Greetings BR.com, I realize you were expecting another Rise of Rome report from me soon. Well, it’ll be a few days yet. I was, in fact, working on it today when I took a few minutes to turn my browser to www.c-span.org and download streaming video of the previous day’s Republican National Convention. I was irked, I was contemptuous, and as Senator McCain spoke I became downright enraged.

Those who know me well understand I’m a rather mild-mannered fellow, and I tend to view even extreme events with a certain amount of detachment. But it wasn’t so much the content of McCain’s speech (although I found that rather bad) that annoyed me, it was the totally dishonest style which so many politicians use, but especially the Republicans recently.

I’d say this ‘report’ was created in a fit of pique, but that doesn’t really portray the anger that gripped me today. In any case, it is no formal production, nor is it a carefully-researched and rock-solid deconstruction. It is a fairly simple thing: a transcript of Senator McCain’s speech yesterday (Aug. 30) at the 2004 Republican National Convention with comments of my own inserted throughout the text. The italicized comments are generally about the format of the speech, what verbal tactic Senator McCain is using and why, and things like that. Underlined comments are side notes I couldn’t resist adding when I thought further comment was necessary.

In an effort to be somewhat constructive, I’ve tried to avoid simple slanderous attacks. Those of you who wish to debate me at length, question the lineage of my parents, or question the sources for information I take for granted, can use the forum on this fine website or send me an e-mail my spare address for odds and ends: fwilson3324 @ yahoo.com (spaces inserted in a futile attempt to avoid increasing the amount of spam sent to that address). You can, of course, also use the comments section here. That’s perfectly fine, and I encourage you to do so, but please remember that a comments section can be a difficult medium when dealing with long arguments.

This ‘report’ will likely disappear in a day or two when Johnny deletes it. This will probably occur because this isn’t really a report, and doesn’t match the theme or mission of this website in any way. Johnny can rest assured that I will in no way be offended, inconvenienced, surprised, or irked when this report is deleted. Ratings will similarly be futile. I’ll probably find some website where this would be a most appropriate piece of content within the next few days. If you know of one, please let me know. But heck, I wrote it and I’m posting it. And it’s too (*#&#*$& long for a forum post. Or maybe it wasn’t. Whatever.

One final note, I pulled this text transcript off the web from a Republican-affiliated website, discovering that I’d watched about three-fourths of McCain’s speech before shutting down my video player. I’m certain a simple web search can find the same transcript if you feel the need to look for it.

*********************

Thank you, Lindsey, and, thank you, my fellow Republicans.

I'm truly grateful for the privilege of addressing you.

This week, millions of Americans, not all Republicans, weigh our claim on their support for the two men who have led our country in these challenging times with moral courage and firm resolve.

He’s right of course, regardless of the (many) good things that Kerry represents, this is election is largely about the actions of George W. Bush & cronies.

So I begin with the words of a great American from the other party, given at his party's convention in the year I was born.

My purpose is not imitation, for I can't match his eloquence, but respect for the relevance in our time of his rousing summons to greatness of an earlier generation of Americans.

In a time of deep distress at home, as tyranny strangled the aspirations to liberty of millions, and as war clouds gathered in the West and East, Franklin Delano Roosevelt accepted his party's nomination by observing:

"There is a mysterious cycle in human events. To some generations much is given. Of other generations much is expected. This generation of Americans has a rendezvous with destiny."

The awful events of September 11, 2001 declared a war we were vaguely aware of, but hadn't really comprehended how near the threat was, and how terrible were the plans of our enemies.

Of course, some people were already aware of the thread posed by Islamic extremists (including Al-Qaeda). Like when the Republicans attacked President Clinton for focusing on finding Osama bin Laden. Many people may also remember reading in the newspaper about an attempt at bombing the World Trade Center that occurred a few years before September 11th. So I’d say any politician would have to be pretty damn stupid to not know how terrible the plans of the enemies were. Plus there were official briefings and what not. But screw that, a dumbass president ought to know (and McCain certainly did - Blatant Lie Alert) THEY TRIED IT BEFORE.

This is very obviously a lie, but notice the nice Cover-Your-Back-Special here. Specifically, the use of ‘hadn’t really comprehended’. So McCain can say, when asked about all that prior warning that was available, that he didn’t really lie - it’s true that both Sen. McCain and the Bush Administration weren’t really paying attention before Sept. 11th.

It's a big thing, this war.

