|leave a comment|||RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback|
|Michelle rocked the house…….|
Sep. 5th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
She did. My friend doesn’t like her and got a bad impression, but last night she gave a wonderful speech, wonderfully. She’s gotten more beautiful over the last four years. Her polish and conviction are a credit to her husband and her party.
I expected the Democratic Convention to be smoother, more cinematic. The Democrats have more “stars” after all. The Republicans missed more than a few boats. In the days since the Republican convention, I, along with media people, wonder where George HW Bush was?? Why wasn’t there more emphasis on our military? I swear, one big minus in my head about Romney is his seeming penchant for employing stupid advisors. He needs me on his campaign.
The differences are pretty striking, although I realize the Democrats have the advantage of rebuttal. The Republican Convention reflects the Mormon roots of the candidate; it’s a bit bland and boring. But there was also a distinct civility and calmness in the atmosphere. One newsman–can’t remember who, made the point that more people were at the Democratic convention because they have more delegates. Huh??
Michelle Obama is beautiful and polished. I loved her speech and her message. I did wonder, however, if the emphasis on her childhood and family life was meant to distract from Obama’s perceived lack thereof. (Although I don’t want the First Lady to stick her nose in my fridge).
I noticed something halfway through and went back to check on my recording of the Republican convention. CNN’s headings showed some bias (THAT being said, FOX is awful, I watched Bill O’Reilly for about ten seconds; he is so clearly biased that I can’t watch him). Their graphics were different. When Chris Christie and Jeb Bush spoke, the graphics read “Christie addresses convention” Bush addresses convention”—for the Democratic governors, they read “governors go after Romney”—maybe I’m nit-picky.
Anderson Cooper said something about a woman whose son “would not be alive today” without Obama’s health care plan. I watched the video and her talk and it was impressive. However, her point wasn’t about her son’s mortality; it was about being bankrupted due to medical costs. Where is Jon Stewart when I need him?
I’m just going to list points because I don’t know where to start:
I’m not a Kennedy fan. Somebody said this of him in a tribute: “because he lived,others would live longer.” (Referring to health care). I thought “Not Mary Jo Kopechne.” Jimmy Carter spoke, but it was video taped and I wondered why he didn’t appear in person. Again, the professionalism in the presentation is pretty cool.
Rahn Emmanuel (I ALWAYS think of that song from “Boss” which goes “Satan, your kingdom must come down” when I see him) dismissed the party platform changes which exclude the word God and the reference to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel with the words “this president’s position was part of the negotiations. . .I’ve never read our party’s platform.” One newsman said that every candidate has differences with the platform. This point was made about the Republican platform as well, with John and Cindy McCain eschewing the strong anti-abortion position. Well, hell, who came up with these platforms and what is the purpose is the main candidates don’t agree with them?
A lot was made about Romney’s poor job as governor of Massachussetts, which I find alarming. Is it true that he practically ran the state into the ground?? This bugs me about Romney. Massachussetts passed a health care law; the state allows gay marriage. I really wonder where he stands on these things. Why does he keep his money in other countries? Is this standard—where does Al Gore keep his money?
Governor O’Malley quoted Romney as saying “we need less firefighters, teachers and police.” Really? He said that?
Time magazine focused on Obama this week, as I’d expected. I expected them to be as complimentary—or more–of the president as they were of Romney. They were not. The main point I took from the articles is that Obama intends to shred Romney; any attempt he made to be moderate is in the past. He wants to be re-elected and he doesn’t care how that happens.
I spoke to a friend this morning and she echoed my feelings that we don’t know who or what to believe. I’m thinking that our country is for the first time in a long time being presented with substantial philosophically different candidates. Part of me thinks it doesn’t even matter how I vote; Utah’s going for Romney. But another part thinks maybe the popular vote will be more important this year than any other. Are we at the point of the divide that’s been prophesied?
I’m like Rudy Guiliani; I’m a pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-gun control Republican. Despite this, I’m more conservative than liberal and I realized after last week, more proud of and more dedicated to my religion than I’d realized. I realized that I’m much more wishy-washy than I thought I was; I want to be in with the in crowd, without the consequences. Without making an actual choice.
But I spent all morning watching my DVR’d Republican and Democratic Conventions and the differences are stark, although both parties are making the same claims of lies and incompetence and dire consequences should we elect their opponent. The Obamas accuse Romney of being out of touch with the common people, but the Republican Party convention is more “common” while the glitzy heavily produced tenor of the Democratic party, with its promised Hollywood star power and emphasis on minorities makes me feel alienated. I had a cowardly thought of what life would be like as part of a WASP-like minority. Accompanied with the subsequent realization of my own hypocrisy coupled with a conviction that we MUST take better care of the under-privileged. Hell, ambivalence should be my first name.
I’ll report back after watching tonight, of course, but honestly, guys, I have no idea who I’m voting for. Neither does the friend I spoke with this morning. You who are so sure of yourselves—Republican or Democrat, I envy you.