Last night John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for President and delivered an inspiring and effective speech to conclude a successful convention.
Several weeks before the convention, Republicans were in disarray and not enthused about their chances of retaining the White House. Since that time, McCain performed remarkably well at Pastor Rick Warren’s forum at SaddlebackChurch. He picked Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential nominee and he gave a very good speech last night.
Now, Republican delegates leave St. PaulMinnesota united and genuinely excited about their ticket. The base is energized and donations are soaring for the Republican ticket.
Most of the GOP convention was spent on the “red meat” speeches ripping Obama and contrasting Democrats with Republicans.
McCain tried a different approach. He was quite subdued in his attacks on Obama. Instead, he made an appeal to Independent and Democratic voters, trying to lure them to his side.
McCain also rightly criticized the Republican Party for letting down the American people and allowing government spending to soar. McCain realizes that he can win the race only by running as a renegade Republican and running away from the unpopular George W. Bush.
In his speech, McCain poignantly told the story of his captivity and how it made him less selfish and appreciate his country more. It was an inspiring tale of a hero, an incredible contrast with Barack Obama who does not have such a life story.
The rhetoric was not particularly soaring and it was not a typical Republican acceptance speech. In McCain’s speech, there was little humor and very little confrontational language, but it emphasized words such as “fight” and “change.”
To win the presidency, John McCain needs to convince the American people that he can change WashingtonD.C. more effectively than Barack Obama. As an experienced U.S.. Senator, one who has fought for change all his life, McCain can make a very convincing argument.
The sales pitch began last night and will continue for the next two months. Right now, the race is practically tied and it is up for grabs. Whoever is the most effective at convincing the American people will win. At this point, it is a wide open race.
Jeff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m. weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. He is the political analyst for WGNO-TV ABC26. For more information, visit his web site at www.ringsidepolitics.com. E-mail him at jeff@ringsidepolitics.com
Check out the link below for government revenue by year. Allow me to summarize the government's total revenue in $billion / revenue from income taxes per year: 1979 463 billion dollars total revenue / 283 billion dollars from income taxes; 1980 517/308; 1981 599/347; 1982 617/347... so... it appears the "tax cuts" DID NOT (as I understand math) result in LESS tax money for the government or less income taxes collected... hmmmm... sounds like a "spending problem" caused the deficits to me. Keep in perspective (if possible) that Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neal always referred to Reagan's budget as "Dead on arrival" and that his "comproimise" with Reagan was that for every addition $2 in increased military spending there would be $3 in increased domestic social services spending. Only a closed minded partisan (or someone with a different understanding of addition and subtraction than I have) could lay the blame for this deficit solely on President Reagan.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/index.php Written by kpf
on 9/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Facts of the matters are; "Some people can surf, but most of the others don't even know how to tread water." Written by New Moon
on 9/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Sid, can we at least agree that Reagan was a conservative? The current administration is Reagan redux - cutting taxes while simultaneously increasing spending - it's no coincidence, then, that the highest deficits on record in this country were those accumulated by Reagan and Bush the Younger. So by your standards, we've never had a conservative president, at least not in the last 30 years. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
TW, you don't honestly believe that the Bush administration reflects the conservative track? Hell combined with Peolsi, Reid and the dimocratic leaning Congress they don't know how to stop spending money. My biggest problem with Bush is that he waited 7 years to start using the veto stamp. Apparently you call Justices that do not consider the Constitution a document that changes according to public & special interest opinions ultra right wing. If Obama is elected I wonder if you will call his picks ultra left wing nut jobs? What, you don't think Louisiana has any conservatives? Yes, TW I live in Louisiana and I vote for the person not the party. Although it appears that the dimocratic party has been taken over by special interest groups and it is no longer the party of the working man. Written by Sid
on 9/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"The Devil's in the details" - as in - how does one define "Conservative"? If Conservative means less government and individual freedom then this administration simply does not qualify as "Conservative". It's all in the definition. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are "Conservatives" but they would not have us in a war overseas or have spent anywhere near the money this administration has. Nor I do not think either gentleman would be torturing people. (don't think "torture" is a "Conservative" trait either, i.e. Stalin, Pol Pot, Fidel, etc.) Written by kpf
