brief review (republican)

george w bush- D. if you cant even come off as genuine in a pre-recorded message, theres no way to redeem yourself. if bush had given the greatest speech of his life, it still wouldnt have mattered. no one likes bush. i find myself defending him against other republicans, but thats all beside the point. bush praised mccain, saying its he (not obama) who can best help win the war on terror. honestly. no one was listening. i skipped the speech and my youtube is down, so i just read a transcript for this.

laura bush- D+. shes a nice lady. she got a bigger speaking role because bush couldnt make it there personally, a gesture of good faith from the mccain campaign. she didnt hurt anything. she didnt fail, but again: nobody listened.

cindy mccain- A-. i thought cindy did an excellent job. she has a great story to tell, and she didnt harp oon her husbands military experience for too long. any first lady who jumps into her first real public speech with a call to serve a greater good makes an excellent woman in my book. she strayed from real substantive issues, but let us know that she would continue one of bushs major successes- the fight against tb and hiv/aids in africa.

joe lieberman- B-. aside from the fact that hes a fucking rat, joe lieberman was pretty effective in his address, praising mccain in an effort to put country before party. he landed some really hard hits on obama, and he focused where he needed to focus- mccains narrative and military experience.

mitt romney- C-. mitt proved why hes not vice president. he talked real substantive issues, but he wasnt into the speech. im sure hes already forming a 2012 exploratory committee for president. this guy has never seemed genuinely enthusiastic about mccain, but how could he be. romney is an economic conservative who happens to think the war on terror is important. mccain is a foreign policy liberal (neo-conservative) who happens to like free markets. they wouldve balanced each other out, but they would not have been very exciting.

mike huckabee- A. mike huckabee can deliver a speech. he told a great story and added some witty cuts at the democrats to boot. i thought hed owned the night.



rudy giuliani- A+. hate him though i may, rudy had the most effective speech of either convention. he went negative- really negative, taking shots at barack obamas work as a community organizer and his present votes in the illinois legislature (even though its widely know among the political junkies that a present vote is very common in state lesislatures if you support a bill, but have a problem with the wording of one of its articles). giuliani placed a lot of doubt in everyones mind about the presumptive democratic nominee and praised mccain as the only man who can take on these tough times.

sarah palin- A. palin also took the gloves off. she proved herself a really gritty hardcore conservative. honestly, i thought the move was a disaster when i heard her first speech, but this one nearly won me over. shes tough and defends her inexperience with the quality of the little bit she does have, kicking out the entire alaska establishment. im not sure id feel comfortable with her in such a high position, but im confident she has an agenda, which is nice to know, alleviates any feeling that she was just a gimic.

tim pawlenty- C. this man is boring. one of the most forgettable speeches ive heard. there were plenty of charges that only republicans understand the real plight of the acerage american and that barack obama would raise taxes no matter what he says. pointed arguments from a dull man.

john mccain- A+. he managed to be completely civil. in an entire hour speech, im not sure i heard the name obama three times. john mccain succeeded in delivering a better speech than barack obama despite his reputation as being a not so hot orator. he spelled out his plans and his policies, called america to serve, and delivered a ouching account of his own life experiences. i used to hate him because of loose ties to corrupt dealings in washington and his seeminly gut shot reaction to any crisis. i completely disagree with him on a lot of issues, but as a person, he won me over in that acceptance speech.

i pose this question to you

im trying not to talk too much about the republicans until after their convention, so instead, ill go with what is personally ailing me: choices in the next book i should buy.

since at least one of you is most certainly going to be effected by this decision, i thought id pose it here. ive narrowed my choices down to:

the lazarus project
netherland
the great railway bazaar

they are tied by a pretty common theme in my reading; they are semi-honest accounts of cultural immersion. im really only looking for a rejection of the lazarus project. if theres not one, i will probably move on with it.

and also- should i buy carl sandburgs complete works for 25 bucks or the chicago poems for 5? i have a feeling the chicago ones are the only ones ill enjoy, but id hate to miss a couple of hidden gems in his work.

interactive blog! interact!

joe biden

i wasnt that active around the time barack obama made his choice of vice presidential candidate, so i shall blog about it now.

personally, i thought the best pick was chuck hagel- an anti-war republican who mouths off a little. i thought the gesture of picking someone almost diametrically opposed in philosophy would help to fuel the whole compromise and change message. plus, i found hagel to be quite articulate on a lot of issues i care a lot about, namely education and market restriction.

