Shouldn't a convention keynote address be delivered by someone representing the future of a party? Democrats get this. Ann Richards gave a fiery keynote speech in 1988. Two years later, she was governor of Texas. Barack Obama delivered the keynote in 2004. Four years later....

Rather than elevate fresh talent, Republicans awarded the coveted keynote slot to Rudy Giuliani, a sixtysomething cancer and combover survivor who last held elective office more than six years ago. He balked at taking on Hillary. He bombed in this year's Republican primaries. And now he's the keynote speaker?

If the postbellum GOP could wave the bloody shirt for decades, McCain's Republicans figure that 9/11 imagery--Why else would Giuliani have been selected?--can fuel their ambitions for at least a few election cycles.

Leave aside the fact that Giuliani used to be a Democrat, consistently earned the endorsement of New York's Liberal Party and the jeers of New York's Conservative Party, supported abortion, gun control, unlimited immigration, and affirmative action as mayor, and endorsed Mario Cuomo--who gave a rousing keynote for the Democrats in 1984--for governor in 1994. Giuliani is neither a figure on the rise or nor the face of the party. Why not youngbloods, such as Sarah Palin in Alaska or Bobby Jindahl in Louisiana? Why not St. Paul favorite son Tim Pawlenty? Why not a non-incumbent whose candidacy could be made by a rousing speech?

Nah. Let's give it to the guy who just ran one of the most horrible campaigns in the history of presidential primaries and has no future in electoral politics. What, was Harold Stassen unavailable?

Bravo - well said, Dan.

And the trouble is, after Jeb there are about a hundred more Bushes out there to go through. (But at least the Doles left no biological legacy, save for apolitical Robin.)

Yeah, but he got rid of that pee smell in mid town.

If Sarah Palin were a President, she'd be Baberaham Lincoln. If she were an ancient city, she'd be Babelonia.

Great post.

My family and I took a trip to Alaska this summer and our bus driver in Juneau was quite chatty...he talked for 10 minutes about beautiful and "coiffed" the governor was. He went on and on and on, it was embarassing. I admit that as soon as I got to a computer I image googled her and I was not *that* impressed by her coiffedness. Her manner and ideas, though, yes.

Amazing how women are so critical of other women. In particular when it comes to appearance.

I think the choice is perfectly fitting for the Party of Lincoln. I really can't say that I am surprised.

Speaking of pee smell and "cleaning up", I had to laugh when I read that the DNC and its foot soldiers are not only moving out all of the bums they can but are also cleaning up the ones they can't move.

Shaves; haircuts; new clothes, all to keep the REALLY great unwashed from ruining the ambiance of the Convention.

Yes, women do few things as well or with as much gusto as assess one anothers' appearances. ;)

But seriously, the bus driver went on and on. I was expecting more!

That wasn't meant to be a sexist comment. Sorry you read it that way. You're just tough on your own species, ah, gender. Now that WAS a sexist comment! ;-)~

Setting the bar so high can sometimes dash expectations.

Dan,

Part of your ana|ysis is flawed in that Republicans often seem incapable of effective speeches. Only Reagan was inspiring, and even then, usually only for the soundbites.

We content ourselves with a type of leader who is "respectable" and "credible" never one who is inspiring, exciting and looking to make progress. We're stuck with old ladies who want to talk about how "handsome" our candidate is, and never want to consider that the ideas very well might have consequences, and that an effective speech could galvanize activists to achieve a real vision.

In other words, we're a party without action, we're a "movement" without motion. We're the intellectual gratification of older know-nothings who want to cast a blameless ballot, rarely coalescing the country club types around actual change, actual goals.

Said yet another way: conservative voters usually grant the wishes of the Pete Wilsons who tell them what they want to hear, never questioning what they've delivered.

Giuliani is wrong on the issue of our times and has been disgraceful in the conduct of his family life. These factors should be sufficient to deny him a public and ceremonial role.

The remainder of what you have to say requires qualification.

1. Irving Kristol was a Democrat at one time;

2. The Liberal Party of New York was (from 1977 to 1983 and from 1986 until it expired in 2002) a ballot line vended by a patronage broker named Raymond B. Harding. There were committed social-democratic liberals in command of a number of its county committees, but these were marginal in the state and city-wide committees from about 1970 to the end. From about 1953 to his death in 1976, the party was dominated by Alex Rose, president of the Hatters Union, in conjunction with David Dubinsky of the Ladies' Garment Workers. Harding was Rose's protege. It has been a good while since the Liberal Party was an unambiguously social-democratic/mugwump organization. Without a doubt the deal between Harding and Giuliani traded the ballot line for political patronage and an assurance that the Liberal Party brand would not be more severely injured than it was already (the latter not so challenging a feat in municipal politics). (The New York Conservative Party has tendencies in this direction as well; a prominent Republican in Rochester once referred to the Monroe County branch as 'whores').

4. New York State politics is deeply diseased. George Pataki is no friend to responsible public administration or to the unborn or even to ordinary courtesy. Read Jay Gallagher of the Albany Times-Union on the subject of Pataki and his camarilla, or an interview with his first Lt. Governor, Elizabeth McCaughey.

5. Few public officials have achievements that would be intelligible to someone outside the circle of political operators. Giuliani is the exception, and his achievements altered the burden of proof in a certain type of public discourse. I think you will find a good deal of the alienation from the man among a certain type comes from his demonstration that public order can be achieved, and achieved efficiently, by smart and rigorous application of sanctions. For some people invested in the ideology of social work and psychotherapy, this idea cannot be borne.

6. The man is able and valuable for certain purposes. There is likely a federal agency or department whose operations would be improved by his efforts.

Excuse me. I take it that what all men are really after is some form or perhaps only some formula of peace. Help me! It has to find sites on the: Picture on mouse pad. I found only this - work station mouse pad. Normally minnie breakfast is at park opening and if the park has mm then it is at that time. Create buy a custom product of your own! Customize it. Thanks for the help :confused:, Frasier from Malta.