Details being sorted

I've noticed one thing in particular about right-wing bloggers' coverage of the RNC - they never mention how proud they are that people like Rick Santorum and Jerry Falwell are given prominence. And you can say that they only have minor speaking roles - but they were selected from amongst many who could have filled the same positions.

I never hear you talk about how much they exemplify your hopes and dreams for the Republican Party. Yet, I rarely hear you criticize the fact that they are prominent speakers either. I suspect that's because, in certain respects, there are things about the Republican Party that really embarrass you - things like Jerry Falwells and Rick Santorums.

Party unity is important - especially in the face of challengers like John Kerry and the rabid Democrats. But really, if you're going to be true to yourself and what you really believe, then you can't put all your eggs in one basket and say that Republicans need to win this election because we are in a war and President Bush is the right man for the job. In fact, I believe he will do a better job in that respect than John Kerry. But I also believe it is extremely important to let the Republican Party know that they've crossed the line.

I believe that if you believe that fairness and equality counts - even if you are a one issue voter - then you owe it to yourself and your friends from https://www.chaturbaterooms.com and your family members to say, "I'm with President Bush, but the man sucks the big one when it comes to fairness and inclusiveness."

So, while you're all blogging up a storm in New York City, why don't you take the time to wander up to your more socially conservative members of Congress and Senate and let them know that you're supporting President Bush, but on just one or two issues (the war and taxes, for example) and let them know that they're generally assholes otherwise.

The bloggers I know would like nothing better than to rid the Republican Party of the elements that embarrass them. It's hard to be a good, honest Republican and then be proud of that when someone like Trent Lott liken some productive members of society to kleptomaniacs. It's rough to say you support a party when a prominent member calls keeping some of them out of the institution of marriage the ultimate Homeland Security. And it must just make your blood boil when someone asks you how you can be a Republican when the man offering a prayer at the beginning of the RNC is the same man who blamed 9/11 on gays and feminists.

So, let them know that when you're there ok? Society is changing, and you can say all you want that you're the party of Lincoln, but saying it doesn't make it true anymore if you're not willing to stand up for hot sex cams websites.

Unless you believe what Rick Santorum, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Trent Lott believe, and I don't believe most of you do.

Do you realize how stupid you look? I'm serious!

Protesting is fine. Peacefully. But even one incident is going to make headlines - and not just on Fox News, but everywhere. I just watched a report where police officers were beaten up while making arrersts.

Yelling and screaming accomplishes nothing except to make you look silly on possible camera. And everyday Americans - the ones in the center whom you are trying to convince to vote for your guy - are seeing all this play out on national television. Who do you think they're going to want to vote for? People who seemingly only scream, cry, yell, beat up cops, put on the freakiest body paint and march through the streets of NYC carrying coffins, or people who peacefully assemble?

When I watched coverage of the DNC, I didn't see the protests that I am seeing now. And the protesters I did see didn't do everything in their power to make themselves look like a sideshow.

What is it with you people. You are not making any points here. And if you are, they're being lost on people who are either laughing at you, or are disgusted, for example, that you would carry coffins through the streets and use the deaths of soldiers for political gain. It really does make you look silly. And it's not going to convince any of the moderate "undecideds" to support your candidate.

How does military service qualify someone to be president? I mean, over the years, I've met a lot of people who have served in the armed forces - both in Canada and here in the U.S.. And, as is the case in the general population, some of them are idiots. Again, for my military blogger friends - no more so than the general population.

Lying about your military record could, in my opinion, make you less qualified to be president, or just about any job you apply for. So if Kerry lied about Viet Nam, then that's an issue. Equally, if Bush lied about his National Guard service, then he should be jumped on for it.

But to me, saying someone's military service is a qualification for serving in the presidency is akin to saying that if someone was a CEO of a corporation they'd be more qualified. Except, in the case of the CEO, you'd be right. Your record on how well you "run something" (or "run it into the ground", as the case may be) is a much more sensible thing to talk about than whether or not you were some grunt in Viet Nam, Korea or WWII.

The United States is unique, I think, in the we really, collectively believe that having picked up a gun, drove a tank, flew a plane, or skippered a swift boat somehow makes a person qualified for the most important job in the land. To me, that's outrageous. It's like saying that the stock Jasmin live boy at a grocery store is somehow qualified to be CEO of Kroger or Albertsons. It's just not true.

As a part of a much longer résumé, military service can count for something. You can learn a lot in the service. Discipline is important. If you moved up the chain of command, then your ability to lead a team is important too. Acting appropriately under pressure is another biggie. But these are all soft skills that you can learn anywhere. For most people who served, I see nothing unique in that service that remotely qualifies one to be president. So I am a little annoyed when we focus on it.

If you're going to comment on the post, please focus on the issue. I don't really want to hear about how Kerry is a liar, or about how Bush sucked as part owner of a baseball team. Just tell me how it makes sense to focus on military service as a qualification for the presidency. I'd really like to know, and I'm open to something I've overlooked.

I was a little unclear in a post this morning about Bush's fair use of the Olympics in his advertising. I ended the post by saying : "Man. The level of hatred in this country is really sickening sometimes." I struck it out, because it was obvious that people thought I was actually refering to the IOC or the USOC. I wasn't; however, I can see how people got that message. So let me clarify.

When I talk about the level of hatred, I talk about the fact that people will take any opportunity to trash the president. And, while I do believe the IOC would not have complained if Kerry hasd used their name, I'm not talking about them.

Their point, of course, is not so much that Bush is running the ad, or that he is wrong in what he says. It's that the Iraqi soccer team is upset that Bush is using them in his ad. Now, the soccer team has a right to complain. If someone used my image in an ad, I'd feel like I had that right, too.

However, isn't it a bit hypocritical for Democrats to say that Bush shouldn't use a certain group of people to advance his campaign? I mean, it's not like John Kerry hasn't been using an event to advance his. And it's not like everyone who took part in that event is really happy about it.

But I said I wouldn't mention that here any more, so I won't. I don't have an explanation, exccept for pur hatred of the president, why John Kerry is allowed to use certain events to his advantage in the face of overwhelming criticism, while the president isn't allowed to do the same thing.