I doubt many GOP conventioneers were expecting a heroes’ welcome in NYC.

OTH here is a balanced editorial from an unlikely source analyzing the Bush Presidency:

Link to The Economist’s Je ne regrette rien*

Tumultuous though it has been, and despite the passions it arouses, Mr Bush’s first term should in the end be judged in the same measured way as most previous ones. It is a mixed bag: successes and failures must be set beside each other. And deciding whether Mr Bush deserves a second term calls for more than an appraisal of his own record: the American people will have to judge whether Mr Kerry, another mixture of good and bad, represents a better choice. At his convention in Boston, Mr Kerry made an effort to cast the Democratic Party in a new light. Mr Bush needs to attempt something similar in New York. More of the same just will not do.

*Don’t miss the bonus MP3 download (link at bottom of article) of Edith Piaf’s rendition of Je ne regrette rien

Original Link via RealClearPolitics

Posted by: ter0 at August 28, 2004 12:40 PM

Let alone the amount of people seemingly in town to “protest” - I was on the Upper West side driving crosstown at about 1am today, and we must have seen about 50 people walking around with their camping gear, none of which looked anything like the usual fare in that section of town… And it continued throughout most of the city we drove around.

Posted by: Tom Biro at August 28, 2004 01:36 PM

As well they should protest. We have a commander-in-chief who considers the “rich and the richer” his base, who thinks outsourcing American jobs is a good idea, and who dragged us into an unpopular, counterproductive war in Iraq in which roughly a thousand American soldiers have been killed and thousands more maimed (not to mention tens of thousands of Iraqis in bothe categories).

Posted by: rdelephant at August 28, 2004 02:43 PM

rd

you forgot your on/off bizzaro world tags, correct?

Posted by: Darleen at August 28, 2004 02:53 PM

Ekshually, they expected to be Greeted As Liberators.

Posted by: Don at August 28, 2004 02:57 PM

Aw c’mon Don, just because the Democrats and protesters are rooting against the U.S. doesn’t put them in the same class as suicide bombers and terrorists. Don’t you think that’s a little over the top?

Posted by: ter0 at August 28, 2004 03:14 PM

You have a cite for a Democrat rooting against the United States ? With George Bush in office, who needs rooting ?

Posted by: rdelephant at August 28, 2004 04:28 PM

you gotta love people that constantly class Bush’s base as the rich and richer…while casting a blind eye to a man that jets out his hairdresser for a touch up, and not just once…who’s billionaire wife’s connections and his own lifestyle belies the very things he says he is for. Cut me a break.

Posted by: donna at August 28, 2004 04:47 PM

Being wealthy and selling out to the interests of the wealthy are two very different things. Franklin Roosevelt was wealthy, but he was the best friend the litttle guy ever had.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 28, 2004 05:11 PM

You have a cite for a Democrat rooting against the United States ?

I don’t want to violate any posting rules of decorum, but since you asked, I was going to pull up one of Baghdad Jim McDermott’s quotes or Teddy Kennedy’s famous “Abu Graib torture chambers not shut down, just under new (U.S.) management” disgraceful remark as pretty solid evidence that bad news in Iraq is good news for Dems. Now you can quibble about whether Jim and Teddy are eagerly awaiting catastrophic news to jump in front of a camera and make injudicious statements that demoralize our troops and give ammunition to the terrorists — I won’t.

Instead let’s look to the future. The mainstream press has already started the countdown for the 1000th military death in Iraq. LINK Reporters are jockeying to see how the Democrats will take political advantage of the event depending on when the magic date arrives in the election cycle. And there was this moment of candor:

Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s best strategy may be to confine himself to expressions of sorrow and comfort for the families of the fallen.

”Kerry may just keep quiet. The media will probably do the job for him,” said University of Michigan political scientist Vincent Hutchings.

The moment will likely arrive around the time when the candidates are preparing for their crucial debates, tentatively scheduled for late September and early October

It’s a sad thing to say but I do believe that some (not all) Democrats would trade disasters at home or abroad if it would improve their chance of regaining the White House. I don’t see how an objective person can look at what’s going on in that party and conclude otherwise. So I say, let’s watch together. If that unfortunate date arrives before the election, we will see which Democrats respond and how. You can be the judge.