It's a fight between a just regard for human dignity and a malevolent force that defiles an honorable religion by disputing God's love for every soul on earth. It's a fight between right and wrong, good and evil.

And should our enemies acquire for their arsenal the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek, this war will become a much bigger thing.

Here we have a Disingenuous Vague Statement. The phrase ‘should our enemies acquire’ makes this whole thing rather non-specific. Which enemies are we talking about? Should we assume they are trying to acquire these weapons? Without really saying anything, Sen. McCain implies that invading Iraq helps keep WMD out of the hands of terrorists. Which may or may not imply that Iraq had them. Or perhaps they’re keeping them out of the hands of Iraqis. Can’t really say, and that’s my point in the end. There’s no specifics here. Which enemies, which war, where are the weapons being sought? How much bigger would this ‘thing’ get?

Side note: No one disputes that extreme terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda are attempting to acquire WMDs (though they couldn’t have gotten them in Iraq because Saddam didn’t have them AND (not or) Saddam and the Islamic extremists hated each other). In fact, for those that have been paying attention (which does not include the mainstream media), one of Kerry’s biggest criticisms of Bush is that Bush doesn’t pay enough attention to this threat. Among the specifics (always look at the specifics) of this criticism is that Bush cut funding of a joint program we had with Russia paying to keep aging Russian nuclear weapons and materials in secure (US-inspected) locations. And one of Kerry’s proposals for the war on terror is to increase funding to keep all nuclear-related materials we know about under US-supervised lock-and-key. Sounds good to me.

So it is, whether we wished it or not, that we have come to the test of our generation, to our rendezvous with destiny.

And much is expected of us.

We are engaged in a hard struggle against a cruel and determined adversary.

Here we have a similar Disingenuous Vague Statement. Specifically, the use of adversary (singular form). We were, soon after Sept. 11th, engaged in a hard struggle against the terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda and the providers of sanctuary to said terrorist group, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (also when Americans - and our allies in the world - were virtually united in our efforts against these particular foes). However, Sen. McCain’s statement almost certainly lumps together Iraq and Al-Qaeda as our adversay, and may also be meant to refer to cocaine producers in Columbia, other extremist groups in the Phillipines, and anyone else the administration refers to under the umbrella of ‘war on terror’.

Another personal political statement: I, like most Americans, fully support an aggressive campaign against Al-Qaeda. One of my major criticisms of the war against Iraq is that it saps our resources needed to attack Al-Qaeda (especially special forces, Arabic-speaking intelligence analysts, and foreign allies).

Our enemies have made clear the danger they pose to our security and to the very essence of our culture ...liberty.

Blatant Lie Alert! Al-Qaeda, Iraq, or really any of America’s enemies pose no danger to our liberty. They have no power to threaten our Bill of Rights, change our laws, or restrict American’s freedoms. All of these things can only be perpetrated by Americans (although sadly, some of this has happened). Note how Sen. McCain ties together a truth (Islamic extremists successfully attacked us and thus reduced our real and perceived security) and a lie (foreign enemies have the ability to put our liberty in danger) in an attempt to get people to believe both statements. People hearing the speech will also remember the administration’s oft-repeated theme that Islamic extremists hate American freedoms, not American policy.

Only the most deluded of us could doubt the necessity of this war.

Once again, which war (and thus which enemy it is obviously necessary for us to attack) is not specified.

Like all wars, this one will have its ups and downs.

But we must fight. We must.

The sacrifices borne in our defense are not shared equally by all Americans.

Another note: Sen. McCain is probably justly applauding our troops here, but the same line could be found in a speech by a member of the Congressional Black Caucus decrying the lack of sons of rich families fighting in our armed forces.

But all Americans must share a resolve to see this war through to a just end.

We must not be complacent at moments of success, and we must not despair over setbacks.

We must learn from our mistakes, improve on our successes, and vanquish this unpardonable enemy.

If we do less, we will fail the one mission no American generation has ever failed: to provide to our children a stronger, better country than the one we were blessed to inherit.

Another note: I could go on at length about whether or not that statement is historically accurate, on the right path, and how much America has been weakened domestically and from a realist foreign relations standpoint. But I don’t actually view this last statement as that bad. It’s more of an empty platitude than anything else.

Remember how we felt when the serenity of a bright September morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity so hostile to all human virtue we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it.