but the choice was joe biden. biden agrees with obama on a lot of issues; they are both very liberal democrats. from what i can gather of his narrative, joe biden was elected to the senate in the seventies and upon his election, his wife and one of his children were killed in a car wreck. his two other sons survived. he nearly gave up on the senate to tend to his family, but the senior democrats came to his aid and convinced him to carry on. they placed him in a lot of major committees, keeping him as busy as possible. its actually because of the tragedy (indirectly) that he had so much experience in the senate, working on the judicial and foreign relations committees.

as a person, biden is compelling. as a knowledgable advisor on foreign affairs, not so much. he wanted to break iraq into kurd, shiia, and sunni states, giving them semi-autonomy, but by all accounts also straining relations further as well as forcing people to evacuate their homes.

on the economy, hes in the mainstream of the democratic party- in favor of restreaming welfare and redistributing wealth. whatever. im not even sure free markets work when youre society is mentally retarded, so maybe its best if government takes care of it all.

hes socially liberal which sits pretty well with me, but doesnt really make or break my opinion of a politician.

he also plagiarized a speech back in the 80s. thats about as relevant as sarah palins teenage daughter being pregnant, though. who fucking cares?

hopefully that gives you a little insight into the one they call biden.

post-gustav

just as everyone predicted, gustav didnt really do shit. but thats not really what i want to talk about tonight. im not sure what i want to talk about.

esha told me its not my nature to talk. i wonder if that means i dont have enough to say, if theres some sort of threshold i cannot cross in my ability to communicate. ive always been a little more soft-spoken and quiet when people yapped on about bull shit. this is actually a pretty nifty idea to ponder.

perhaps there is some sort of untapped capacity inside me. perhaps i could have become one of those folks who chats a lot, but if you look at my writing- a truer glance at what i am- youll probably find im not really that comfortable with groups of people.

the way i see it (this was inferred from ernest hemingway) there are only two types of writers: those who can only find truth in other people and those who can only find it in themselves. the former must associate with as many people as possible to piece together a common human experience, the puzzlework of man. the latter can only write when they are kept to themselves, sifting through the recesses of their own insecurities to find what they know is genuine and hope they can make others feel the same way.

thats all i really have to say tonight. my eyes hurt a little.

of hurricanes and john mccain

im back with a vengeance. its a little shameful, all of those 6 word blogs, so im going to renew my self-challenge and try to post more lengthy blogs.

news affecting me right now: gustav and sarah palin.

for gustav. i think this storm may be hyped a little too much because katrina was so disastrous. i really hope im right. louisiana governor bobby jindall is one of my favorite politicians. he seems genuine interested in improving the well-being of his state and seems to have a certain level of confidence to his knowledge of the state affairs.

im not sure any of my family members will be directly effected. from the sounds of things, the storm will be a little too weak to reach as far inland as my relatives live. i know a couple of people who were attending lsu. theyve returned home for the labor day weekend anyway, so it wont effect them too much.

for palin. this may go down as the worst political choice made in over a decade. it will most certainly be the reason john mccain loses the election. sarah palin undercuts his message of experience and is a very unsettling pick for the person one heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the country, if not the western world.

if this was an attempt to woo hillary clinton supporters, it is pathetic. the disaffected ones may have been a little over-zealous, but they by no means want to see some woman who isnt hillary shatter that glass ceiling. if this was an attempt to bolster support from within the party, i dont know anyone who has any sort of renewed enthusiasm regarding the pick. most people simply dont understand it.

i havent done too much research, but from what i can tell, she is known for reforming and cutting the fat, which makes her a pretty valuable executive hand. but theres also some stupid conspiracy surrounding why she fired someone. and it revolves around some family issue. it doesnt sway my vote. but hardcore dems are always looking for a scandal.

thats all i can really comment on right now. if you have any requests for writing topic, leave them in the comments. otherwise, expect a post-gustav rant before weeks end. and a rnc review soon after.

brief review (democratic)

i promised a review of the democratic national convention as early as wednesday, and i nearly shrugged it off. but since i dont feel like reading and the only thing playing on my tv is gustav. because my memory is only slightly above par, i apologize for the lack of depth.

nacy pelosi- D. she passed. i didnt remember her for making any major mistake, but i also simply didnt remember her. as a chairperson and a major part of this convention, its safe to say she was a political nonfactor. her speech was rife with the same old bullshit she feeds us about how much progress is being made (when nothing substantial has been), laden with bush-bashing, and characteristically insincere.