Posted by: ter0 at August 28, 2004 06:00 PM

Saying “I told you so” and rooting for American deaths are two very different things. I expect we will hear alot of anti-war sentiment when the thousandth death happens. So what ? I have never stopped criticizing the war, but I am not looking forward to this milestone and I certainly don’t root for Americans to die.

I seriously doubt we will hear anything negative about the milestone from Kerry, because he supported (and still supports) the war.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 28, 2004 06:27 PM

I seriously doubt we will hear anything negative about the milestone from Kerry, because he supported (and still supports) the war.

And your basis for this conclusion is what? His consistent position on the war or his demonstrated ability to act Presidential rather than seizing on a momentary event for political advantage?

As for the earlier point, it gives me no joy. If I’m wrong I’ll say so. We’ll see.

Posted by: ter0 at August 28, 2004 07:02 PM

Democrats rooting against the United States? It goes all the way back to the War Between the States. Ever hear of the Copperheads? George B. McClellan? Clement Vallandigham? Fernando Wood?If the Dems had won in 1864, we might be arguing about Kerry’s exploits in the Mississippi Bayou instead of the Mekong Delta.

Posted by: Joe at August 28, 2004 10:32 PM

Copperheads?

Didn’t Kerry say he was an Internationalist?

Posted by: capitano at August 28, 2004 10:43 PM

Heh. British and French intervention on the side of the Confederacy? Yeah, that’s internationalism all right.

Posted by: Joe at August 28, 2004 10:52 PM

Darn! I wish I had been on when this thread fired up!

Joe! I LOVE that bit about the Mississippi Bayou! It’s dead on…that is unless the Spanish or Germans hadn’t already taken over the whole country.

Capitano! GREAT RETORT! It’s also dead on! Jeff Davis and his bunch were hard after any European power to come to their defense but the albatros of Slavery clung tightly to the neck of the CSA.

Today’s Dems are little different than the Dems of the 1860s in my book…speaking in HUGE generalizations of course. Thomas Bramlett of Kentucky was one of the good guys. Sure, he didn’t support emancipation but he DID support preserving the Union which was far more important in the context of the times. Bramlett, like Zell Miller today, fought hard against his Democrat brethren both politically and militarilly(Bramlett was Colonel of the 3rd Kentucky Vol Inf US). He fought politically by winning the Governor’s office in 1864 taking with him one Richard Taylor(another Unionist Colonel) as Lieutenant Governor. Unfortunately, Bramlett’s and Taylor’s position of Anti-Emancipation ran afoul of the Lincoln administration and Taylor was exiled from the state by Military Governor Burbridge.

Oh drat…there’s the bell. So much for History class…there’s a quiz tomorrow! ;)

sorry…Kentucky Civil War history is a passion of mine.

Posted by: Wayne Fielder at August 29, 2004 12:04 AM

From the sound and look of this, it is beginning to look like the convention in Chicago back in 1968. That also was a lot of people from out of town who came to have “civil disobedience”. Look what happened there. I hope this does turn out to be peaceful.

Posted by: fuzzy at August 29, 2004 12:39 AM

Dems of the 1860’s were a firey bunch. While dueling had been outlawed for sometime, there were no doubt thoughts of “gaining satisfaction” among many men, regardless of party.

Todays Dems seem to be mere cage rattlers…alittle too timid to take on the lion within. When the lion roars they scurry off to the closest judge(Court System) or jury(Media) screaming about how mean and nasty the lion is and how best we should deal with this clear threat to life and limb forgetting the fact it was them that brought lion to anger to begin with.

The dems of the 1860s would rather have the country divided than to continue the debate. Need I remind anyone of who fired on the supply ships headed to Charleston Harbor? They would rather see the country their grandfathers fought to liberate from British Tyranny destroyed than to free another human being they bought on the open market.

Just 100 years later the descendants of those same Dems of the 1860s ordered the old CSA battleflags reinstated over their Capitals because some brave descendants of former slaves were simply asking to have a seat at the front of the bus, eat at the counter, and further their education at University. The Dems of the 1960s were again prepared to tear the country apart to keep from freeing other human beings from a century of oppression.

Now…just 50 years after the Dems fought so hard to PREVENT passage of the Civil Rights Act…they continue their time honored practice of oppression by furthering their “Affirmative Action” and Welfare State policies that cater to those people in our country that want to live off the Government. Which is exactly opposite to the way the Framers had intended our relationship to be.