What we have here is Dramatic Overstament: sure most people thought the Sept. 11th bombings were pretty atrocious. But it’s not necessarily hostile to ALL human virtues. I don’t think punctuality was violated in any particular way, for instance. There are terrible things I can scarcely imagine that have happened in history, but a deadly attack designed to strike fear into an enemy in a symbolic fashion (which is exactly what Sept. 11th is), is, from a historical perspective, fairly common.

We were united. First, in sorrow and anger. Then in recognition we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are a people united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, not governments, not armies, not a pitiless, inhumane theocracy, not kings, mullahs or tyrants, but the people.

Blatant Lie Alert: The motives of Al-Qaeda (and most of our other enemies) are not overwhelmingly agreed upon by Americans. For instance, I happen to think America was attacked on Sept. 11th because of our foreign policy and on-the-ground actions in Islamic countries (note that this does not dispute whether or not these were correct policies or actions to take). Again Sen. McCain is using a common tactic in political speeches: tie together an accepted truth (Americans were united in sorrow and anger over the Sept. 11th attacks) and a lie (Americans universally recognize that we were attacked because our enemies hate our liberties and democratic form of government) in an attempt to get us to believe both statements.

In that moment, we were not different races.

We were not poor or rich. We were not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We were not two countries.

We were Americans.

All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility. All other responsibilities come second.

Another Dramatic Overstatement: it is true that most Americans agree defense is important, and most of us view freedom as our birthright. But other responsibilities do not necessarily come second. Many naturalized immigrants (and other citizens) realize that America earned (with actions in the past and by our present actions) our freedom, and that it is not a birthright we need not look after. In this case, McCain is waving the flag to keep people from paying attention to specifics.

We must not lose sight of that as we debate who among us should bear the greatest responsibility for keeping us safe and free.

We must, whatever our disagreements, stick together in this great challenge of our time.

Personal Note: I agree that one of the great challenges of our time is occurring right now. But I that challenge is protecting the ideals and the freedoms Americans have cherished for generations. We must not let fear, ignorance, or apathy blind us to the liberties that truly make America great, or to the responsibilities we hold as citizens to understand and participate in the governing of our country, and to preserve the function of the Constitution.

My friends in the Democratic Party and I'm fortunate to call many of them my friends assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government's most important obligation.

Dramatic Overstatment: Many Democrats could probably think of many obligations more important than a war on a tactic. Ensuring the integrity of our election for one. But I suppose I should give McCain some credit, perhaps he means just personal friends within the Democratic Party.

I don't doubt their sincerity. They emphasize that military action alone won't protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy.

They stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all, that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies. We agree.

And, as we've been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle. That is what the President believes.

This statement is overly simplistic. It presumes that America does only (or at least almost only) good in its foreign policy (sadly not true). It presumes that we’re owed payback for the good things we’ve done, regardless of whether or not they were in our own interest (just about all actions we take, major exceptions being joining the allies in WWI and arguably the European theater of WWII). It also ignores the recent isolationist and anti-foreign trend in American foreign policy. The third part states “This is what the President believes.” Alarm bells should go off right now. The words ‘belief’ and ‘believes’ are very, very dangerous in a political context. They are frequently used to pretend support for something, without actually doing anything. I this case I think the statement is meant to imply that President Bush expects such aid, and substantial military and economic help will come from our allies (which is just not true).

Another note from Fred: Whether or not Kerry would be more successful in acquiring substantial economic and military help than Bush has been is debatable. It might depend on the foreign policy he implements if he is elected, it might not. But you can be sure nothing is going to change on this front with Bush in office.

And, thanks to his efforts we have received valuable assistance from many good friends around the globe, even if we have, at times, been disappointed with the reactions of some. I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.

Our President will work with all nations willing to help us defeat this scourge that afflicts us all.

War is an awful business. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer. Commerce is disrupted, economies are damaged.

Strategic interests shielded by years of statecraft are endangered as the demands of war and diplomacy conflict.

However just the cause, we should shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us. But there is no avoiding this war. We tried that, and our reluctance cost us dearly. And while this war has many components, we can't make victory on the battlefield harder to achieve so that our diplomacy is easier to conduct.

Even though I’ve covered this issue before, I have to call this another Disingenuous Vague Statement. Again McCain is doing what virtually all Republican politicians are doing, and playing fast and loose with the term war and not differentiating a war on Al-Qaeda, the war on Iraq, or a nebulous and undefined ‘war on terrorism’. Again, people will agree on the necessity of a war on Al-Qaeda, while disagreeing about a war on Iraq or what a ‘war on terrorism’ consists of. Other implications of the above paragraph could be that Clinton ignored the treat of Islamic terrorism, that Bush ignored the threat of Islamic terrorism, that civilian casualties are acceptable whatever the world thinks, and-or that torture and mistreatment of prisoners are acceptable whatever the world thinks.