on 9/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Sid, the Republican Party IS on its conservative track! We have had eight years of ultra-right-wing politicians at the helm of the nation, pushing through their conservative agenda (with a mostly compliant Congress), nominating ultra-conservative Supreme Court Justices and giving conservative litmus tests to judicial appointments and other civil service jobs. Pretending now that the Bush Administration weren't "true" conservatives involves self-deceptive mental gymnastics the likes of which I've never seen before. And I've been meaning to ask you - you don't live in Louisiana? Seriously? TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/8/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I see Palin and Jindal as the next generation of Republicans that hopefully will take back the party and get it back on it's conservative track. Written by Sid
on 9/7/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Sarah Palin is quickly overshadowing John McCain on the campaign trail. This choice will come back to haunt McCain in the end. Sarah Palin has already eclipsed Bobby Jindal as the future star of the GOP. If McCain wins, Palin is now the heir apparent in four years. If McCain loses, Palin can emerge as the front runner in 2012. Jindal's national ambitions would only survive if Palin is blamed for McCain's defeat. Palin is a younger female version of Dick Cheney with the same right wing agenda. In the end, I see few Hillary Clinton supporters voting for Palin-McCain. Written by David Quidd
on 9/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Republicans are the party of individual freedom?? On which planet? How about the USA Patriot Act, eavesdropping on phone conversations, enemy combatants, use of torture (in violation of the Geneva conventions), undeclared perpetual war and so on on the national security front while also assaulting reproductive choice, mixing religion and government, pushing "scientific creationism" in schools and in general completely disrespecting the public's right to know what their government is doing, e.g. Cheney's energy policy committee? The only rights that they do care about are the Second Amendment and the right of their wealthy fat cat and corporate type backers to do whatever they please, i.e. the GOP Golden Rule "He who donates the gold gets to make the rules...." Written by Richard P.
on 9/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Puh-leeze, don't tell me that Republicans are the ones who want to keep the government's hands out of my pockets! When I was young and naive, I believed that, too. Then I saw Republicans put their hands even more quickly in my pockets than Democrats. In general, Republicans seem to believe - though Democrats now seem the same to me - that there's always an enemy somewhere, against whom we need to arm ourselves. With my taxes, we've armed ourselves much more than we need to. With over 700 bases and a military budget equal to that of all other countries combined, we still don't feel secure. So government now takes my money and gives it to the military-industrial complex, conveniently starting pre-emptive wars in order to make us feel the expenses are necessary. Puh-leeze, don't write about Republicans being the party of small government and fiscal responsibility anymore. Neither party is capable of making that claim. Written by Robert Desmarais Sullivan
on 9/6/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Sorry if I lectured, Tee Dub, but nothing I've read from you or Richard P. sounds any different to me. It's obvious that we all have different perspectives on what makes the country tick. It sounds like we all agree that there is too much waste in government, we all despise the vast amounts of money that goes into no-bid contracts and nobody likes the idea of wasting our money and our citizens' lives on battles in foreign countries. But I can assure you that historically, Republicans have no worse of a record than Democrats on these issues. In fact, I don't know many politicans of either ilk that don't scare me. I learned something after years of violently disagreeing with a couple who are among our best friends - our families vacation together every year, etc. - about why we can both see and hear the same information and yet come to such polar opposite conclusions (us conservative, them liberal.) What it really came down to was trust. They don't disagree so much that many liberal programs have produced wildly expensive (in money and human quality of life) failure - they simply don't TRUST Republicans. They don't trust a party that believes in getting the government's hands out of their pockets. Not because people don't deserve to keep their money, but because it is always assumed that they got their money by screwing somebody (or everybody.) There are many like that, I'm sure, but that doesn't ENTITLE me to take money from EVERY rich person! [If there weren't so many little people sharing in the ill-gotten gains of the few, we'd probably be able to put more of them behind bars. How many "friends" did Edwin Edwards enrich or Marc Morial enrich at our expense?] Personally, I don't trust ANY politician because it takes too much money to win elections. McCain wasn't my first choice, not sure if Palin will be as good as I think she is right now, but I just don't agree that the things that Obama wants to do will do anything but lead us further in the direction of socialism. If I wanted that, I'd move. Too bad we can't make such decisions at the state level. The west coast (and others) could be as wacked out socialist as they want and I'd live where there was more individual freedom and we wouldn't have to argue so much. There was a reason the founders insisted on state's rights for some things.... Sorry, that sounded like lecturing. I know you guys know what you know - I'm just venting. I guess that's all we're doing since I don't sense anyone convincing anyone else to change their minds at all. Written by Show me...
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
McCain has been in Washington for how long? Something like 26 years? And his party has been the one in power for most of that time, right? So now he's running to change things? Yep, one confused politician. Written by Richard P.
