I'm sure I've given any readers the impression that I'm just a ranting lunatic so I thought I'd try to provide some constructive (hopefully) thoughts on Day 1 of the Republican Convention in NYC.
First, I thought McCain and Rudy did a good job, not great. I was reminded that McCain, for instance, is a flat public speaker, much better in off-the-cuff interview situations. Rudy's better, but also a bit stilted. I thought McCain's content was excellent - very much the picture of a principled conservative who respects dissenting opinion and relishes honest dialogue. I wish I could believe that his views represented the majority of the delegates. His one misstep I thought was to single out Michael Moore. Moore may be the face of the Democratic base these days (although I would debate that), but last time I checked, he's not running for office, and he has more than a few counterparts in the Republican party who are both extreme and very much in power in Washington (DeLay, are you there? Seriously, was he even permitted to go to New York?).
Rudy's speech was a bit more problematic, very much the view from Ground Zero. Which is fine, but somewhat similarly to Kerry's Vietnam service, the actual events of 9/11 are things that need to be put in the past. I think all but the most fervent Bush-bashers would agree that the President performed admirably in the weeks following 9/11, but he has lost a lot of support based on his decisions shortly thereafter. The Administration moved very quickly from Afghanistan to Iraq, and that is most certainly the defining action of his presidency, not his visit to Ground Zero. The "war on terror" is certainly a valid issue (THE issue really), but how much Iraq relates to it is probably still the central debate. I thought Rudy unwisely singled out Germans and Italians for being weak on terrorism (from way back when). Some historical perspective might place the withdrawl of U.S. troops from Lebanon in that same category (but Reagan's perfect, right?) and remind the world that we're not blind to our own mistakes. He must have said "evil" about 150 times, and the Republican obsession of "good vs. evil" continues to be disturbing to me. There was a surprising amount of negativity in the speech, but he was at least being honest and genunie about his feelings. I think that came across pretty well.
I should add that the Democratic Convention failed in some similar ways. This obsession with Kerry's Vietnam service is a waste of time (for both parties) because what we need to be hearing about is this: what can we do to stabilize Iraq so our men and women in the Armed Foces can be in a much safer position? Kerry still hasn't articulated a real plan; neither has Bush, for that matter. We may yet hear about it at this week's convention, but I doubt we'll hear about it today from Laura Bush or Schwarzenegger. The "handover of power" to the Iraqis was symbolic at best, a formula for disaster at worst.
The debates this fall may be the most important ever, due to the fact that the parties are using their conventions strictly for preening and parading. I know Bush doesn't want to chat too much about Iraq because it's still his Achilles heel, and neither does Kerry because his ideas are unformed at best. I suppose we'll have to wait for the week to end, but let's get to it. I agree with most of the pundits - this is a one issue race. And yet, here we are, and no one wants to talk about it.