That is not just an expression of our strength. It's a measure of our wisdom.

Here, we see the battle over words is fully joined. This is a direct play on part of Kerry’s convention speech stating that strength and wisdom are not opposing values (thus implying that Bush favors bombs and a military solution no matter what is better for America). Because so few voters actually pay attention to specific issues (and even fewer pay attention to specific proposals) special care is taken to project a certain image and claim ‘ownership’ over certain words and phrases (which is why people with three divorces, paternity suits, and estranged children consistently proclaim the importance of ‘family values’ in America).

That's why I commend to my country the re-election of President Bush, and the steady, experienced, public-spirited man who serves as our Vice-President, Dick Cheney.

Four years ago, in Philadelphia, I spoke of my confidence that President Bush would accept the responsibilities that come with America's distinction as the world's only superpower.

Side note: McCain is (excuse my French) very much Bush’s bitch. When they were going head-to-head in the 2000 South Carolina primary people working to elect Bush alleged that McCain went crazy while he was a POW in Vietnam and that he was still nutso, that he sold vital American military secrets to the Vietnamese for cigarettes, that he secretly had a black baby with a black prostitute, and more things that I can’t remember now. At the time, McCain was very angry at Bush personally for all these attacks, knowing they were direct products of the Bush campaign. And yet McCain, in an amazing display of party loyalty, continues to stump vigorously for the man.

I promised he would not let America "retreat behind empty threats, false promises and uncertain diplomacy;" that he would "confidently defend our interests and values wherever they are threatened."

I knew my confidence was well placed when I watched him stand on the rubble of the World Trade Center, with his arm around a hero of September 11th, and in our moment of mourning and anger, strengthen our unity and summon our resolve by promising to right this terrible wrong, and to stand up and fight for the values we hold dear.

Side note: I’ve heard many Democratic people (politicians and regular people) speak eloquently about the solidarity they felt after the Sept. 11th attacks, and then go on to speak about how betrayed they were that Bush completely ignored the unity and clear consensus of the American people in continuing to push a very divisive domestic policy and controversial invasion of Iraq.

He promised our enemies would soon hear from us. And so they did. So they did.

He ordered American forces to Afghanistan and took the fight to our enemies, and away from our shores, seriously injuring al Qaeda and destroying the regime that gave them safe haven. He worked effectively to secure the cooperation of Pakistan, a relationship that's critical to our success against al Qaeda.

He encouraged other friends to recognize the peril that terrorism posed for them, and won their help in apprehending many of those who would attack us again, and in helping to freeze the assets they used to fund their bloody work.

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

I’m trying to comment on the speech and not get bogged down into the standard verbal battlegrounds being fought, so I won’t go into McCain’s history of the Iraq crisis immediately before the war. But whenever you see statements covering the historical events like this, be aware that the speaker is trying to frame the debate, and that there are almost certainly people who disagree.

Side note: Cynical Democrats will, of course, assume that Halliburton is one of those nefarious companies who had done business with Saddam Hussein during the US-led embargo. They will, of course, not be shocked that this has been confirmed and that it happened while Dick Cheney was CEO.

Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.

This, right here, is the meat of McCain’s speech. “Our choice wasn't between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat.” This is the two-sentence bit that will be emphasized in the newspapers, and the 5-second sound bite that you will see on TV (written for that purpose, of course). It specifically refers to Iraq and states that Iraq was seeking weapons of mass destruction. (Although we also have our second Cover-Your-Back-Special - ‘graver threat’ is obviously meant to mean WMD, but doesn’t actually state particular weapons or when they might be obtained.) This lays out, very clearly, what the Republicans think will be the deciding issue of the war: Iraq. Expect to see the same theme addressed again and again at this convention. But what actually angers me is his statement: ‘Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.’ I believe this incredibly arrogant, and my response is: pay attention to all sources, and do research yourself when you can. It is my frank belief that Bush can only win the election if enough people are apathetic, ignorant, or fanatically religious.

And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls.

