectrum.

    Neo-cons tend to be hawkish, anti-tax, in favor of limited govt, and more moderate on issues like race and abortion. However, as the neo-cons gained influence, everyone claims to be a neo-con and there’s no really helpful definition.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Neo-cons tend to be hawkish, anti-tax, in favor of limited govt, and more moderate on issues like race and abortion.

    I’ve never heard of a paleo-con, although I like the term.
    If the above definition is of a neo-con, then what is a conservative?

  • Krauthammer did a pretty good comparison of types of conservatives here.

  • Joe

    Boom-
    I do not think that word means what you think it means. Here’s some other info on neo-cons.

  • Another source to offset Krauthammer, who implies that the National Review represents “traditional conservatives” (it may have at one time), are some items I blogged:

    “WHAT THE HECK IS A ‘NEOCON’?” – Part I
    “WHAT THE HECK IS A ‘NEOCON’?” – Part II
    “WHAT THE HECK IS A ‘NEOCON’?”- Part III

    In addition to my opinions, I have links to various articles from the National Review, to items by and about neocons, and to various neocon sites like: The American Enterprise Institute; The Manhattan Institute; Empower America; The Weekly Standard; and Commentary.

  • Vic

    Boomcrash,

    I think polarization comes from the need to pick one thing as being “worse” than another. Neither execs ripping off people nor are welfare cheats ok.

    And to clarify, I wasn’t referring specifically to people who cheat welfare. I’m referring to folks who don’t want put in the effort to improve their situation yet want the benefits of those who do. I’m talking about people who work dead-end jobs, but are much happier complaining about said job instead of putting effort into getting out of that job and into something better. I’m referring to folks who don’t make a heck of a lot of money, but instead of setting some aside in order to take classes or purchase software or whatever which would elevate them from their situation, they spend $50/month on a cell phone, $60/month on cable, $100/month on eating out, and $300/month on a car lease so they can drive something new and cool. Then they complain that they can’t make ends meet and can’t save any money.

    As to the social issues, we probably won’t find common ground here, but I simply believe that the best environment for raising a child is a mother and father, with the mother home to care for the child, especially in the early years. You can bring up bad examples of parents, sure, but I’m talking about the majority, not the exception. A father brings one set of values, teachings and examples to raising a child while a mother brings others.

    People divorce much quicker now, instead of taking the effort to be more selfless towards their spouse. It’s all about “you’re not meeting *my* needs”.

    Vic

  • boomcrashbaby

    There wasn’t much more than a sentence or two about traditional conservatives, but they didn’t really sound different than the neo-cons. My impression of the article was that he was pushing the definition of the two, more towards the center. He was making neocons more mainstream than I perceive them to be.

    My perception of the two ideologies (liberal/conservative), is that we can break them down into as many subcategories as needed for research, studying, etc. but that at the end of the day, there are really only the two ideologies left. It’s an either/or.

    This is how I arrive at my conclusion: BOTH sides have their extremists and moderates.

    An extremist (paleocon) will create a blog, perhaps about the wishes of a dead woman being inspired by hate, or the proud proclaimation that bimbos support the President too, or create a blog about the DNC being nothing but ‘hate’, etc. and fill all these commentaries with extreme rhetoric, falsehood, misconceptions, and inflammatory nonsense. When I come across a post like that, I know that legitimate debate/discussion isn’t going to be par for the course, so I might sling back some rhetoric as well. I’ve seen numerous people respond this way as well.

    So then a (neocon?) (traditional conservative?) will step in and point out the rhetoric/generalizations of the liberal comments, while making no mention of the paleo-cons rhetoric (in some cases, ENTIRE blog and practically ALL comments). It’s speaking up that this ‘liberal rhetoric’ is false, but letting the ‘paleocon rhetoric’ go unchallenged that tells me that ultimately it’s an either/or situation. When a Republican gets in office, all the ideologies in the conservative spectrum goes with him. Liberals speak out against each other, (think of some of the responses, I or Mac Diva, gets from other liberals), conservatives sometimes but rarely speak against each other, and at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if they do or not, when it comes to time to vote, they are back on the same page. No Nader-type possibility could split them, no matter where they are on the spectrum.

    It’s the conservatives unity that makes them one in my eyes.

  • Vic

    Yeah, moderates seem to end up getting it from both sides. I just find it interesting that the older I get, the more conservative I get. Especially since becoming a father. When I was younger I was a liberal Democrat. :-)

    Vic

  • boomcrashbaby

    Vic, you are entitled to believe gay families are inferior.

    I disagree that gay families fall under the philosophy of ‘if-it-feels-good-it’s-ok-no-matter-the-consequences philosophies’ and I think I have a little inside info on the subject. I’m not sure what people think feels good? The discrimation? The hate crimes? Being outcast from society or your own family in many ways? Or perhaps being true to yourself, regardless of the consequences?