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Did any of you guys actually watch the convention and listen to the speeches? McCain is not a good speech "giver" but he does appear to be sincere especially when he spoke of his capture and what made him love his country, instill a sense of duty and service. He and Palin are taking the Obama "change" theme and giving it substance. Palin has more executive experience than any of the other three and with McCain they are going to change Washington, by working for the people. At least thay have a theme if you will unlike Obama who is running against Bush. Written by Sid
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Is it just me or has it occurred to anyone else that even after last night, McCain STILL doesn't know what he wants to do as president, or even why he's running for president. Apparently, it has something to do with McCain's sense that he's earned it, he's entitled to it, and it's his turn, gosh darn it. A little too reminiscent of Bob Dole in 96. Didn't work for him either. Vote for John McCain, not because he's right, but because he's John McCain.
Written by Stem
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Not exactly a homerun for mccain last night, there were people in the audience actually asleep! Unbelievable. That had to be the worst acceptance speech since Jimmy Carter in 1980. NO substance, NO new policy proposals, and not even any real attacks on Obama. Fox News didn't even think it went well. Meanwhile, the investigation into Sarah Palin's alleged abuse-of-power is now on a fast-track, and will be completed three weeks earlier than scheduled. It turns out, she's been sent back to Alaska while McCain hits the trail alone. That can't be good!! Written by Ralphie
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
We have made more enemies by fighting in Iraq than if we had never gone there in the first place. We cannot win a "war on terrorism" by fighting a conventional war. It is you who is naïve for believing that we will all suffer if we tax the rich at a higher rate. I, for one, am willing to take that chance. What are they going to do? Move to China? Yes, of course there is inefficiency in government, and I'd like to cut that out as much as you do, but I'd rather have an inefficient government that focuses on the needs of the people at home, than an inefficient government that goes around killing innocent people in my name using my tax dollars, all the while enriching their well-connected rich cronies with no-bid contracts. The bottom line is that we would be MORE SECURE had we never spent one red cent on the war in Iraq, and we would have more money to deal with issues at home, like flood protection. I notice you argue that we were less secure under Clinton, conveniently forgetting who was in charge on 9/11, who was vacationing at Crawford (again) when the daily briefing outlining Bin Laden's desire to hijack planes in the US was ignored. So don't lecture me; I know what I'm talking about. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
"Giving Tax cuts for the rich" - what a joke. "Tax cuts" means "taking less money" FROM THOSE WHO PAY TAXES. Kind of like a discount at the local supermarket. For example: a 20% cut means those who buy $100 worth of groceries "get back" $20; those who buy $1 worth get 20 cents back; those who don't shop there (OR PAY TAXES) get nothing back. This is not class warfare - but if you tried to give these shoppers' change to those who you "feel" need it more than those whose pockets it came from - that is class warfare. "Tax cuts for the rich" is simply the Democratic Party's doublespeak for "those who pay taxes don't vote for us anyway... so screw 'em." There is nothing noble about it, nor is it "concern for the poor" - it's all about power (votes). I thought about what would happen if N.O. flooded again. Those who actually pay for insurance and rebuild their homes might get discouraged. However those on the public dole - who neither pay nor toil for the roof over their heads - would no doubt feel entitled to have their residences rebuilt - no matter how many times it would be destroyed. As far as the "Electoral Landslide" goes - as the great Yogi said - "it ain't over till it's over." Written by kpf
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The old trickle-down theory has been discredited long ago, yet it remains the singular right wing policy prescription for everything while all that it has ever accomplished has been to leave the country with massive federal deficits. The free market is a fine institution and, like trickle-down economics, works well in theory yet is hardly without flaws in practice. Anyone is welcome to check it out but as far as job creation and economic performance, especially for those outside of the wealthiest circles, the record clearly shows that Democratic administrations completely beats GOP ones and the economy is the number one issue this time around whether or not one wants to believe that such concerns are just an invention of the media. If this is not an issue and there isn't a strong desire for change from the Bush administration then why isn't McCain out there simply promising voters lots more of the same of what they've been getting these last 8 years? Let's see him do that, OK, and then see what happens in the general election. Go right ahead, now. Make my day. Written by Richard P.
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Richard P., I didn't mean to pick on your comments, but it seemed like some things needed to be clarified. Tee Dub, I do mean to pick on yours because you clearly share the warped sense of reality that I hear from many liberals. You say "We need a government to provide us with security and services", but then you want to withhold funding from our national defense and ignore the incessant flow of federal dollars that go to ineffective services that the government should even be in and pork barrel projects. You say that we spend money on the military "on unnecessary wars started to protect the moneyed interests of American economic elites." Do you even understand what it takes to provide security? Go back and study the eight years of Bill Clinton's dealings with "security" and see if you want to go back to those kinds of regular terrorist attacks. Who's being juvenile here? Nobody denies that we should have taxes. We just don't want to give our money to the government to do things they have no business doing. Like most liberals, you still don't get that tax cuts do not only go to the wealthiest Americans. The "wealth" of these Americans and the many businesses that provide the economy that feeds all of us is allowed to go farther in creating more wealth for EVERYBODY. It is a fact so you should look into it lest you remain ginorant of this forever. Written by Show me....
