US convention cities eye 21st century gold rush AFP Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Convention Cities: Why Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul? News Blaze Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Dem Convention Planners Pass the Colorado Peaches But Hold the Pineapples Fox News Take a look at an interesting article we found.
The British International Motor Show at London's ExCeL centre saw some of the most beautiful cars in the world. The 700,000 sq ft venue featured some glamorous new car debuts, and 600 models on display from 60 makers.
 by Peter Lake |
|
 by OncDoc |
|
 by DreadPirateRoberts |
|
August 25, 2008
And the nomination goes to...
Well we already know the end of that sentence, don't we? Even as the Democratic Party begins its Obama—endorsing convention in Denver today and Republicans look ahead to feting John McCain in Minnesota a few weeks later.
Which might explain why the networks devoted a total of 3 hours of live coverage to each convention in 2004, leaving PBS and cable news stations to provide the gavel-to-gavel thoroughness that used to mark the events. Public interest, as measured by the Nielsen ratings, just wasn't there.
And it's not hard to see why. Once dramatic, unpredictable affairs, conventions over the last few decades have become little more than glorified pep rallies.
Party nominating conventions emerged in the mid-1800s, when the growing number of Western states began to object to the Congressional caucus nominating system designed to disenfranchise them.
Conventions, with delegates representing each state in proportion to its Congressional allotment, added some balance to the nominating process. But it was still far from democratic.
Delegates were selected by little things like graft, exclusion and corruption. Decisions were made in smoke-filled rooms, which still allowed for some suspense if the party elite failed to coalesce.
The 1924 Democratic convention required 103 ballots to select a nominee.
The 1940 Republican Convention was a stirring affair with thousands shouting, “We want Willkie!” through Philadelphia’s Convention Hall. It was the first to attract a live television broadcast, but since few had a television set most of the drama went unnoticed by the American public.
The 1952 Democratic get-together was the first convention covered by TV for a national audience. It came down to the wire, when a divided party eventually settled on Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson, who wasn't even a declared candidate when the convention began.
One of the highlights of the 1964 Republican National Convention that nominated Barry Goldwater was a well-known newscaster getting "arrested" while blocking an aisle conducting an interview. Not missing a beat, he continued to give his play by play to the TV audience: "Here we go down the middle aisle... I've been promised bail, ladies and gentlemen, by my office. This is John Chancellor, somewhere in custody."
Probably the last convention that kept us awake throughout was the Democratic gathering of 1968. George McGovern supporters, angry that Hubert Humphrey was coasting to the nomination after barely waging a campaign, rioted in the streets. The infamous Chicago Seven, led by Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin,(who later disclosed it was about rebelling against his father) were hauled off to the hoosegow.
All of which prompted columnist Murray Kempton to say,“A political convention is not a place where you can come away with any trace of faith in human nature.”
The result of the chaos was the eventual supremacy of the primary system and parties being forced to be more accountable to those they represent.
Which is probably not such a bad idea.
Still, with both of our “not made for prime time" conventions, we have an enormous decision to make. Perhaps, for whatever time we can spare, we should remind ourselves of that fact.
Share the Eye:
Q&A: The Man Who Loves Convention Centers MI Megasite Take a look at an interesting article we found.
‘Science Fiction Like’ Weapons on Tap for Political Conventions Dissent Mag Take a look at an interesting article we found.
Republican Concerns just Beginning Submitted to a Candid World Take a look at an interesting article we found.
The 1968 Democratic Convention . . . . There were no innocents leading their followers that nigh...
Aug. 25, 2008 6:43 PM
How much convention coverage do you plan to watch?
29% 10% 38% 24%
For sheer drama and historical impact, I suggest the 1964 Democratic Convention. Here's the beginning of the Wikipedia entry on the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party..... "The Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party (MFDP) was an American political party created in the state of Mississippi in 1964, during the civil rights movement. It was organized by black and white Mississippians, with assistance from the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) and Council of Federated Organizations (COFO), to challenge the legitimacy of the white-only regular Democratic Party." Historic? I have always thought of this as the moment when the white South began its long journey to the Repubican Party, and the words Democrat and liberal began their long trip to eventually become obscene curse words in the South.... Conventions may today be simply big Infomercials, but they once had a real connection to those outside the political parties. We could see sausage being made....
Dutchman said...
One of the things about the earlier TV conventions, is for those of us old enough, you remember watching them with your father. At least I do. We had one of the first TV sets on the block. I remember us being very impressed with Stevenson, one of the brighter men to run for the presidency. That was probably his problem. I remember him calling Nixon, "An intellectual pigmy."
Chancellor getting kicked out is still etched in my mind. And the Chicago 7, no matter how much anger was misplaced, still had an impact.
And I will drop in from time to time for some key moments in this one. If there are any. I have my pom poms ready.