    While this ideology might not be across all conservatives, the fact that ultimately they are all one, as I pointed out previously, means putting a conservative in the whitehouse is to also put this ideology in the white house. I could never do that.

  • Vic

    The feel good thing was not directed exclusively at gay families, but at the general laissez-faire attitude towards the concept of personal responsibility, especially when it comes to children.

    As I said, we’ll have to agree to disagree on some things.

    I do appreciate your well thought out replies.

    Vic

  • What I see in Vic’s views is oversimplification [edited] People increasingly live in non-traditional familes because traditional families increasingly don’t work for them. We live longer and the spouse married at 21 may be a bad fit by 31 or 41. People try again rather than be stuck with someone thy are not compatible with for another 30, 40, 50 or 60 years. Makes sense most of the time. Many people, especially women, prefer not to marry at all rather than to put up with awful men as they did in the past. (What you don’t see in marriage stats from the past is the high proportion of domestice abuse.) Childbearing can now be planned instead of being the outcome of intercourse whether one wants it to be or not. People who ignore these changes simplify our history.

    There were never any good old days. For example: Ronald Reagan was divorced. Patti Davis was conceived before Ronald married Nancy (who was abandoned by her biological father, BTW). The couple was alienated from all four of the Reagan children much of the time. (Once the old man was no longer capable of being annoying, they came back.) Yet, the Reagans are the kind of people the over-simplifiers hold up as role models.

    Too often conservatives live in a made-up world that relies on fantasies such as the image they promote of the Reagans. Liberals at least acknowledge what real life is like.

  • boomcrashbaby

    Mac Diva, I agree about the ideological oversimplification. That’s why I usually just say ‘you are entitled to your views’ and leave it at that. Cuz I’m not gonna get someone to see it any differently.

    Vic, I do acknowledge that it’s good for a child to grow up with a mom and a dad. What I don’t understand, beyond clinging to biblical belief, is why people have this need to not acknowledge that other types of families exist or to exclude them from surviving/assistance. This need to dictate the preferred lifepath for society, reeks of a distrust of allowing people to figure it out on their own.

    Here’s a thought: imagine if magically, overnight, the entire concept of marriage vanished. (marriage, not monogamy). Suddenly it was completely erased by society. No memory of it whatsoever. Would all of you married people out there suddenly go out and have sex with everybody you could find, not caring who fathered your children, or who you got pregnant? Or would there still be this desire in you, to settle down with a mate and start a family?

    There’s no threat to what you are biologically geared towards. No Big Brother laws are needed to tell you what’s best for you. I think you’d be able to figure it out on your own.

  • boomcrashbaby

    oh, and RJ, once again, it was a conservative that switched the issue around, not me.

  • Vic

    Boom,

    I can’t answer your question without going down a religious path, and I don’t feel like doing that in this venue, which I take to be populated mainly by those who believe in atheism or religous pluralism. All I’ll say is that because our instincts would lead us down the path you described, Jesus sacrificed himself to save us from our sin nature. (Mac, don’t even bother replying to that one.)

    Mac, if you believe that conservatives live in a fantasy land, I put to you that liberals do as well. All I seem to hear is that money will come from some magical place to solve all of our problems. Well, I suppose the magical place is the pockets of those who have worked and risked to reach a certain level. If any group seems to think that Utopia is possible, it’s liberals.

    It is attainable, just not in this lifettime.

    Vic

  • boomcrashbaby

    Boom, I can’t answer your question

    It was a rhetorical question. I already know the answer.

  • And, who are the lazy people who don’t work and who you believe are stealing money from you, Vic? What social classes? Ethnic origins? Skin colors? I’m pretty certain who you have in mind, but Justene erased my comments above, while leaving your biased remarks intact. (She does what she can for her fellow Right Wingers.)

  • Vic

    Mac,

    Contrary to what you are implying, I am not a racist. There are plenty of white people who fit the description. Look at “The Jerry Springer Show” and other programs of that ilk and you’ll find plenty of examples of people from all races that would probably fall within the paramaters I described.

    One thing that I think that keeps people down is the victim mentality, which sadly is kept alive by the likes of Al Sharpton and other so-called black “leaders”. I think using race as an excuse for not excelling in life is just that: an excuse.

    There are plenty of examples of people who overcome adversity and go on to greatness, while others just wallow in self-pity or make a career of pointing the finger at others for their lack of success.

    My parents were lower middle class immigrants and they worked their butts off to provide for us. Hell, my dad stowed away on a ship to get here and build a life. They found what work they could, learned to speak English, scrimped, saved and ended up owning their home and had enough left over from frugal living to go on a decent vacation once a year.