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Strange that the main stream Obama leaning press did not pick up on this during the primaries. Not that I doubt you but it doesn't match what I've heard and read. Regardless, the man was a soldier doing his job. Because he was a pilot doesn't make him a war criminal. He has a resume and a record inlike the community organizer. Written by Sid
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
People should understand that a politican is one thing, but his/her campaign for office has a life of it's own. If voters were more informed about subjects like economics and the media didn't have such a lazy, pack mentality, it might be different. But since history proves that 1) voters can be influenced by a steady repetition of lies and 2) negative campaigning is highly effective, as much as we all supposedly dislike it, don't look for anything to change.
The comment that "McCain is trying to walk a tightrope between appealing to the right wing base and acting like a reform agent" is slightly misworded. The truth is he has to "act" like his right wing base since he has always been a "reform-minded" politician. The McCain-Feingold Act (campaign finance reform) is loathed by constitutional conservatives who understand the attack on liberty that it represents. Liberals should be praising McCain for that. Further, to say that this year is unique in that "voters are definitely thinking change with the Bush the son regime's incompetence and economic discomfort pushing them in that direction" is not exactly straightforward. Voters who are all about change for change's sake are pummeled everyday with that message until it becomes a Pavlovian mantra that they don't even understand. I don't blame poor Americans for questioning the expense of the Iraq war when so much is needed at home, but those with a braoder view of the world, like the national media, should know better that we're in a war with Islamic Extremism whether we commit forces or not. I'd rather take the fight to them than to see America become like third world countries where political violence is part of every trip to the grocery. It is also easy to criticize Bush's "incompetence" if that's all you ever hear on TV. He's made some terrible decisions in office, but no more than Clinton or his father did. Clinton had the benefit of a reform-minded republican congress. Bush has had a democratic congress that came to be when the republican congress acted more like tax-and-spend democrats (not that Bush acted much different - he just helped a richer lot.) That is as much the source of our economic worries as Bush himself.
Informed voters are never just looking for "change", but for specific change. Obama's ideas of change are ignorant and naive at best (yes, let's tax the hell out of the super-rich as if that won't trickle down in several ways to all of us in lost jobs, higher prices, slow-growth economy, etc.) and dangerously stupid at worst when dealing with global leaders who make Hannibal Lector look moral. If Osama Bin Laden lived down the street from me, I wouldn't be so naive to think that if we had BBQ's together on the weekend, that he'll stop trying to eliminate America-the-Infidel from the face of the earth.
McCain doesn't have to be "anti-Bush." True, he has singularly supported Bush on the War on Terror, but his other main support of Bush's policies regarding immigration reform were in lockstep with the democrats and loudly criticized by the "right wing" media like Rush and Hannity.
And yes, McCain is not as "captivating" a speaker as Obama - if he was, Obama wouldn't even be in the race. To say that "No one believes that a McCain regime would be better for the national economy than an Obama regime" is patently absurd, if not arrogant. Even though McCain isn't a conservative's dream, his understanding of the benefits to ALL of lower taxes and lower government spending compared to Obama's "Mister Rogers' Neighborhood" sense of economics and world affairs are light years apart.
To say that "topping it all off with his choice of running mate completely undermining any contention that his judgment and temperament are superior to Obama's" is just laughable. First, his pick has galvanized a heretofore apathetic Reublican Party because she is such a genuine character to add to the ticket. Second, it points out the supreme error in judgment shown by Obama by picking "Mr. 3%" Biden instead of "18,000,000 votes" Hillary. Even Democratic strategists are talking about the possibility of Biden having "some reason come up that forces him to leave the ticket" so Hillary can be added. The irony of it is that 39% of people think Palin is better prepared to step into the top job than Obama. (49% think Obama is better prepared.) But then, she isn't running for the top job, he is.