Being of a younger generation than Doc & Dutchman I can't comment on their recollections of any of the Political Conventions of the 60's & 70's. I've only read in the History books about The Chicago 7 & the Chancellor getting kicked out. I can remember watching Reagan get his votes in the early 80's. My father & Mother watching to see what would be the very last state called for their votes to be able to name Ronald Reagan as the Candidate for the Republicans. I happen to love history & politics yet this part of the political system is lost on someone like me. They no longer really make the call for votes, & the campaigning began MONTHS ago for these two even though the Conventions are in late August /early September.
It really just makes me wonder if the whole convention idea is outdated. As Doc Nolan said "We could see sausage being made." that is so not the case anymore, the fact that even all the networks give a mere 3 hours live coverage to it maybe is a reflection on the fact that many Americans do not want to give anymore attention to the candidates than they already are getting bombarded with on radio, print, & TV ads. As all of it just seems to be a cause to sling more mud at each other.
Gia said...
I guess everyone is glued to the convention.
Murray Kempton, aka Murray the K, was known as "the fifth Beatle". Now he has died and is with his maker, where he is known as "the third Beatle".
Oh, you wanted to SERIOUSLY discuss political conventions? sorry.
Watch the Hunter S Thompson bio movie ( GONZO) to see some interesting footage and interviews about Chicago, Humphrey, and with George McGovern himself.
I will not be watching the convention-as someone said, it's just a big pep rally or an infomercial or propaganda orgy for both parties anyway. I'd like to see an election where we have viable candidates from multiple parties, rather than just the two approved choices from the real rulers, the corporate oligarchs. Probably never gonna happen...
Most of TV just bores me to excess, so I use mine to watch old movies and the weather sometimes.
When I read about the 1968 convention, media types always talk about protesters rioting, but when I talk to people who actually were there, they report cops in riot gear running amok, dragging people from their homes and beating them in the streets, chasing kids and thrashing them even when they weren't resisting. A quick peek under the warm and fuzzy, but very thin, comforter we hold to be our civil rights reveals the potential for a heavily censored and dangerously reactionary police state. We have our opiates and our distractions, our bread and circuses, and I often hear those around me dismiss concerns about loss of civil rights as nothing to worry about, since they're doing nothing they wouldn't mind the government listening in on. To call that way of thinking irresponsible, and the loss of rights a slippery slope, is conservative in my estimation. I'm frequently reminded of the Martin Niemoller poem, or quote, that lots of groups have riffed on, added to, and changed about in many ways. The original translation, nearest I can find, is:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
That's usually able to generate a lively fit of the fantods in me, though the paternal know-it-alls always assure us IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE...oops, I've digressed all over the map again-sorry, folks.
Murray Kempton is right...who can trust a word any of the candidates have to say. This election or any other for that matter. Whether it is a Presidential race or a local dogcatcher election. In plain simple terms...a convention is a waste of time and money. It is a reason to party! The speeches are written FOR each candidate by a team of political writers who skirt around the real issues and make the words all sound so profound and technical. However, the sincerity and real meaning is hidden behind all of the big words and numbers. I agree with Doc Nolan that they all sound like infomercials, very rehearsed and robotic. The candidates try to dress down and seem more like "regular folks" but their actions speak louder than any of the words that come out of their mouths. My own brother has written speeches for Governors and Presidents and even he will attest (but in much more literal and technical terms) that what I have said is true. The intent of the convention has changed from it's original purpose. Sadly, the media now makes the call and chooses our elected officials for us. The conventions are all for show!
Heavy sigh......... There was an interesting article in this past Sunday's Chicago Tribune "Perspective" section titled "In Politics, no gold, just Tarnish" "Why do we expect so much of our athletes, but so little of our elected leaders?
I think this is true on so many levels. I believe this is why these conventions will be channel surfed to oblivion faster than an infomercial about hemorrhoid relief and toothpaste from the same tube.
I have watched, listened too, and read about the backgrounds, successes, and failures of so many of our athletes, from so many different sources, none of which were paid by or sponsored by the athlete being discussed.
Politicians? . . . It's either a paid infomercial (and didn't full disclosure that these adds are being funded by their respective political affiliation become law because of probable abuse?) or no one trusts the media source to be unbiased.
How about accountability?
When our athletes did not accomplish their goals or meet expectations, the typical response to" what happened" would be "I just didn't come through when I needed to".
It seems to me that "I" is only used by politicians when talking about accomplishments (which are more often than not group achievements) and campaign promises. It would be so refreshing to have a candidate face the camera, without pointing a finger, and just say "I just didn't come through on that one, I didn't deliver'. Perhaps that is merely euphoric recall of the "Buck Stops Here" days.
I believe this election is just too important to rely on the "smoke and mirrors" rhetoric of either convention so I shall do my own due diligence on our candidates so that I can be somewhat comfortable that my vote actually represents my beliefs and values.