    It’s not about race, it’s about values. Why is it that Asians come to this country and their children absolutely DOMINATE in school? They place importance on responsibility and sacrifice to family and the fact that education is the key to success in life.

    I personally went to a junior high that had kids from the rough part of town and was not what you would call halls of higher learning. But even in that environment there were those (myself included) who tried to do their best while others preferred to just beat up on others, hang in the school yard, an hurl epithets at the teachers. It was a difficult environment in which to learn *because* of those students, but some of us still managed to do so.

    THAT’S what I’m talking about.

    I am so sick of this B.S that it’s society’s fault that people are in this situation or that. If the adults who sire these kids would step up and act responsibly, putting raising their kids ahead of their own selfish desires, that would go a long way towards eliminating so many problems. And I don’t want to hear any garbage about “people don’t know any better”. My parents had little education yet they understood it’s value.

    God, I am so sick of this “race card” bullshit.

    Vic

  • Balderdash! You have a penchant for promoting stereotypes, but let’s consider reality:

    *Your parents immigrated to this country with a great advantage — white skin. While they were becoming successful, laws throughout an entire region prevented people of color from even using the same bathrooms your parents could. Heck, German POWs were treated better than American soldiers of color. To ignore the incredible differences in treatment is to lie about relatively recent history. Society has largely determined who is poor and who is not.

    *Some Asian immigrants do well in this country. Some don’t. The determining factors are often country of origin and social class. Middle-class Thais and Koreans who immigrate usually experience a heck of a lot more success than Filipinos or Cambodians because they arrive here with more education and assets. Regardlessly, Asian-Americans still pay the price for not being white in depressed wages comparative to whites and lesser chance of being hired or promoted in jobs. Not exactly proof of the absence of racism.

    As for the bug so many white Right Wingers have up their behinds in regard to Al Sharpton, I find it amusing. Rant on.

  • “God is not on our side, but that we are on God’s side”

    What is wrong with this statement? Absolutely nothing. All he is saying is that nobody really knows for certain what God expects of us, but that we should try to be decent human beings regardless.

    Supporting gay marriage or abortion does not make you evil or wrong, and not one of us can say truly whether or not God agrees with any of these things.

  • Vic

    …nobody really knows for certain what God expects of us…

    I beg to differ… actually we do know what God expects of us. It’s written down in a very old and well known book. :-)

    Vic

  • really?

    dang, i’ve always meant to read Ulysses!

  • Vic

    Ha. :-)

    Vic

  • Well, here vic and I disagree even though the religious right is supposed to be a monolith. How those general rules of good behavior and parables of excellent behavior should be applied in the instant situation of each person’s life is very very difficult to discern.

  • Eric Olsen

    yes, the ambiguities and outright contradictions leave room for interpretation

  • Vic

    I can understand your doubts… even among Christians, the vast majority haven’t taken the time to study the Bible. Notice I didn’t say “read”. Big difference there.

    The ambiguities come in when we try to balance what we want with what is right. Many times doing what is right puts us outside our comfort zone, and then let the rationalizations begin! :-)

    Hey, I’m not immune myself, nobody is perfect, but we can strive to do the best we can.

    The answers are there for those who bother to look.

    Vic

  • MD (#41), your comments were edited because they were a personal attack. No comments are ever edited because of their politial bias or for any other reason except to remove personal attacks. When you state your opinions without personally attacking people, your opinions stay, and when you don’t, they don’t.

    Despite your accusations of political bias, the evidence reveals that comments are edited from people on the right and the left, though most people learn pretty quickly to avoid personal attacks in order to keep their comments intact.

  • I took 7 words out of comment 36. I doubt it eviscerated the argument or gave the Right Wingers any advantage.

  • Ed Godard

    MD- In comment 43, you refer to the great advantage European immigrants had thanks to white skin.

    I’ll agree that it became easier after four generations, but gosh, easy wasn’t the experience of my Irish immigrant ancestors. It took four generations of marrying into other nationalities for them to stop getting their skulls cracked open in New York, and to do better than take jobs on the canal ditch-digging projects being paid in whiskey and coin. Don’t forget those ‘No Irish or Dogs’ signs.

  • I agree, Ed. There used to be degrees of whiteness. WASPs were preferred. The Irish and the Italians were placed at the bottom of hierarchy. Some evidence of the disregard they were held in is still around. It ain’t no accident police wagons are called ‘paddy wagons’ or that organized crime rings are mafia. However, that has largely dissipated as whites (not all, of course) banned together against non-whites. Indeed, many conservatives are now Irish-American and Italian-American. People have short memories of history.

  • Or maybe their memory of history does not lead them to the same conclusion.