Thoughts on the 2012 Democratic Convention

With the conclusion of the Democrats' convention in Charlotte,
the presidential campaign season goes into its counterpart to
football's fourth quarter, the final session of a game in which
a winner and a loser will emerge. From this final portion of
the campaign, there will be a winning candidate and a losing
one. Your probing Peasant has expounded on the Republicans'
convention in Tampa and shall now do the same on the Dem's
party confab.

Having heard some of the speeches given, and followed some
of the drama centered on some key happenings such as the
removal, and quick replacement, of certain content in the
Democrats' party platform as well as the removal of the
gathering to a smaller venue in terms of seating capacity,
your bemused Peasant has found some entertainment along
with much predictability in the convention's proceedings.
Regarding the speeches, Vice President (and Gaffe Master
General) of the United States Joe Biden actually delivered
a first-rate speech (!). No gaffes for which he is (in)famous;
Biden was in reality passionate and sincere in his words.
No, really! He did make an interesting statement regarding
the American people, saying that one cannot sell them short.
Most interesting, coming from a pol from a party that has,
especially in the past four years, consistently sold us short
on many things, especially our ability to make choices
concerning our health care and living whatever religious faith
we adhere to (especially Catholics). Your dependable Peasant
has discussed these topics in past postings here, and shall have
still more to say on them in the near future. But congratulations
to Joe Biden for giving a stellar speech, perhaps the most
stellar speech in his entire career to date.

First Lady Michelle Obama gave an OK speech. Your thorough
Peasant praises her and her speech not so much for what she had
to say but for what she did not say; unlike four years ago, she
didn't promise that her husband would fix our supposedly broken
souls, nor did she again state that she is at last proud of her
country for one of its major political parties nominating her
hubby to run for the Presidency. Small but appreciated
mercies!

Former President Bill Clinton gave the nominating speech for
President Obama, and did what he often does when at a podium;
he droned on and on and further on (remember the 1988 Demo-
crat Convention?).

And a Hollywood liberal got to give a speech as well (any surprise
here? Perhaps she earned the privilege by writing a fat check to
the Obama campaign); Eva Longoria, an actress who has appeared
in the TV show "Desperate Housewives" gave a supportive speech
for Obama, focusing on his economic policies. "The Eva Longoria
who worked at Wendy's needed a tax break; the Eva Longoria
who works on movie sets does not." Well, bully for her. But she
does not realize, and likely does not grasp nor cares about the
very fact that there are many people at many income levels who
do need a tax break, especially those who establish businesses
which employ people as Longoria has been employed, first as
a hamburger-flipper at Wendy's and later as an actress in TV
shows and movies. If business owners are going to be subjected
to ever-increasing taxes on their income from their enterprises,
then their ability to employ people to assist them in producing
and marketing their products and services shall be diminished.
Workers will lose their jobs and with them their own incomes.
Many of these workers make nowhere near the kind of money
that Longoria makes. But if this airhead wants to pay more in
taxes to shore up the nation's budget deficit and reduce its
debt (not that either will ever happen under an Obama 
administration) then let her write a larger check to the IRS,
above what she owes. If the vapid Vuitton-accessorizing vixen
wants to fund her candidate's programs which are designed to
poke into every aspect of our lives with the intent to micromanage
us and create a society of dependence and acquiescence to replace
our society of independence and initiative, then let her make the
financial sacrifice that she and her candidate exhort the rest of us
to make. If the Gucci-wearing goofball actually believes that this 
is preserving the American Dream, and she does seem to so
believe, then let her take the lead and pony up that extra cash.
Your skeptical Peasant won't hold his breath waiting for this
to happen, but with her speech Longoria is surely a smash
from Rodeo Drive to Hollywood and Vine! Isn't it grand
to be a lefty show biz celebrity?

The Democrats' 2004 presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry,
put his two cents in. All Kerry did with his moment in the sun was
attempt to paint Republican nominee Mitt Romney as a fat cat
elitist who waffles on issues. He'd talk, eh? Perhaps the senator was
exhibiting a bit of self-loathing while standing in the limelight? My
money, and I certainly don't have nearly as much as this fat cat, is
on Kerry simply being a hyper-elitist, hyper-hypocrite. Hey,
at least Romney EARNED his money through his own enterprise;
Senator, while you married into yours, you stiff!