I think I'm probable preaching to the choir on this one. Enough said by me at least.
After watching both the Opening and Closing Ceremonies for the Beijing Olympics, the thought of either of the two Nominating Conventions turns pale. The ceremonies were a great show....maybe a little (or a lot) over the top on Closing day.
The Nominating Conventions will be dull by comparison. The speeches, basically the same old words. The same promises, never kept. The Conventions might be more exciting with synchronized pole dancing. (Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton pole dancing?...an interesting vision of Hell on Earth....where's Dante when you need him?) Hopefully, it won't be as creepy as the shower scenes after the men's synchronized diving. Does anyone know why these men have to take a shower after each dive? The whole speedo/shower thing has left me perplexed. And why did the video-cams linger on them?
Although, I think there's an argument to be made for Rythmic Men's Gymnastics.....naked, of course, with the obligatory shower scene afterwards. Could that be any worse then the obscenity of these Conventions? The ratings, at least, would be higher.
Expat ~ It's so that the divers muscles stay warmed up This article should answer your question a little better.
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/The-mystery-of-the-showering-divers?urn=oly,100472
Sorry Goofed up the linking here is the corrected one:
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/beijing/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/The-mystery-of-the-showering-divers?urn=oly,100472
Olivia,
Frank Zappa said "It Can't Happen Here", but went on to say that it in happened in Minnessota and Washington D.C. As to Minnessota, I'll take Frank's word, but as to D.C. I know he was right! Hell, it's still happening in D.C.
I won't be watching the Conventions either...I'd sooner watch paint dry.
And I wanted to tell you that I am certainly a rogue and a rebel...but the "rich old white guy" part is no longer true. I'm just an "old white guy"...my 'ex' is now the the "rich bitch"......I think the liberals call it "wealth transfer". Of course I'm saying this with tongue in cheek....I still have my Swiss bank
accounts and those exotic off-shore accounts.
Rings90,
Thanks......it makes more sense now....after a marathon I wrap myself in a thermal blanket. This allows the muscles to "cool" down at a slower rate preventing later stiffness and other unpleasant side-effects.
The 1968 Democratic Convention . . . . There were no innocents leading their followers that night. Neither side was lead by some enlightened, truth wielding archangel of noble causes. Everyone knew that violence was going to erupt; the air reeked of it for weeks in advance.
Yes, the police wore riot gear and yes there were indeed rioters, thousands of them. Perhaps they all held what seemed to them "noble intentions", but the actions by many on both sides quickly trampled them.
My oldest brother was a Chicago policeman whose duty was to stand in front of the doors to a building to prevent anyone from entering. While the crowd moved down the street he and his fellow officers were pelted with bricks and bags of excrement (Even in Chicago, these are not items you just happen to pick up on the street). Despite the riot gear, he ended up in an emergency room.
There were a lot of folks in the city's ER's that night, many protesters, many police officers, and many who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. There were many who didn't deserve to be there and many that may have brought it on to themselves. I hope my brother didn't deserve to be injured. I don't believe he did.
I don't know who really started the violence or if could anyone have stopped. It was just so volatile.
more on the honor rollTo: PeterLake,
The 60's was an interesting time in our nation's history. The Vietnam War, especially, is always discussed out of context of the time and place. Hindsight, which is always 20/20, and a little revisionism make you doubt you were ever there. There's a joke about if you remember the 60's you were'nt there. This is true. I remember so I wasn't there.
When I returned from Vietnam, I was one of those marines that was spit upon at the airport and when I returned to college was called a baby-killer. I learned to just keep my mouth shut. Interesting isn't it that the Vietnam war was a "liberal war"...Kennedy and Johnson got us into it. So who was opposed to it? The vast right wing conspiracy or disgruntled liberals?
Until the Bush Presidencies (George and Baby George), the 20th century wars were started by Democrats. (WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam). The liberal shock and awe for what the Bushes did leaves me cold to their hand-wringing today. Is this the "change" Obama talks about? It's okay to have a war as long as a Dem starts it? But I'll be fair....the Conservative values that McCain talks about are not my values either.
Hypocracy knows no limits.
Rawr, politics.
[Expect less relevant replies from me [if I take the time to post].
School is back in session.
In between honors classes and a social life it's a tad difficult to schedule in you guys.
See you on weekend, workdays, and nights without homework.]
Spinner said...
To play Devil's Advocate here, remember how Obama got his jump start? His speech at the 2004 convention... Now THAT was a speech to have heard in the original. I remember having the TV on for the background noise and all of a sudden this unknown speaker was saying such uplifting things that I was up and cheering by the end of it. Oh, I will be there tonight to hear Michelle (sp?) and Barack on Thursday night.
ExPat,
As Jothathan Eells said a few days ago, "Nobody loves the warrior until the enemy is at the gate". That is a pretty broad stroke of a generalization but I'm afraid there is much truth to it.