So now…we apparently get to see the same old “unpleasantness” played out on the streets of New York. Isn’t it interesting that like 1861, 1964, and 1968 we aren’t debating the issues of the day? We are preoccupied with invading soveriegn nations, blindly looking to the past, and the emotional reaction to the emotions aroused.

Posted by: Wayne Fielder at August 29, 2004 12:39 AM

The ironic thing - or maybe it’s NOT the ironic thing after all, Wayne - is that the Republicans who have battled their way to political power throughout the South are the spiritual (and occasionally physical) descendants of the Republicans who came South to train the newly freed slaves in the ways and processes of republican (with a small r) government. It’s like deja vu all over again, sometimes, to see African-Americans held in thrall by the “Big Daddy” Democrats who use pliable preachers and other such people to push their message of paternalism. I have to make a confession; when I first heard that Alan Keyes was going to Illinois to take up the GOP Senate candidacy, I thought he was a carpetbagger, but I was wrong and I hang my head in shame. To any Southern Republican, “carpetbagger” is a noble title. And Mr. Keyes, knowing that he has nothing to lose, is cutting loose and is wrong-footing the IL Dems at every possible opportunity.

Posted by: Joe at August 29, 2004 02:04 AM

“The Dems of the 1960s were again prepared to tear the country apart to keep from freeing other human beings from a century of oppression.”

This is nonsense. It was the Democrats of the 1960’s who passed and signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, not the Republicans. More recently it was George W. Bush who as governor of Texas decided that it was a “local issue” when high schools in the state were found to be flying the Confederate flag. It was George W. Bush’s pals who, in 2000, called up white voters in South Carolina and reminded them that John McCain had a “black baby.” This is typical of Republicans, winking and nodding to appeal to the racist white vote in the South. It is little wonder that black voters prefer the Democrats by a margin of 5:1.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 29, 2004 08:57 AM

Gotta provide a little bit of facts to rdelephant’s post:

On June 26, 1964, page 1323 the Congressional Quarterly (CQ) recorded that in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Byrd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Posted by: Rofo at August 29, 2004 10:12 AM

Oh drat…there’s the bell. So much for History class…there’s a quiz tomorrow! ;)

sorry…Kentucky Civil War history is a passion of mine.

Posted by: Wayne Fielder [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 29, 2004 12:04 AM

Who says you can’t have interesting discussions on controversial and divisive threads?

From the rooftop signs of NYCity to the Deep South during the Civil War we’ve come almost full circle to Kentucky, to which I’ll add my small contribution.

A couple of years ago I had the pleasure of visiting the Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill near Harrodsburg, KY [LINK]— a remarkable place with a fascinating history of self-sufficiency that deserves to be told. [Unfortunately their vow of celibacy pretty much limited Shaker movement’s future to recruitment].

More to the point, during the visit, Civil War history buffs of every age re-enacted battles and demonstrated field artillery maneuvers. I would recommend a visit to anyone in the Lexington, KY area.

Now return with us to those thrilling days of the Civil Rights Act.

Posted by: ter0 at August 29, 2004 10:45 AM

How senators ultimately voted on the CRA of 1964 is one story, but the more dramatic story is that of the cloture vote on the filibuster against the bill, which had been led largely by southern Democrats, Robert C. Byrd and Richard Russell.

Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the one-hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.” He continued, “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”

Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.

The clerk proceeded to call the roll. When he reached “Mr. Engle,” there was no response. A brain tumor had robbed California’s mortally ill Clair Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting a crippled arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote. Few of those who witnessed this heroic gesture ever forgot it.

Senate History Link
Dirksen was a Republican. Engle was a Democrat. Courage was bipartisan…then, anyway. Perhaps it can be again.
.

Posted by: TMigratorious at August 29, 2004 11:04 AM

To return from the thrilling days of yester-year… I do enjoy the erudition here. But,…

The Dem’s are holding their collective breaths hoping that everything stays “mellow” for the convention. Some people remember ‘68 all to well. All it will take for things to go pear shaped is the right crowd mix, a few fringe crazies and an incident. Their only real hope is to keep the crazies well diluted to prevent the formation of “action foci”. A few “affinity groups” out in front of march or crashing one from a side street and the police will react. And, when the adrenaline and testosterone begin to flow, it will be Nelly, bar the door.

Posted by: Hungry Valley at August 29, 2004 11:16 AM

One more thing….

The left already has the provocateur grenade ready to throw if things do get ugly.

