Big Ticket Diary, Pt. I

Sept. 5: TV Highlight of the Week
I just saw it (1 a.m. EDT).

Larry King just had, for the last segment of his program, a trio of Mario Cuomo, Arianna Huffington, and Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation.

Vanden Heuvel was hugely effective, with specific, fluent enunciations/denunciations of McCain, his party, and Palin's selection. Cuomo was eloquent on the validity of Obama as the choice for our government's leader. Huffington was direct and specific as she identified the full nature of the role of Palin as a planned distraction from serious consideration of the issues, or even just from the comparison of candidates.

I think I need to plan my own distraction, for the night of VP debates (moderated by Gwen Ifill). It should be amusing but inconsequential, but if distracts from the focus of the Presidential campaign for a week it could be "a game-changer", as they say.


Sept. 4: Pre-Ops
I think that's what are called the pre-operative procedures before surgery. That's what I call this series of speeches (Ridge, Graham, Cindy McCain)--because what follows is going to be ugly.

Tom Ridge: "the challenge of our time is to...leave nothing to chance". Huh? This is someone from the Bushite Administration talking?

He says McCain "speaks truth to power". An interesting assertion we should examine.

Earlier, Bill Bennett challenged Roland Martin to "Name Three Things John McCain Has Changed" (in order to get elected). Martin promptly nailed him with 1) offshore drilling; 2) Bushite tax cuts; and 3) Illegal Immigration. Bennett could only object--weakly--to the third, and basically was left mumbling about changing "due to circumstances", which somehow he distinguishes from changing for political opportunity.

Bravo, Roland!

McCain the aging warrior--does he have any vision of the future? Donna Brazile hit this one on the head in her comment.
The commentators have raised an expectation of McCain somehow explaining his economic policies, which is certain to be disappointed. McCain has already lost the economic issue; he needs to build up his margin on the national security issue, both for men and for women. That's why they're giving so much time to this stuff.

What is Sarah Palin wearing?

Cindy: mentions Abe Lincoln, and the convention is uncertain if it's an applause line (only because he was a Republican).

She had one really good line: We must decide whether to give more importance to: "What will others say of us? or What will our forefathers and our children say of us?" Barack Obama need not fear that question, rather he should welcome it, but I give the author of it credit for an incisive thought.

A lot of inappropriate applause tonight--that must be because they've actually started paying attention out there.

McCain's about to go on, but I finish with Palin's dress: Fancy black jacket, low cut, with high collar. Some diaphanous thing underneath, just visible? And, as she turns gracefully a full 360 and waves, we notice: she's got the thing under her jacket! That famous thing Dubya wore for the debate!

I suspect it's a mike the Secret Service places but doesn't want that known. Check that: I don't suspect it for a moment.


Sept. 2: Is There Any Reason to Watch?
This is the big question regarding the Republican National Convention. Is there anything at all we need to hear; something we can gain from listening to them?

The only real item of interest for the convention in general is the question of Bushism, or more likely, of crypto-Bushism (no one apart from actual family members will dare to admit full-throated support for the philosophy and execution of policy which the Bush Administration has "achieved"). Will people dare to speak the name of President George W. Bush, and if they do, will it be to praise him or denounce him? Will they somehow be able to distinguish McCain from Bush without mentioning Dubya's name?

If anyone dare make the argument, well, what's so bad about the Bush Administration? (i.e., How about that Bushite Misrule?), then I turn that individual off. I have no more time to waste listening to that person; though there appear to be 25-30% of Americans who will own up to such sentiments in opinion polls. However, crypto-Bushites do not praise or even talk about Bush or his Misrule; one need merely advocate policies which are exactly a continuation of the existing ones, or to emphasize only the policy areas in which one agrees with Bush.

Tonight's speakers that I've seen so far--Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman--pose the question constantly in very dire terms. Thompson, I have to say, showed his skills in line-reading which he has spent years in Hollywood perfecting. His lines were red meat for the red state redneck elite. No reason to have watched, really; somehow the current administration didn't come up.

Lieberman, though, has given me renewed pause to consider the existential dilemma posed above. One thing that I should be thrilled about is that I don't have to listen to Lieberman's inducements to snooze, since he's gone over.

With Lieberman--who is still claiming to be a Democrat--I do have an additional area of interest: how can he--a Democrat-- justify his disregard to the danger that will occur through Supreme Court appointments if a Democrat does not win this time? Very soon, there are going to be 2-3 appointments to replace rapidly aging "Democratic" justices (there are 4 "Democrats", 4 "Republicans", and one "Independent"--Anthony Kennedy--this not based on who nominated the justices, but which side they take on politically controversial cases.) A replacement for one of the Republicans is nowhere in sight. A Democratic President is needed in the 2009-2013 term just to keep the precarious see-saw where it is today.

So far, based on these two, there will be references to Bush, but not by name. A distinction between the administration of The Nameless One and the one we can expect from POW McCain will be drawn. No specific complaints about Bushite Misrule. There is an assumption that what we just got wasn't good enough, but there is no need to go into those details.

The speeches of the nominees themselves have also more intrinsic interest. Palin, out of pure curiosity--what does the circus have to show us today? As for Pappy Mac himself, the interest will come down to amusement at his screw-ups in delivery and looking to see how much crypto-Bushism he allows to creep into his lines.