I'm sorry that you and so many of your commrades had to face that from your fellow countrymen. It was unjust, cruel and born of ignorance.
The convention has started. As I write this I can hear the TV murmering in the other room. (It's playing to my aquarium... My brain couldn't take the monotones any more)... This coverage is like coverage of a chess match, except worse. Nancy Pelosi or Jesse Jackson Jr. (among others) must have been warned off becoming actors or even anchor persons.... Even the excitement is boring. And the delegates seem like movie extras being paid in donuts instead of dollars, dutifully cheering as if they would be cut off from the donut cart if they didn't, but not really knowing what they are being given donuts to do.... Will someone mercifully pull the plug next time and play reruns of Gilligan's Island or The Love Boat instead?
Will someone please give me a donut!
Greetings: Doc Nolan: You won't be able to escape this mess on Gilligan's beach either. President Gilligan
Since nobody will dig a well for fresh water, an island election for president is set.
One Castaway bribes another and finally Gilligan is elected by a write-in vote. Episode 6, 1964
There is a deeply flawed but very interesting movie called The Best Man (1964) starring Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson, based on a play by Gore Vidal. It is a very interesting picture of what nominating conventions used to be like and the unpredictability of their outcomes. It's a little too obviously based on Stevenson and Nixon even though Vidal was smart enough to make it a primary and, therefore, keep partisan politics out of the plot. The deck is a little too heavily stacked and the casting of squeaky clean Fonda and dubious looking Robertson only makes that worse but it has a lot of interesting content and is one of the better movies about professional politics out there. For the very best, though, go two years earlier to Otto Preminger's masterpiece, Advise and Consent. Also starring Fonda (in one of his most atypically layered performances), it is far more evenhanded in its treatments of the opposite sides of the issues discussed and the characters involved.
Olivia,
Peter makes an important point when he talks about content and ExPat drives it home when he talks about "If you remember it, you weren't there". When I read reports of "cops in riot gear running amok, dragging people from their homes and beating them in the streets", my first reaction is naturally to be appalled. Almost immediately, though, that gives way to skepticism. In what way could these cops possibly benefit from such action? It doesn't make them richer, doesn't lead to promotion, doesn't get them laid, and doesn't earn them an extra day off. Dragging someone outdoors and beating them involves some pretty strenuous physical labor. Why do it unless you profit by it? Sure, there are probably a few sickos in the department who just do it for kicks. But, unless I seriously misinterpret the comment, it doesn't sound like we're talking about just a few sickos.
In Nazi Germany, behavior of this kind was taken in a very different light. Cops who failed to toe the line were docked pay, thrown into prison with the proposed victims, or worse. But, after the riots of 1968, they were plastered across the front page with lots of condemning headlines. That might have been a price they were willing to pay for whatever good their actions did them. But what good was that?
Speaking of Nazi Germany:
ExPat, did you say a Democrat started WWII? I always thought he was a National Socialist.
Drat and double drat! Last night I had a wonderful, clever, and witty response to Doc and ExPat and Peter almost done, about ready to hit send as I proofread it for Willie *grin* , when there was a tremendous explosion and I lost power. I generated some blue sparks in my dark house, I can tell you! Since I know you're all just dying to hear my thoughts, I'll try and re-create, although everyone's moved on by now. Does anyone besides me go back to re-read Yesterday's Post (still going) as long as possible?
First, all you guys (and that includes you too JP!) are so great to associate with-I've said it before, this site provides the most stimulating social intercourse (ahem) I've ever engaged in!
ExPat, Zappa did indeed riff on the Sinclair Lewis book (and play), adding his acerbic take on the social chaos that was the 1960s. I lived it, but I was young enough that I remember some of it, since I didn't spend much of it experimenting with altering my consciousness.
Peter, thank you for that wonderfully nuanced perspective on the Chicago emergency. You said it so well, I was recommending that post for the honor roll, and now just look!
ExPat, I sympathize with your experience, but I take issue with your history. I'm pretty sure that Kaiser Bill and Adolph HItler weren't Democrats, and I think there's a consensus that they were the instigators of the two World Wars. Korea started as a civil war, and we did get sucked into it on Truman's watch, but he didn't start it. And those wacky French got the ball rolling in Indochina, mixing it up with Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh until they got chased out, whereupon it was a guy named Ike who authorized American "advisers" to unwisely try a bit of nation building to keep those dominoes propped.
Well, kids, that's a synopsis, I'm sure you're relieved I had to summarize. I'd just gotten to sleep (after TWO terrifying explosions in my neighborhood) when all the lights came back on, so now I'm totally cranky this morning. May the Heavenly Grid or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the deity of your choice help my poor students today. I'll be a good stand-in for Krakatoa if things go south *laughs*