Previewing the Republicans' Convention

[jerseyhoya34]

The Republicans lead off their convention with Jerry Falwell, who will deliver the invocation. (americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_07_25_americablog_archive.html#109094409422245330)

I must admit that this is an interesting selection for a party that claims not to politicize September 11 and one that seeks to fight tecordists abroad, however they may be defined by the party leadership.

Apparently at odds with this position is Rev. Falwell, who, in the hours after the attacks on September 11, blamed Americans themselves for aiding those who attacked America. He said, "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen."

Falwell paints a picture of blaming America for the attacks and using the tragedy of September 11 to openly quash the secular agenda of some liberal constituencies.

Perhaps even more sickening is that Falwell went on to say, "What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve." Not only did he say that Americans probably deserved to be attacked, which is sickening on its face, but he said that the God that he worships allowed it to happen. This is the God that Bush and the RNC have invited to speak at their convention. I only hope that they do not worship Falwell's God too.

[thebin]

I have no use for a jerk like Falwell- but is this an important speech or merely an invocation? (I don't have a clue.) Afterall, evidently Al Sharpton is getting a pretty prominent speech at some point in the DNC. Sharpton is every bit the bigoted jerkoff Falwell is- he is a digusting race-baiter who ruined an innocent man's life with lies and would not recant after it became clear they were lies. He is a disgusting, divisive pig of a man. Both men unfortunately represent signifigant bands of loyal soldiers of each party- both to our collective detriment, and conventions are about throwing red meat to the choir if you will pardon the mixed metaphor.

[PushyGuyFanClub]

Agree. Give each the token cookie, then push them away. Falwell/Sharpton get their self-aggrandizing moment and actual people don't have to worry about them unleashing their mindless legions.

[jerseyhoya34]

thebin said:

I have no use for a jerk like Falwell- but is this an important speech or merely an invocation? (I don't have a clue.) Afterall, evidently Al Sharpton is getting a pretty prominent speech at some point in the DNC. Sharpton is every bit the bigoted jerkoff Falwell is- he is a digusting race-baiter who ruined an innocent man's life with lies and would not recant after it became clear they were lies. He is a disgusting, divisive pig of a man. Both men unfortunately represent signifigant bands of loyal soldiers of each party- both to our collective detriment, and conventions are about throwing red meat to the choir if you will pardon the mixed metaphor.

I agree re: Sharpton. He is trying to follow in the footsteps of others whose shoes are too large for Sharpton to fill.

Just for the record, Sharpton was not given that much time as I'm sure you know. He hijacked the convention for his own purposes and agenda. I would have much rather seen John Lewis speak or someone else who has more credibility on the subjects that Sharpton addressed.

[jerseyhoya34]

The networks have decided what they are going to cover during the RNC. This coming from DailyKos:

"The networks have a choice of which three nights to broadcast from the RNC. With the Dems, the networks went with Monday, Wednesday and Thursday. Monday had the Clintons, while Tuesday had Obama. For the networks, the choice was easy.
For the RNC, Monday is "national security" night, and features primetime addresses by McCain and Giuliani. Tuesday features Schwarzenegger.

And since it's the networks we're talking about, the Governator won.

No coverage on Monday. The networks will broadcast Tuesday through Thursday."

I see this as an unfortunate by-product of current media coverage. I was upset about the DNC coverage and this is somewhat upsetting because the parties are now forced to mass-produce the convention at the expense of a meaningful dialogue and policy content.

For the Republicans, this is a definite blow because they wanted to feature McCain, who is popular across party lines, and Giuliani, who showed extraordinary leadership on and after 9/11. The result is that the Republicans don't have their national security night on major network television while the networks covered John Kerry's national security night, which included a 9/11 tribute and speeches from former Presidents et al.

Instead, the networks are covering Arnold whose role isn't as significant for the Republicans because his state is not in play and his election is still viewed in a way that is less than serious even still.

Anyway, we may have bipartisan agreement here... I have been disappointed and underwhelmed by the network coverage of conventions and it continues with the RNC.

[hoyarooter]

Ah-nuld would say that the people that run the networks are all girlie men!

Actually, Arnold should be taken seriously. His approval ratings out here are phenomenal, and even his gaffes tend to slide off him like water off a duck's back.

That being said, the networks should still be covering Monday.

[jerseyhoya34]

I don't know what to make of Arnold the politician just yet but I don't take him seriously when he quotes his own movies in a political context. My sense is that not many folks know enough about him in a political setting to be pre-disposed to having a favorable political view of him.

All of that said, the RNC must be fuming that they are not covering national security night because, admittedly, Giuliani and McCain are two popular guys with name recognition in a political context.

That said, the networks should choose what not to cover in this. They did the same with the DNC and fair is fair. In an ideal world, I think they should cover everything, but fair is fair.

[showcase]

Rather than start a new thread on the Republican Convention, I thought I'd drop my thoughts about it here, "preview" or no.

I noted this interesting piece reporting that the RNC has "rolled out the red carpet for Al-Jazeera" at this week's convention.

Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language news network, is enjoying a kinder, gentler welcome from Republican convention organizers than it received from Democrats a month ago, despite its having been criticized repeatedly by the Bush administration.

Convention planners have helped the Qatar-based channel contact delegates and administration officials to appear on its shows and have allowed the network to fly its logo banner in the convention hall.

The warm reception stands in contrast to Al-Jazeera’s experience at the Democratic convention, where organizers removed the network’s banner without notice, canceled an appearance and offered little help finding guests.

www.hillnews.com/news/083004/aljazeera.aspx

While I applaud the RNC's openmindedness on al-Jazeera, particularly when compared to the reception it received from the DNC, I thought it really hypocritical of some conservative commentators to take the DNC to task back in July for even allowing al-Jazeera into its convention.

But how could any candidate or political party “serious” about terrorism make no fuss about allowing such a news group inside its convention?

The simple fact that al-Jazeera was embraced by the Democratic National Convention – and more importantly, that the feelings were mutual – speaks volumes about which party the terrorists and their partisans in the Arab media would rather see in power.

www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14452

I guess the FPM columnist won't be voting for Bush this November after all.