It was a sound one, certainly defensible in its sharp attacks on Kerry and heartfelt in its defense of the character of the president. But it was over-shadowed by the foul rhetoric that went before him, rhetoric he blessed with his opening line. On a substantive note, it is astonishing to me that neither he not anyone, in invoking the war on terror, has mentioned any developments in Iraq or Afghanistan over the last year. These speeches could have been written as Baghdad fell or at the latest, when Saddam was captured. And this party and president claim to be war-leaders. Real war-leaders explain defeats and set-backs, they recognize the current situation, they grapple with reality. But this war is easy, it seems. There are no problems in Iraq. Everything is peachy. Democracy is breaking out everywhere; no mistakes have been made; no rethinking is necessary after the travails of the occupation (sorry, Zell). I understand the political need to put a gloss on things. But the surrealism of the rhetoric is, in some respects, an insult to the American people, who deserve a real accounting of where we are. Of all the difficult choices we have to make – in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia – nothing is spoken. There is not even a nod to reality. Just an assertion that only the Republicans have the balls to fight this war. It may well work in the election. But it speaks to the character of our leaders that they prefer bromides and denial to a real accounting and real leadership.
TWO SMALL POINTS: Cheney barely mentioned the economy. Almost no one has. They realize it’s a liability. Another missing link: Mary Cheney. Where was she? She was “disappeared” from the family tableau, perhaps of her own choice. But the only reason she was not there was obvious. No openly gay people belong anywhere near that podium. Her position, at this point, is poignant – but, alas, increasingly impossible.
ROMNEY’S FORUMLATION: The first speech I heard last night was Mitt Romney’s. Nothing special; and certainly not bad. He reiterated the talking points about Kerry but also framed his support for a federal constitutional amendment barring any legal protections for gay couples. Here’s his formulation:
We step forward by expressing tolerance and respect for all God’s children, regardless of their differences and choices. At the same time, because every child deserves a mother and a father, we step forward by recognizing that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That’s an interesting standard. If every child deserves a father and a mother, then surely we have to take the children of single mothers away from them and give them to approved couples; or we have to make divorce much more difficult; or we have to ban adoption by single people; or we have to prevent the care of children by their grandparents and any other variation on the nuclear family. Is Romney serious? Are single moms now anathema to Republicans? Don’t their children deserve a mother and a father? Of course, Romney doesn’t mean that. He gives tolerance and respect to most people who, for whatever reason, perform the hard and noble task of bringing up children, and does not scant good rearing because sometimes it falls short of the ideal. What he really and solely means is that gay people should be barred from adoption, should have their own kids taken from them if necessary, and if they have children as a couple, they should be denied legal rights with respect to custody. What else can he mean? I therefore take these two sentences as an Orwellian statement. Discrimination is tolerance. Disdain is love. Revulsion is respect. And the victims of his policies remain nameless.
The Dish 