Confessions of a Convention-Watcher, Democrats Day 3

I was looking forward to Edwards speech. It was pretty obvious from earlier speeches that everyone else was as well. I'm not sure what I was expecting though: a new idea maybe? an alernative to the villification and bitterness?

First, Edwards was out of his element. He was behind a podium for one--and he was not running on his own ticket. He is clearly not comfortable in his new role. Nor do I think, is the party (re: Dowd in the NYT). Not to mention--speaking from the speech that was obviously mostly written by the same person/persons who orchestrated the speechs of Carter, Clinton, Clinton, Obama, and virtually everyone else on the DNC stage--this speech was the most negative yet. Hence, the discomfort on Edwards part.

What's with the "One America" mantra? I'm all for national unity and national identity. But I'm sorry the distinctions mentioned by the Democrats do exist and do define us. Notice I didn't say "divide us." I said: DEFINE us. How can we possibly discuss policy resolutions sanely or even creatly, God-forbid, if we do not acknowledge the differences and then work on solutions to create opportunity (not uniformity) for all. Hmmm, uniformity, haven't some people tried that before? I'll save my anti-Communist spiel for another day.

Equality of opportunity doesn't mean equality of resources or of income or of education even. Equality of opportunity means we all have the same shot--and we all have the same chance to royally screw it up. Some people (Democrats, who more often than not, are part of the famed "2%" bracket) would like us (the electorate) to believe that they (e.g., President Clinton) would give us their (his) tax cut in order that the middle class (whatever the hell that is these days) would not have to carry the burden. I for one was happy to get my first refund check. I'm sure the Clintons and Heinz-Kerrys and Edwardses were also pretty happy when they finished their taxes the last three years. They admit wanting to KEEP 98% of President Bush's tax cuts (cuts which Alan Greenspan has said have helped the recovery, re: AP story). Yet they want us to believe that rescinding 2% of the cuts (to the top 2% income bracket) would somehow mysteriously generate enough of a savings for the government to tackle all of the problems we face (which are in the hundreds of billions of dollars). . .

Real equality of opportunity? Real equality? Answer: Everybody is taxed the same amount (read: %)--period. That is equity and nothing else--no 98:2 formula, or any other cockamamie configuration.

I find it interesting for Edwards or Kerry either one to criticize U.S. intelligence and the pace (or lack of) regarding Intel reform when they BOTH sat, at one time or another, on the one body in the Senate that actually has oversight of that function. If anyone is complicit in the snail's pace of change, isn't it the Distinquished Gentleman from North Carolina and his Massachusetts brother? Especially complicit when you look at their voting records, as in the number of votes they actually attended?

And, finally, because I'm faint with fighting. . . and I paraphase: "let's finish the job to secure the loose nukes in Russia, that's how we'll keep America safe." Sure, that'd be great. But, as usual, I ask, "HOW?" Edwards makes claims that he and Kerry would keep AQ on the run. Yet their only solution offered to date (that I have heard) is to propound restoring alliances and other "consensus-building". Refer to my Day 2 notes: consensus building is great if you can build a consensus. But if some of your supposed-allies are lining their pockets in the UN Secretary-General's office with billions of dollars of Iraqi payoffs while common Iraqis starved for years on end, then it's probably going to be hard to build a consensus to take down a mad-man who gassed his own people (in the Anfal campaign).

Enough uncreativity-watching for one night.