So, are you…
…going to watch the convention?
I plan to look at some of it. My old problem with auditory learning and political speeches will almost undoubtedly kick in, though:
…[T]he prepared speech has always been an enormous bore to me…Political speeches are the worst of the worst. This is true whether it’s a candidate I like or one I dislike. Unless the orator is Churchill, in a few minutes I’m out. My concentration is stellar for any written matter, and that’s the way I prefer to get my information.
But I’ll try. I’m especially curious this year as to how the Republican candidates will present themselves, and whether it will be enough to counter the inevitable onslaught from the media.
How many people watch these things any more? I’m old enough to remember (at least vaguely) when the original purpose of the conventions—the nomination of the party’s candidate for president—was not a completely foregone conclusion long before the event, and when there was still some wheeling and dealing to be had. Now it’s just a festival of self- and party-promotion, probably far more important for a challenger like Romney than an incumbent like Obama. After all, although we may still argue about Obama’s formative years and disagree about his future plans, the blank screen has been filled in with a three and a half year record of accomplishment or lack thereof.
One of the reasons I like to watch at least part of each convention is to see for myself. Even back when I was much less politically inclined, I wasn’t one to merely trust the reports of others; I always preferred to make my own judgments, if I could bear to watch the proceedings.
But my guess is that a lot of people would rather listen to someone else’s far more entertaining reaction to the conventions or speeches or interviews (Jon Stewart, anyone?) than to put themselves through the boredom and decide for themselves. That’s how Saturday Night Live became the authority on Sarah Palin’s orientation towards Russia. After all, it’s so much more fun to think the doofus actually said she could see Russia from her house than to pay attention to her actual words.*
[* What Palin actually said in an interview was that you can see Russia from land in Alaska; specifically, “an island in Alaska,” not from her house.
Which unsurprisingly turns out to be correct:
In the middle of the Bering Strait are two small, sparsely populated islands: Big Diomede, which sits in Russian territory, and Little Diomede, which is part of the United States. At their closest, these two islands are a little less than two and a half miles apart, which means that, on a clear day, you can definitely see one from the other…Between mid-December and mid-June, when the water between the two islands freezes, an intrepid explorer can just walk from one to the other…You can also see Russia from other points in Alaska.]
[NOTE: Speaking of misconceptions, this article by Michael Ramirez in Investors Business Daily about how the media has ignored Obama’s myriad gaffes in order to focus on slip-ups by Republicans features the true history of the much-maligned Dan Quayle’s “potatoe” gaffe, in case you’re not aware of what was behind that one.]
Any guess as to who the mystery speaker on Thursday will be? Palin? Limbaugh?
I’m interested in hearing Gov. Christie’s speech as much as any.
The keynote address I consider the pettiest in my lifetime was that given by Ann Richards in 1988. Although I think this year’s Dem convention may set a new low in overall tone.
Neo,
As a point for me – my girlfriend remembers clearly her staunchly held belief that Palin said what Tina Fey said.
She now understands my incredulity with the media as over the last 4 years of my relationship I’ve pointed out untruth after untruth and I point out to her the impact these untruths have on people by bringing up that point.
She believes the source of the problem is her lack of caring about politics so that when these things are heard she never would’ve looked anything up.
Now that “WE” have discussions she sees things differently in that she understands economics better, the way the media aren’t “experts” in anything and their utopian and naive view which makes them say the same things that Barbara Striesand would say.
Sure they are well-inentioned I tell my girlfriend. Sure the youth had hopes in Obama. But it comes down to the policies and issues each time not the personalities of the politicians.
I bring it home with the opportunities that are lacking for our sons and daughters. Her 22 year old son who can’t find a job here in the belly of the beast in CA. He might as well pick up and move but he has a child on the way.
We will help out as much as we can. That’s the new way of America – which is actually a blessing. It’ll bring us closer.
I recall another Dan Quayle gaffe. He was pictured holding an RPG-7 launcher (sans rocket) backwards. He was called out on it by whatever magazine printed the picture, Time, Newsweek or whatever.
The interesting thing is that I later saw a picture of Al Gore holding an RPG-7 launcher backwards, but the magazine that printed that did not point out the fact that he had it backwards.
Of course, this was from back in the 90s. And Gore was a Vietnam vet, he had no excuse.
What’s that you say? Lefties would actually misquote or actually claim someone else said something he or she did not? Quel horreur! I. Am. Desolate!
Won’t be Rush as Mystery Guest. After all, he’s already the leader of the GOP (it’s true! lefties told me!)
Republicans features the true history of the much-maligned Dan Quayle’s “potatoe” gaffe, in case you’re not aware of what was behind that one.]
The one which TRULY steams me is the old “supermarket scanner” lie about Bush Sr.
Here’s the full story. The sheer DEPTH of the lie is what really sticks in my craw:
Andrew Rosenthal of The New York Times hadn’t even been present at the grocers’ convention. He based his article on a two-paragraph report filed by the lone pool newspaperman allowed to cover the event, Gregg McDonald of the Houston Chronicle, who merely wrote that Bush had a “look of wonder” on his face and didn’t find the event significant enough to mention in his own story. Moreover, Bush had good reason to express wonder: He wasn’t being shown then-standard scanner technology, but a new type of scanner that could weigh groceries and read mangled and torn bar codes.
==============
How many times have the media twisted things in the past, and changed public opinion in a direction they chose, with defacto outright lies?
HOW MANY?
>:-/
yes, I know of several, the Tet Offensive probably being the biggest, though McCarthy ranks a close second. But how many others that no one has caught onto?