Posted by: Hungry Valley at August 29, 2004 11:18 AM

Rdelephant-

Wow…I’m impressed. Not by what you said but by the left’s ability to rewrite history on the fly.

Southern Dems were a bloc led by the likes of George Wallace and Fritz Hollings locally and Robert Byrd, Richard Russell in the Senate. They stood against the CRA as if it were calling for numbers to be printed on the right hands and foreheads of every american.

Northern Dems were for the CRA almost across the board. I believe there were a few hold outs but I do look at these guys with honor….I do have to wonder where it went however.

Posted by: Wayne Fielder at August 29, 2004 11:50 AM

Posted by: rdelephant at August 29, 2004 08:57 AM
It is little wonder that black voters prefer the Democrats by a margin of 5:1.

Of course, it has all to do with the Republicans being white racists, doesn’t it rde, and NOTHING to do with Democrat’s enslavement of poor people through domestic entitlement programs, huh?

BTW, what does the Confederate Flag have to do with the CRA, except perhaps your trampling on mine? Or is it your opinion that the point of the CRA was to provide for one and deny to the other?

Posted by: TexasGal at August 29, 2004 12:21 PM

We all know that the vast majority of those Dixiecrat racists long ago abandoned the Democratic party for the friendlier climes of the Republican party.

TexasGal’s belief that we are trampling on her civil rights to object to a Confederate flag flying over local high schools is typical of the Republican party. Also notice her racist attitude that we have “enslaved” blacks with entitlement programs. I guess she is referring to welfare (which probably serves as many whites as blacks), but in any event if memory serves it was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who changed that to WORKfare, just to allevaiate that very concern about enslavement.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 29, 2004 02:16 PM

rde,

That’s a very good example of your LACK of reading comprehension skills.

Your said:
Also notice her racist attitude that we have “enslaved” blacks with entitlement programs.

I said:
..enslavement of poor people through domestic entitlement programs. I don’t see the word “blacks” in my comments. Methinks that’s your personal prejudice speaking.

AFA Confederate flag flying over local high schools. Bush is correct. It is a local matter. As it is the right of the People of the State to determine, NOT the NAACP. You see what’s typical of the Republican party is that the Federal Government should keep it’s nose out of the State’s business as much as possible.

in any event if memory serves it was Bill Clinton, a Democrat, who changed that to WORKfare, just to allevaiate that very concern about enslavement.

And just how is that entitlement working out for ya? OBTW, who is it that is paying for that program? Oh yeah, the federal government block grant.

Yes, the current state of welfare is enslavement of poor people, generations of families live on welfare. And if you are unaware of that, then you are in denial. This is the land of opportunity and that should be the point of welfare programs, to help people in time of need, to lift them up, to encourage them, to train them, etc. Any and all things to help them become productive, contributing members of our society.

Posted by: TexasGal at August 29, 2004 03:32 PM

I understand why the Dems use symbolic issues like the Confederate flag to generate Black voter turnout, but I’ve never understood how they can brag about it as an accomplishment.

If half the energy the Dems and NAACP spent on such nonesense were put to productive efforts like improving job skills or educating minority children, they might actually have something to brag about. It’s a disgrace and someday maybe the Black community will wake up.

Posted by: ter0 at August 29, 2004 03:40 PM

”..enslavement of poor people through domestic entitlement programs. I don’t see the word “blacks” in my comments. Methinks that’s your personal prejudice speaking.”

Wrong. We were talking about blacks, you assumed that they are poor and on welfare.

“AFA Confederate flag flying over local high schools. Bush is correct. It is a local matter. As it is the right of the People of the State to determine, NOT the NAACP. You see what’s typical of the Republican party is that the Federal Government should keep it’s nose out of the State’s business as much as possible.”

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension. I said nothing about federal involvement. I was speaking about then-Governor George W. Bush implicitly approving the flying of those flags over Texas high schools by claiming it was a local issue.

“the current state of welfare is enslavement of poor people, generations of families live on welfare”

Wrong again. That was fixed by Bill Clinton in 1996, when a five year limit was imposed on welfare payments. “According to the Department of Health and Human Services, welfare reform helped to move 4.7 million Americans from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency within three years of enactment, and the number of welfare caseloads has declined by 54% since 1996.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/welfarereform/

Posted by: rdelephant at August 29, 2004 04:16 PM

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension. I said nothing about federal involvement. I was speaking about then-Governor George W. Bush implicitly approving the flying of those flags over Texas high

More recently it was George W. Bush who as governor of Texas decided that it was a “local issue” when high schools in the state were found to be flying the Confederate flag.