michelle obama- B+. mrs. obama did a phenomenal job of fulfilling the role she needed to. she offered up a back story for the family in very clear terms, delivered one of the better speeches of the night, and managed to appear both relatable and extraordinary. she has such a wonderfully american story to tell, and, having seen her on the campaign trail before, i expected nothing less articulate or heart-warming.

jesse jackson jr.- A+. this may have been one of the best political speeches i have ever seen. its a shame that my roommate and i may have been the only ones who actually did see it. it was at once a call for unity and a sweeping condemnation of the wrong path we have gone down over the last few years, both palatable and unsettling. he drew on the entire breadth of american history and inspired me, personally.



mark warner- F. much like the speaker of the house, i found mark warner's delivery to be subpar at best. he uses too many hand gestures, feels phony, and criticizes bush for not handling september eleventh using the political goggles of 2008. come on. he stuck with the four more years bit. the only thing neither bland nor offensive in this speech was a vague reference to how we need to focus on competing with china economically. even that, he shied away from a little and gave no specifics for. worst major speech of the convention. no doubt.

teddy kennedy- B+. the moment was moving. the speech called for unity. i thought he might overshadow hillary, which concerned me because honestly, this was only a good speech. it draws all of the lore because of his situation. he effectively and civilly argued for a move forward. he passed the torch to the next generation of politics.

hillary clinton- A-. she accomplished what she needed to. simply put. she addressed all of the issues that she fought so hard for during the primary season. ive always disliked miss clinton quite a bit, but she won me over with her entire performance at this convention. her speech had wit and class. she didnt stray from her beliefs. her move for acclamation was one of the most moving moments in the last 30 years of politics. well done.

bill clinton- A. these grades are based on the speeches, not overall performance. thats why bill beats out his wife. i didnt know if it was possible, but he managed to be more engaging and impressive than any other public appearance since his presidency. pointing out the similarities between his narrative and obama's worked very well for him. and... he's bill clinton, master of words.

john kerry- B. john kerry is not a speech giver. he's not charismatic. but somehow, he managed to come off with a really good performance. his criticisms were concise. his speech was self-deprecating. honestly, this is the best i've seen john kerry. his and al gore's were the only other democratic candidacies i was even sentient enough to criticize.

joe biden- B-. he fulfilled the role of the attack dog and drove home the 90% percent with bush comment. he was a safe pick. he stayed away from the mouthing off he's known for. his son delivered a better introduction than his speech, mostly because of the emotional ties he had to the issues.

tim kaine- C. he tried too hard to tie himself to the obama story. he went with same vague bush attacks, but his story about his work in nicaragua or honduras was a little interesting. he came off as a pretty amicable guy, but his effect was limited. he didnt stand out.

bill richardson- C. he hyped up the spanish-speaking audience. bill and tim courted the latinos of the audience which was actually refreshing. it feels so divisive when that segment of the audience is isolated. thursday could basically be summed up with these two phrases.
"si se puede" and "mccain voted with bush 90% of the time"

al gore- B-. gore has made a pretty good name for himself. he wields a pretty heavy hand in the democratic party. he didnt bring his a game. if anyone wasnt afforded the luxury of being funny, it was the man we all wanted to kill our buzz, al gore. he wasnt substantive enough, granted his speaking time wasnt the best and he was there on celebration day. i was just hoping for a more sober address.

barack obama- A-. we reach the end. obama addressed the clinton supporters, courted independents, showed his personal story, and made his case in specifics. i thought it was a job wel done. the only deductions i could give him were for the excessiveness of the crowd. he opened himself up to a little scrutiny there. also, his choice of the thursday speakers was suspect.


so glad i knocked that one out. lets pray the republican convention is able to to do something exciting in the wake of gustav.

about russian invasion of georgia

i tried to hold my tongue, but honestly this is complete bullshit. everyone over here is all up in arms. we have no responsibility in the matter as it stands right now. we cant go fighting people just because they do shit we dont like, and we cant try to leverage ourselves in issues that our allies wont speak out against. if germany or france or the uk want to step out and say something, if the eu wants to take some action, if the un security council makes a big fuss about this, then and only then does america need to think about intervening.

in defense of russia, the areas of georgia they are occupying dont even agree with the way georgia is being run. far be it for us to condemn a major world power for occupying lands in hopes of furthering their own agenda *cough*iraq-kuwait-kosovo-panama-cuba-vietnam-korea-hawaii-japan-mexico-the seminoles, cherokees, iroquois, creek, navajo, chickisaw, and various other native american nations- french and spanish territories*cough*

i love the usa. dont get me wrong. but if all of this hype keeps building up, im going to be sooooo disappointed.