It was frustrating because, like the House and Senate Republicans throughout the recent three years, if the Republicans disagreed with the suggestion for bills on the part of the Democrats, the Democratic suggestions were considered all wrong! It suggests why little was done on the part of “government” as far as Republicans were concerned.
If Republicans — or Democrats and Independents, as well — were paying attention, while Democrats were “good guys,” their ideas seldom had anything worthwhile to support, and whatever Democratic legislators touched turned out badly, especially in the House, and not at all in the Senate where they held a majority. If that meant stalled or disappeared legislation, it was all the Democrat’s fault. Right?
As for religion, Republicans seemed to own God, who was always addressed, at least whenever a speaker ended a speech. While Democrats don’t call on Him as often, is it because we are more secure in His support, or we aren’t firm enough believers and hence, are more fearful of calling on God as often as do Republicans?
HOWEVER as a Jew, I fear calling on Him when to do so often means calling on Jesus, whom I see as a prophet, perhaps, but not as my messiah. (Christians are entitle to their beliefs, just as I am to mine in a country that believes in religious freedom, where believers and atheists may live side by side in harmony.
While Anne Romney is a beautiful and intelligent woman, her speech seemed as if it was created for her by a bright communications assistant who recognized how well it would sound coming from the wife of a presidential nominee. In this instance, you’ll forgive me, I am speaking as a professional actor and director and critic, which to many may seem insignificant and trivial. However, as I listened, her relief and confidence arrived for her when the first blast of applause and loud approval came to her assistance. Also, as she relaxed, her voice began to sound more natural. And the speech became easier to listen to. I can understand the high regard each holds for the other. I find that a positive in their character.
AS FOR HER husband’s acceptance speech, I don’t know if the negatives he put upon President Obama’s programs are the president’s fault or ours because any praise for an opponent is difficult for his audience to translate. But Mr. Romney’s only positive statement about President Obama referenced him as a “good” human being, placed a smaller frame about Mr. Romney’s stature for such stinginess of praise in respect to anyone!
In addition, in the past, Mormons were more “exclusive” than Mr. Romney alluded to, and it was unfortunate he could not explain how and why most such exclusions have disappeared. Orthodoxy in religion is religion at its most complex. While his contributions to his church and charity are permissible and agreeable, his tax returns beyond the two years he so far shown are not. I’ve learned that he’s $16 millions between his charities and his church.
But his past tax returns remain a mystery. Is he unwilling to share the amount he “contributed” to the government in previous years because as a millionaire, the amount was small by comparison?
As a Democrat, I was disappointed by the amount of fiction I heard in what was supposed to be a non-fiction version.
OF course, I suspect I am prejudiced, but I will listen to the Democratic convention with the same suspicions that I began with the one that just ended. I hope it will not be in the same mold, and when the Democrats speak I hope they will speak in less generalities as I heard from the Republicans.
For, as Shakespeare is often quoted, “It is devoutly to be wished!”
Nathan Adler of Rome is a retired educator.