I can't disagree with the conclusion that Obama can win if he can be made to look presidential enough to people suffering from a slow economy, especially if those people don't know any more about economics or world affairs than Obama does, which is a cinch they don't. To say that the GOP has to hope that "voters can be made to fear Obama" infers that there isn't really anything to fear, but that people can be scared with lies or bigotry. I think Obama is a very good person who believes what he says. But his ignorance of what really makes the country work, FOR ALL OF US, and the downright militancy of his wife, DOES SCARE me. I hate to say it, but the "Bradley Effect" that shows that some people will say they will vote for a black but then vote against them in the privacy of the voting booth will probably have some effect. I hope that isn't the reason he loses, because I would have no problem with a black man (or woman) in the White House if they were more conservative. Written by Show me...
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
If you’re a 'Glory Boy' like John McCain, you really have no idea what war is. You drop bombs on cities, on civilians, maybe on your own troops. Pilot bombers like John McCain rarely get a taste of the horror they inflict on others. Their suffering rarely extends beyond the anxiety that they might get shot down and that some bombarded mob on the ground might take its revenge. In the fall of 1967, Navy pilot John McCain was routinely bombing Hanoi from an aircraft carrier in the South China Sea. On October 26, he was trying to level a power plant in a populated area when a surface-to-air missile knocked a wing off his jet. Banged-up John McCain and what was left of his plane splashed into Truc Bach Lake. A compassionate Vietnamese civilian left his air raid shelter and swam out to McCain. McCain’s arm and leg were fractured and he was tangled up in his parachute underwater. He was drowning. The Vietnamese man saved McCain, and yet McCain has nothing but hatred for “the gooks” who allegedly tortured him. As he told reporters on his campaign bus (The Straight Talk Express) in 2000, “I will hate them as long as I live.” The Vietnamese had good reason to hate McCain. On his previous 22 missions, he had dropped God knows how many bombs killing God knows how many innocent civilians. “I am a war criminal,” he confessed on “60 Minutes” in 1997. “I bombed innocent women and children.” If he is sincere when he says that, why isn’t he being tried for war crimes by the U.S .Government? The man who rescued McCain tried to ward off an angry mob, which stomped on McCain for a while until the local cops turned him over to the military. McCain was in pain, but suffering no mortal wounds. He was, however, in enough pain to break down and start cooperating with the Vietnamese after three days in a hospital receiving treatment from qualified doctors – something no other POW ever enjoyed. War is one thing, cooperating with the enemy is another; it is a legitimate campaign issue that strikes at the heart of McCain’s character…or fictitious legend thereof. If you want more information, look up 'Vietnam vets with McCain'. Written by Robert Desmarais Sullivan
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I hope everyone is doing okay out there - I'm especially worried about the people of Terrebonne-Lafourche (including Mr. Smith) - not a lot of news out of there yet. Events like Gustav make all this arguing over politics seem kind of trite, but here it goes again quand même. Jeff, the problem is not just Bush. The problem is failed Republican anti-government policies. We need a government to provide us with security and services, and in order to have a functioning one, we have to have taxes. No one likes them, but we need them. The overly juvenile attitude of the GOP is to constantly cut taxes of the wealthiest Americans, no matter what the economy is doing, good times or bad. Then they spend money like drunken sailors on the military industrial complex and on unnecessary wars started to protect the moneyed interests of American economic elites. Is McSame going to change this? Hell no! McCain sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" which shows (to me at least) that he is not fit to be President of the United States, and will continue to follow the dangerous hawkish GOP policies of Chimpy McFlightsuit. I also have some bad news for you, Jeff, something of which I am sure you are aware - McCain may be close to Obama in the popular vote, but it's looking to be close to an electoral landslide for Obama. I may not be a Yankee or a West Coaster, but come election year, I am sure glad that they vote. TW Written by Tee Dub
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
McCain is trying to walk a tightrope between appealing to the right wing base and acting like a reform agent in a year in which the voters are definitely thinking change with the Bush the son regime's incompetence and economic discomfort pushing them in that direction. How can McCain effectively campaign as "anti-Bush" -- in point of fact he's supported the Bush regime's policies on the major issues very consistently -- and still hold the right wing base in line? He is not a captivating speaker, moreover. No one believes that a McCain regime would be better for the national economy than an Obama regime and then although foreign policy is supposed to be McCain's strength he's even made some gaffes in that area while topping it all off with his choice of running mate completely undermining any contention that his judgment and temperament are superior to Obama's (OK, Obama lacks actual experience himself but he did pick a running mate that everyone knows could step in and run country instead of a "who???"). All the GOP can really hope for is that voters can be made to fear Obama. If Obama looks and feels presidential enough to voters in the usual swing states, where, one dares to say, they're not exactly enjoying flush economic times then it's all over. Written by Richard P.
on 9/5/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Last night John McCain accepted the Republican nomination for President and delivered an inspiring and effective speech to conclude a successful convention. 