So which is it? Firsttime you cited it was he said it was a local issue. the second time, he said he gave implicit approval? As any good republican, he delegated as much power to local government and as little to bigger government, in this case the state. I know, it’s because those people where too stupid to think for themselves and big daddy government has to do that for them ….

Posted by: Rofo at August 29, 2004 05:21 PM

Someone else who needs reading lessons. Gov. Bush saying that the flying of the Confederate flag was a local issue WAS implicit approval, just like “state’s right’s” had been a thinly-veiled approval of segregation in the South.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 29, 2004 05:29 PM

Sorry rde, I was busy watching the Republican Convention on C-span. Right now GWB is delivering a GREAT speech in W. VA

Wrong. We were talking about blacks, you assumed that they are poor and on welfare.

No.

You attempted to revise my comments to insinuate I was equating all poor people as Black. What I said referred to the Democratic Party in response to your comments about the Republican Party’s racism.

Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension. I said nothing about federal involvement. I was speaking about then-Governor George W. Bush implicitly approving the flying of those flags over Texas high schools by claiming it was a local issue.

Actually, in the context of your comments you were talking about political parties and you wrongly assume that white Southerners are racists. You said: This is typical of Republicans, winking and nodding to appeal to the racist white vote in the South. It is little wonder that black voters prefer the Democrats by a margin of 5:1.

But in regard to the Confederate Flag being a State’s Right issue, I agree. I’d even go so far as saying that I pay property taxes to my local school district. Therefore, I think those who pay to support the local school districts have the right to decide over school buildings. I pay county taxes, so I think those who pay county taxes should have the say over county facilities, likewise for State Building, the people of the state should decide, and if the local Walmart wants to fly a Confederate Flag, I say let all those who patronized Walmart decide if they fly the flag. And finally, I say, that I don’t think the federal government or the NACCP has any right or jurisdiction to decide what the people in my school district, county, state or Walmart decide about the Confederate flag.

Furthermore, I agree with Ter0, it’s really sad that the NAACP and people like you rde, spend so much time trying to divide Americans with issues like the Confederate Flag instead of spending that energy on trying to lift up those that need it. Hopefully, one day those who need a better future will wake up and realize the bondage of the Democratic Party.

Wrong again. That was fixed by Bill Clinton in 1996, when a five year limit was imposed on welfare payments. “According to the Department of Health and Human Services, welfare reform helped to move 4.7 million Americans from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency within three years of enactment, and the number of welfare caseloads has declined by 54% since 1996.”

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/welfarereform/

Wow, I’m shocked. You provide me with a link to President Bush’s plan for welfare reform. Does that mean you support his program? Or does it mean you are trying to deflect from the issue? I asked you about the effectiveness of Clinton’s WORKfare program? Perhaps you should read up on it. It has had no more success than previous government funded jobs programs, like JTPA, CETA, etc. Temporary work at minimum wages and no real attempt to train workers or fund private sector jobs that will increase productivity and lead to permanent job growth, is a temporary fix and waste of my tax dollars.

WOW.. here’s a thought. Ya’think that might be where some of those Clinton jobs went in 2002?

Posted by: TexasGal at August 29, 2004 06:55 PM

You seemed to have backed off your “generations on welfare” nonsense. That is some progress I suppose. President Bush seems to think that welfare reform has been a success, at least according to his website. That is why I quoted his website and the postive statistics it contains, which you ignore. Now you claim that the problem is that the jobs these welfare mother are getting are not good enough jobs. So I guess that means you want to spring for a college educations for these folks ?? I think you really wish that they and their children would just disappear, but thats not much of a solution now, is it ??

Posted by: rdelephant at August 29, 2004 07:26 PM

You seemed to have backed off your “generations on welfare” nonsense

rde,

Not at all. Do you actually have any real-life experience with this welfare community? I get the feeling you do not. I know of generations of welfare clients. And they know how to work the system. That is why I know more about the application of welfare reform than you do.

I’m actually more aggressive in the area of welfare reform than either the Republicans or the Democrats. Interesting that you mention welfare mothers and don’t mention the fathers. How many children are the males allowed to sire before we as taxpayers hold them accountable?

Posted by: TexasGal at August 29, 2004 09:22 PM