Comments on: GOP Convention – Day 2 (MULTIPLE UPDATES)

By: Trish

Trish — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:24:27 +0000

Rat–
I said there are unwritten rules. Call it a tacit understanding if you prefer. Lieberman’s name was only being floated around the blogosphere; there’s no evidence that his name was being seriously considered.

And yes, the party officials would have been the ones to quash it long before it ever came to the floor.

By: Lorica

Lorica — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:52:37 +0000

You know the thing I keep hearing from the media, and I heard it again today is that We the People don’t really know Gov. Sarah Palin. Well here is my thing. How well are you suppose to know a person when you only met her 4 days ago?? Let’s change the subject of the media’s question. “How well do we know Barack Obama?” This buffoon has been prattling on daily for 2 years now, and we still don’t know who he really is. We only know what the media wants us to know.

I thank God for Sarah Palin, and I cannot wait until she gets the chance to put the smack down on dingy Harry. If dingy is still the Dem leader in the Senate. It is going to be a happy day that I never get to listen to that fool again. – Lorica

By: Great White Rat

Great White Rat — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 13:03:26 +0000

Trish, I’m quite sure there’s no such rule, otherwise it would have been widely cited when Lieberman’s name was being mentioned 10-15 days ago.

And it’s not so much the officials that would not stand for it as the convention delegates. They still have to have their roll call on both nominations. If McCain had announced Lieberman as his VP choice last Friday, he would be facing an open revolt on the floor. State delegations that are predominantly pledged to Romney, for example, would definitely place his name in nomination, and the convention would make the choice instead of McCain.

By: alchemist

alchemist — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:37:49 +0000

Was this the last Bush presidential speech ever? Happy Days!

By: Trish

Trish — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:18:03 +0000

I wasn’t talking about the constitution. I know that the constitution makes no provision for political parties. But even if there are no specifically written rules, do you not think that there are now (if not in 1864) unwritten party rules? And do you really believe that the Republican party officials would stand for it?

By: Great White Rat

Great White Rat — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 05:03:00 +0000

Trish, there aren’t any actual rules for selecting a nominee. They can choose anyone who is constitutionally eligible to serve, regardless of party. It’s only been done once – in 1864. Lincoln ran for re-election on a national unity platform and demonstrated it by choosing Democrat Andrew Johnson as his VP. It didn’t work out very well…which is one reason it hasn’t been done since.

By: Trish

Trish — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 04:36:34 +0000

On a slight tangent–
I understand how Lieberman appeals to some conservatives, but how could anyone think that McCain would choose him as vice-president? He isn’t a party member. How could McCain have chosen him without violating the rules, and why would he have risked it? I doubt very much if those who are truly dedicated members of the Republican party would have welcomed such a choice.

By: Great White Rat

Great White Rat — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:59:30 +0000

I agree on Fred’s speech. This was the best appearance he made all season. The retelling of the POW story and the emphasis on character was riveting. I wonder where that Fred Thompson was during the primary season.

Best line: There are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves: “Who is this man?” and “Can we trust this man with the Presidency?”

Lieberman’s speech didn’t do much for me, but I understand I wasn’t the target audience. He was there to speak to the people on the fence – to the independents and Democrats who for some unknown reason still think the Dalai Bama is qualified to run the country.

I also loved the way the convention led into Fred’s speech, and followed the theme of “Country First” with a tribute to Ronald Reagan. But then, those tributes always get me misty-eyed.

One other point of note: did you notice the length and volume of the applause for the tribute to hero Navy Seal Michael Monsoor? Now contrast that with the disinterest and perfunctory appreciation any mention of our military got last week in Denver. Any questions remaining about which party understands the cost of freedom more?

By: Trish

Trish — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:04:38 +0000

I guess this puts the kibosh on the idea that Thompson is going to make a third-party run.

By: Chick

Chick — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 03:00:14 +0000

Lieberman closes strong with a dramatic appeal to fellow Democrats. Even those “who may never have voted for a Republican” and to vote for the candidate, “not the member of your party.”

Very nice job, Sen. Lieberman!

By: Chick

Chick — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:40:05 +0000

IMHO, Fred’s speech just rivaled Obama’s 2004 keynote at the DNC convention. And since I agree with Fred more, I think it was a helluva better speech.

He defended, he promoted, he attacked and he endorsed. All equally delivered with prosaic, yet effective, prose.

Nicely done, Sen. Thompson.

Now Sen. Lieberman.

By: Chick

Chick — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:32:43 +0000

Fred nails Obama’s rhetoric for what it is … EMPTY!

WOW! This speech is great and nails every aspect of what is right and what is wrong with politics today.

Again, Go Fred!

(”Not your side of the bucket, just the other side of the bucket!”)

By: Chick

Chick — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:21:29 +0000

No place better to “watch” live blogging than the Sister’s own electronic altar!

Thanks for the warm welcome back!

Fred is on fire … and I’m loving it!

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:15:14 +0000

Hey Chick! Good to see you posting.

By: Chick

Chick — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 02:13:42 +0000

Fred is coming out firing with all barrells.
“Field dress a moose.” I love it. (Except Teddy Roosevelt.)
Nicely written so far.