Side note: this was an incredible crowd-pleaser at the convention. McCain was interrupted for a few minutes by loud cheers (and boos directed at Michael Moore, who stood and acknowledged the crowd from one of the press boxes). In fact, it was so popular that McCain made a little joke about the crowd’s reaction that this transcript didn’t include. I don’t make many comments about Farenheit 911, the movie in question. I’ve heard different fans tell me which are the best parts (usually pre-1991 claims by the Bush administration that there were no WMD in Iraq or Bush reading My Pet Goat). But I will say this: see it yourself or ignore it. None of the people coming out with scathing reviews will admit to seeing the movie, and there’s so much hyperbole being thrown around that I wouldn’t trust anyone who wasn’t a personal friend or myself to tell me anything about it.

Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

The central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can't be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.

We couldn't afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times.

By destroying his regime we gave hope to people long oppressed that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.

You can see here another contested verbal battleground. Everyone agrees the Iraqi people were not fans of Saddam Hussein, but do they welcome us as liberators? It is, at first glance, hard to explain why Americans care so much whether or not we are truly welcomed by the majority of the Iraqi people. It comes down to justifying the war in Iraq. Essentially, now that it’s fairly certain we won’t find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main justification put forward for the war was that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, and his people are better off without him (which is a good reason to invade 20 other countries as well, but we won’t go into that). For a fascinating look into how Bush and Congress drove media attention surrounding Iraq and when they used what rationales for the war, go to http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio.htm. That link doesn’t lead to an article or column, it goes to a webpage where you can download a 100+ page thesis on rationales for the war in the media.

Most importantly, our efforts may encourage the people of a region that has never known peace or freedom or lasting stability that they may someday possess these rights. I believe as strongly today as ever, the mission was necessary, achievable and noble. For his determination to undertake it, and for his unflagging resolve to see it through to a just end, President Bush deserves not only our support, but our admiration.

As the President rightly reminds us, we are safer than we were on September 11th, but we're not yet safe. We are still closer to the beginning than the end of this fight.

The ‘saver than we were, but not yet safe’ crap that’s being thrown around willy-nilly is a perfect example of the politics of fear in America. For some reason, there’s an overwhelming desire for safety and fear - not for the nation, but for one’s on self. This continues to boggle me, since dying in a car accident still ranks so much higher than any risk while flying, traveling, working in large famous office buildings, that it makes so sense to spend so much energy on the rampant paranoia that pervades American feeling. To benefit from this widespread phenomenon, the Bush administration needs to make sure Americans are still afraid (we’re not yet safe) but give them a reason to cower behind President Bush (we’re safer than we were).

Side note: Bowling for Columbine (a very non-partisan movie by M. Moore) addresses this issue very well, noting the varied reasons and issues Americans are so concerned with fear, and how this is a peculiarly American obsession.

We need a leader with the experience to make the tough decisions and the resolve to stick with them; a leader who will keep us moving forward even if it is easier to rest.

And this President will not rest until America is stronger and safer still, and this hateful iniquity is vanquished. He has been tested and has risen to the most important challenge of our time, and I salute him.

I salute his determination to make this world a better, safer, freer place. He has not wavered. He has not flinched from the hard choices. He will not yield. And neither will we.

I said earlier that the sacrifices in this war will not be shared equally by all Americans. The President is the first to observe, most of the sacrifices fall, as they have before, to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces. We may be good citizens, but make no mistake, they are the very best of us.

It's an honor to live in a country that is so well and so bravely defended by such patriots.

May God bless them, the living and the fallen, as He has blessed us with their service.

For their families, for their friends, for America, for mankind they sacrifice to affirm that right makes might; that good triumphs over evil; that freedom is stronger than tyranny; that love is greater than hate.

It is left to us to keep their generous benefaction alive, and our blessed, beautiful country worthy of their courage. We should be thankful -- for the privilege.

Our country's security doesn't depend on the heroism of eve ry citizen. But we have to be worthy of the sacrifices made on our behalf.

We have to love our freedom, not just for the material benefits it provides, not just for the autonomy it guarantees us, but for the goodness it makes possible.

We have to love it as much, if not as heroically, as the brave Americans who defend us at the risk, and often the cost of their lives.

This is all part of the general theme of praising the military that will permeate the Republican convention. It’s rather odd that so many Republicans have a perception that the rest of the country isn’t patriotic. I could go on for pages about how much more Democratic politicians support the troops than Republicans have. If anyone’s really interested in judging such things, spend a few hours looking up decreases in veterans benefits during the present Bush administration, and benefits for enlisted personnel enacted under Clinton.

No American alive today will ever forget what happened on the morning of September 11th. That day was the moment when the pendulum of history swung toward a new era. The opening chapter was tinged with great sadness and uncertainty. It shook us from our complacency in the belief that the Cold War's end had ushered in a time of global tranquility.