Sandra Fluke, the Democrats' "It Girl", the over-privileged white
liberal activist and self-proclaimed champion of the downtrodden
(here defined as women deprived of free birth control devices),
gave a shrill, lame diatribe about a non-existent "war on women"
her party claims that the GOP is waging. All people want her and
others of her mindset to do --- and these are both men and women
saying this --- is to grow up and take responsibility for themselves
and cease demanding that we as a nation subsidize her sexual
adventurism, especially since birth control devices are easily and
affordably obtained at many drug stores, even at (so I'm told)
Target department stores! And besides, don't most, if not all
county hospitals still give these items out gratis to anyone who
asks for them? There are lots of women around the country who
would love nothing more than to see this fool take a long walk off
of a short pier, as she does not speak for them and can never do so!

Caroline Kennedy, daughter of long ago President and enduring
party icon John F. Kennedy, defended the current president
on his stand on women's rights (herein being and read as:
contraceptives and abortion) proclaiming that as a catholic
she takes these rights seriously, and that they are today under
attack from the Republicans led by Mitt Romney. Caroline,
like so many of her fellow Kennedys, have never understood
their professed faith's teachings on these matters, let alone
have ever stood in agreement with same. The Kennedy
clan has long seemed to practice a Catholicism of their own
invention, Caroline's father included, especially regarding
women and their treatment of them, i.e. John's affairs that
continued even after moving into the White House, and
Teddy's (Sen. Ted Kennedy) Chappaquiddick catastrophe
with a female Bobby Kennedy presidential campaign worker
being but two examples.

And as for the star of the show, President Obama gave a speech
that had little, if any, resemblance to his 2004 speech at this bash.
Although Obama , I'm sure, tried to sound optimistic, his sounded
pessimistic, tired, and had a very left-wing flavor. Giving no 
specifics as to action, he spouted platitudes. Talking ad nauseum
about his health care plan, education, and the environment while 
scarcely mentioning workers, families and jobs, he excited the  
party faithful but likely made the nation's vast ranks of 
jobless people roll their eyes.

Weather was the reason given for the Democrats moving their
event, but the stadium which was their first choice of venue 
would have had lots of empty seats which would have looked
quite embarrassing on national TV. The seats were left vacant
by people who have "voter's remorse" after having been so
badly let down by the very candidate that only four years earlier 
they had such joyous and soaring expectations in.

And how about the flap over the removal of mention of God
and the declaration of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?
The announcement of these changes in the Dems' party
platform, followed by bedlam on the convention floor, then by
public needling from GOP candidate Romney, caused the Dems
to reinstate these items. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa,
the convention chairman, called three different times for a voice
vote on reinstating with the "yeas" and "nays" seeming to cancel 
each other out for balance. After the third go-round, however,
Villaraigosa ruled that the reinstatements were approved, getting
boos from many of the delegates. One delegate, when interviewed
by a reporter, stated that there was no discussion about whether 
or not to make these removals, that they were blindsided by it all.
Other delegates who were supportive of the removals were
enraged at the reinstatement of the items heretofore removed.
This was a clumsy way for the Dems to save face over their
attempted deletions of references to God and not recognizing
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, which only ended up in
cheesing off many of the convention delegates.

Now, the language in a political party platform does not at all
directly affect the country's domestic or international policies.
But while this is true, the Democrats' trying to enact these changes
in their platform signal an unmistakable break from both their
acknowledgement of a higher being giving people their potential
to be and to do whatever they so desire to become and to
achieve, as individuals and as a nation, as well as the party's
commitment to the security of Israel and its supporting the
status of Jerusalem as its capital in the face of our ally's
regional enemies who are sworn to eliminate Israel from
existence. The Democrats reinstated the removed language
concerning these points after internal and external opprobrium,
clumsily trying to explain away the flap as, stated by DNC
Chairwoman U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz,
"essentially a technical oversight." Really. All of this
inspired challenger Romney to comment "I think this
party is veering further and further away into an extreme
wing that Americans don't recognize."

And your observant Peasant couldn't put it better. The con-
ventions held by the Republicans and the Democrats, having
been markedly different in both content and tone through
the years, now make for the starkest study in contrasts one
could ever hope to see. And these conventions give us a
comprehensive view of exactly what these political parties
stand for. Now we must decide whom we stand with.


MEM