RNC, night 1

While watching John McCain and Rudy Giuliani speak tonight, I was struck by a couple of thoughts. First, both McCain and Giuliani are so much better speakers than President Bush is. They're eloquent without being pompous, moving without being maudlin, and in Giuliani's case, funny as hell. The difference between McCain and Giuliani on the one hand, and Bush on the other hand, is that the former two men are able to speak simply about complex ideas. It's too bad that the Republicans aren't offering one of these two as the 2004 candidate, rather than 2008.

I have to confess, I am really impressed by Giuliani's presence. Even while giving a pretty partisan speech, chock full of devastating attacks on John Kerry's voting record,[1] Giuliani still displayed at times keen nuance of the sort that is often (mis)attributed to Kerry. He (Giuliani) seemed to be speaking honestly, instead of in that political-doublespeak that Kerry and Bush all-too-often engage in.

Second, looking at the lineup of RNC speakers, as well as that at the DNC, I have to wonder, how corrupt is it that both political parties hide their Tom DeLays and Nancy Pelosis, only to trot out a bunch of moderate, reasonable politicians and speakers. It's too bad that the parties only kowtow to moderate Americans at such a late stage when there's really very little choice left.

* * *

By the way, for any New York readers out there (Matt?), why is it that New York is considered such a Democratic stronghold (Kerry is leading Bush by, what, 20 points?), yet the current and previous mayors of NYC are Republicans, as is the Governor of the state?

[1] Did Kerry really say that Israel's Wall was a barrier to peace, and then three months later, tell the Jerusalem Post that Israel had a self-defense right to build the Wall?!?

Comments

[Dylan]

Pataki is a huge spender and union boss's bitch. Guiliani won only after the disastorous Dinkins mayoracy brought NYC slightly beyond the edge of chaos. Bloomberg is a moderate Democrat opportunist who changed his party affiliation because he could never beat the Democratic nutjobs in the primary for mayor.

I have never been to NYC. I scare myself sometimes. I appear to also scare potential employers. That's a shame for both of us.

[Law Monkey]

Giuliani's speech was indeed great, and his will be a tough act to follow by *any* speaker. IMO he was head and shoulders above McCain, who I had actually tuned in to watch (my candidate in 2000).

I appreciated that both McCain and Giuliani talked extensively about the war on terrorism (although some of the interim viginettes were shameless appeals to emotion), something that I thought needed to be addressed at the DNC.

[Matt]

Well, once a politician gets in, it's very difficult to put up a good candidate to run against him. Also, all three of the candidates you cite are moderate Republicans, with them being downright liberal on social issues. Let me address why each of the three examples you cite won:

Pataki--I wasn't a NY area resident at the time, but Pataki ran a largely single-issue campaign on "I will reinstate the death penalty" after a couple of extremely brutal murders. There was also a degree of Cuomo fatigue at that point.

Giuliani--High crime rate, ran on a "crime is bad!" platform against David Dinkins, playing (somewhat softly) a race card. Reelected in large part because of Al Sharpton's run as a third party candidate.

Bloomberg--As Dylan pointed out, not really a Republican. Won for three reasons. First, post-9/11 Giuliani halo, and especially the Giuliani TV ads. Second, a huge amount of money spent by him. Third, Sharpton again. Sharpton was embittered that his candidate, Freddy Ferrer, lost in the Democratic runoff and tacitly accused Mark Green of racism. Green was a shitty candidate, too, though I voted for him. I voted for Alan Hevesi in the first round primary.

[tom]

My one experience with Pataki was when I attended a Hall of Fame induction ceremony in Cooperstown. He introduced enshrinee Dave Winfield as "the greatest New YOrk Yankee ever to be inducted into the Hall of Fame....(pause, gasps of horror from the audience)....as a San Diego Padre." This was followed by much relieved laughter.

[tom]

One other point, of more relevance than Pataki at the HOF (although barely). I see Ron Silver delivered a speech at the convention. I'm assuming this is the same Ron Silver who last season starred as a sympathetic pornographer in a TV show about the sex industry co-starring a fetching and well endowed young blonde woman who ran around a lot in a bikini and had simulated sex with a young man she wasn't married to? He must be in the Schwarzenegger wing of the party.

[Matt]

Silver's weird. He's socially EXTREMELY liberal, fiscally fairly liberal, but feels that the only issue relevant in this election is that Bush is tough on terror and avenging the people who were killed at the WTC. IMHO, while the "War on Terror" (a phrase I have problems with, but which we'll leave in) is certainly an important issue, it's far from the only one that I'm basing my vote on.

[Jay Sokoloff]

Kerry really did make that flip flop on Israel. Here's the link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry200407091743.asp

[matts]

Regarding Kerry's "flip flops," I don't see that it is contradictory to state that an entity has a certain right (to build the Wall, to own a gun, to have an abortion, whatever), but that the exercise of that right is inadvisable for whatever reason (it impedes the peace process, endangers those who live in the home, or devalues human life, respectively). You might disgree with the claim that the Wall impedes the peace process, but let's deal with it at that level, rather than mischaracterizing the statement to cash in on some buzzword. To do so is fundamentally unhelpful.

[Tung Yin]

Matts, you raise a good point. However, in reading this Boston Globe article, I think it's hard to escape the conclusion that Kerry has taken a, uh, contrary position:

In the policy paper, which has not been released publicly, Kerry outlines clear, strongly worded positions on several issues important to the American Jewish community. He calls for more forceful action to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, fully backs Israel's construction of a 425-mile-long barrier between Israel and the Palestinian territories that the paper refers to as ''a security fence," and pledges to work to push for a new Palestinian political class to replace Yasser Arafat, who is called a ''failed leader."

He's not now suggesting that the wall is a bad policy idea; he's "fully backing" it. Is it no longer a barrier to peace?