But an absence of complacency should not provoke an absence of confidence. What our enemies have sought to destroy is beyond their reach. It cannot be taken from us. It can only be surrendered.

My, my. I’m going to have to call this a Hilarious Contradiction. We’re now in the part of the speech I didn’t listen too, having turned off the video feed from c-span.org in disgust. Again he’s implying that our nebulous ‘enemies’ hate our freedoms and way of life. But he makes the point I did earlier that terrorists can’t take away our freedoms, only we can (and sadly, we’re doing so).

My friends, we are again met on the field of political competition with our fellow countrymen. It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis we have these contests, and engage in spirited disagreement over the shape and course of our government.

We have nothing to fear from each other. We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, and promote the general welfare. But it should remain an argument among friends who share an unshaken belief in our great cause, and in the goodness of each other.

Blatant Lie Alert: we do have things to fear from each other. Having overtime pay taken away, for example. Note also how slick many of the Republicans are in slipping in mini-quotes from the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence. In this case McCain uses ‘promote the general welfare’ from the Preamble in the Constitution.

We are Americans first, Americans last, Americans always. Let us argue our differences.

But remember we are not enemies, but comrades in a war against a real enemy, and take courage from the knowledge that our military superiority is matched only by the superiority of our ideals, and our unconquerable love for them.

Our adversaries are weaker than us in arms and men, but weaker still in causes. They fight to express a hatred for all that is good in humanity.

We’ll call this one a Dramatic Overstatement. At first glance, soap opera writers would express embarrassment penning something that last sentence. But this is really an important part of the speech, whatever it looks like. Since Reagan, Republicans always reinforce a view that America is particularly virtuous and our enemies are always without redeeming value. Because of this, many Americans simply assume that a large portion of extremists who have a bone to pick with America are very simply not rational. Republicans very frequently resort to blind nationalism at its worst - even when they might have legitimate points to make - because it is guaranteed to energize their core constituency.

We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. Keep that faith. Keep your courage. Stick together. Stay strong.

Do not yield. Do not flinch. Stand up. Stand up with our President and fight.

We're Americans.

We're Americans, and we'll never surrender.

They will.

********************************************

Statistics

Political Speeches: 1
Dramatic Overstatements - 4
Cover-Your-Back-Specials - 2
Hilarious Contradictions - 1
Disingenuous Vague Statements - 3
Blatant Lie Alerts - 4
References to God (not that there’s anything wrong with that) - only 2.

A few more notes: I mention early on how important it is to look at the specifics of issues and policy. One fine example of that is the oft-repeated claim that John Kerry ‘voted for the war, then voted against the war’ - House Speaker Dennis Hastert is a current example of this, bringing it up in his speech on the first day of the RNC (replace the war with $87 billion if you like).

Well ok, then. There’s one of the Republican’s key sound bites they use for the flip-flopping non-issue lie. If you look into it, the Democrats had put forth a bill authorizing $87 billion dollars in emergency spending for Iraq-related costs (this after the initial invasion if I remember correctly). (Pres. Bush had requested the additional funding.) However, the Democrat version of the bill reduced recent tax cuts on the richest 1% of Americans in order to pay for the bill. Senator Kerry voted for this one. The Republicans then put forth their competing bill (which due to their greater numbers, succeeded in passing) which authorized the $87 billion expenditure, but didn’t provide for the funds in any way (which means it becomes part of national debt and is paid for by selling U.S. Treasury bonds). Senator Kerry voted against this bill.

So you see, he simply believed it was better to find a way to pay for the war now rather than increase the debt and force America to find a way to pay for the war (plus interest) later.

There’s more to this story, and for the record you can find just about any congressman ‘flip-flopping’ somewhere. For instance, Clinton once put forth a bill that increased neighborhood police, tightened some sentencing guidelines, and banned automatic assault weapons. There were some senators (mostly R’s) who had long advocated both a tough-on-crime approach and legal assault weapons. However they voted on the bill (which passed), they could be incorrectly labeled as ‘flip-floppers’.

So ya, look at the specifics. Strangely enough, both candidates’ websites are terrible places to do that, but if you’re careful about your sources and are fairly attentive, you can get to the root of most things. Just remember that people (especially politicians) are usually act reasonably when you keep in mind their motives and goals. But this doesn’t mean they won’t tell a bald-faced lie or assume completely hypocritical positions on issues.